End-of-life notice: American Legal Ethics Library
As of March 1, 2013, the Legal Information Institute is no longer maintaining the information in the American Legal Ethics Library. It is no longer possible for us to maintain it at a level of completeness and accuracy given its staffing needs. It is very possible that we will revive it at a future time. At this point, it is in need of a complete technological renovation and reworking of the "correspondent firm" model which successfully sustained it for many years.
Many people have contributed time and effort to the project over the years, and we would like to thank them. In particular, Roger Cramton and Peter Martin not only conceived ALEL but gave much of their own labor to it. We are also grateful to Brad Wendel for his editorial contributions, to Brian Toohey and all at Jones Day for their efforts, and to all of our correspondents and contributors. Thank you.
We regret any inconvenience.
Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
Comment - Rule 8.5 (February 14, 1995)
The first sentence of Rule 8.5 is substantially equivalent to the rule as originally issued on February 8, 1990, to be effective August 1, 1990, which read as follows:
"A lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction although engaged in practice elsewhere."
This language was identical with the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rule language as it then stood.
The present language of Illinois Rule 8.5 is substantially identical with the present ABA Model Rule language, as amended August 11, 1993.
The ABA Model Rule language is followed by an extensive "Comment" which is not adopted in Illinois.
(b) Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility Provisions
The Illinois Code had no provisions relating to this subject.
(c) Other Comment
Paragraph (a) restates longstanding law. Nothing contained in Rule 8.5 abrogates the jurisdiction of the Illinois courts or the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission over Illinois lawyers no matter where they practice; the rule simply directs which law or code of conduct should guide an Illinois tribunal when dealing with attorney conduct in an interstate transaction.
The rule does not purport to direct such tribunals when the transaction in question involves jurisdiction outside the United States.
In subparagraph (b)(2)(ii), the "jurisdiction in which the lawyer principally practices" refers to the jurisdiction in which the lawyer's principal office is located; the provisions of the subparagraph relating to the "predominant effect" of "particular conduct" shall apply solely to circumstances where there is a single jurisdiction, in which the lawyer is licensed, which experiences that "predominant effect." Where no such single jurisdiction can be determined, as in a large multistate transaction, then the applicable rules of conduct would be those of the jurisdiction of principal practice.