New: Find an ethics lawyer

Illinois Legal Ethics

II. COUNSELOR

2.1   Rule 2.1 Advisor

2.1:100   Comparative Analysis of Illinois Rule

¥ Primary Illinois References: IL Rule 2.1
¥ Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.1, Other Jurisdictions
¥ Commentary:

2.1:101      Model Rule Comparison

IRPC 2.1 is identical with MR 2.1.

2.1:102      Model Code Comparison

[The discussion of this topic has not yet been written.]

2.1:200   Exercise of Independent Judgment

¥ Primary Illinois References: IL Rule 2.1
¥ Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.1, Other Jurisdictions
¥ Commentary: ABA/BNA ¤ 31:701, ALI-LGL ¤ 151, Wolfram ¤ 4.3

2.1:300   Non-Legal Factors in Giving Advice

¥ Primary Illinois References: IL Rule 2.1
¥ Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.1, Other Jurisdictions
¥ Commentary: ABA/BNA ¤ 31:701, ALI-LGL ¤ 151, Wolfram ¤ 4.3

2.2   Rule 2.2 Intermediary

2.2:100   Comparative Analysis of Illinois Rule

¥ Primary Illinois References:
¥ Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.2, Other Jurisdictions
¥ Commentary:

2.2:101      Model Rule Comparison

There is no IRPCÊ2.2. The Illinois drafters felt that MR 2.2 created a concept which would raise more problems than it solved, and that the concepts involved are basically those of the representation of multiple clients, already referred to in IRPCÊ1.7(c).

There was no parallel rule in the Illinois Code.

2.2:102      Model Code Comparison

[The discussion of this topic has not yet been written.]

2.2:200   Relationship of Intermediation to Joint Representation

¥ Primary Illinois References:
¥ Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.2, Other Jurisdictions
¥ Commentary: ABA/BNA ¤ 51:1501, ALI-LGL ¤ 153, Wolfram ¤¤ 8.7, 13.6

2.2:300   Preconditions to Becoming an Intermediary

¥ Primary Illinois References:
¥ Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.2, Other Jurisdictions
¥ Commentary: ABA/BNA ¤ 51:1501, ALI-LGL ¤ 153, Wolfram ¤ 8.7, 13.6

2.2:400   Communication During Intermediation

¥ Primary Illinois References:
¥ Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.2, Other Jurisdictions
¥ Commentary: ABA/BNA ¤ 51:1501, ALI-LGL ¤ 153, Wolfram ¤ 8.7, 13.6

2.2:500   Consequences of a Failed Intermediation

¥ Primary Illinois References:
¥ Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.2, Other Jurisdictions
¥ Commentary: ABA/BNA ¤ 51:1501, ALI-LGL ¤ 153, Wolfram ¤ 8.7, 13.6

2.3   Rule 2.3 Evaluation for Use by Third Persons

2.3:100   Comparative Analysis of Illinois Rule

¥ Primary Illinois References: IL Rule 2.3
¥ Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.3, Other Jurisdictions
¥ Commentary:

2.3:101      Model Rule Comparison

IRPC 2.3 is MR 2.3, modified in 2.3(a)(2), by the use of "disclosure" instead of "consultation."

There was no parallel provision in the Illinois Code. Although the transaction described seems so routine as scarcely to merit a Rule, some recent judicial opinions in other jurisdictions have questioned a lawyer's independence when acting on behalf of a debtor, in assuring a creditor of relevant facts; the Rule explicitly confirms conventional practice.

2.3:102      Model Code Comparison

[The discussion of this topic has not yet been written.]

2.3:200   Undertaking an Evaluation for a Client

¥ Primary Illinois References: IL Rule 2.3
¥ Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.3, Other Jurisdictions
¥ Commentary: ABA/BNA ¤ 71:701, ALI-LGL ¤ 152, Wolfram ¤ 13.4

2.3:300   Duty to Third Persons Who Rely on Lawyer's Opinion [see also 1.1:420]

¥ Primary Illinois References: IL Rule 2.3
¥ Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.3, Other Jurisdictions
¥ Commentary: ABA/BNA ¤ 71:701, ALI-LGL ¤ 152, Wolfram ¤ 13.4.4

2.3:400   Confidentiality of an Evaluation

¥ Primary Illinois References: IL Rule 2.3
¥ Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.3, Other Jurisdictions
¥ Commentary: ABA/BNA ¤ 71:704, ALI-LGL ¤ 152, Wolfram ¤ 13.4.3

2.4   Rule 2.4 Lawyer Serving as a Third-Party Neutral

2.4:100   Comparative Analysis of IL Rule

¥ Primary Illinois References:
¥ Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.4, Other Jurisdictions
¥ Commentary:

MR 2.4 was added in February 2002. The Reporter's explanation of the change reads as follows:

The role of third-party neutral is not unique to lawyers, but the Commission recognizes that lawyers are increasingly serving in these roles. Unlike nonlawyers who serve as neutrals, lawyers may experience unique ethical problems, for example, those arising from possible confusion about the nature of the lawyer's role. The Commission notes that there have been a number of attempts by various organizations to promulgate codes of ethics for neutrals (e.g., aspirational codes for arbitrators or mediators or court enacted rules governing court-sponsored mediators), but such codes do not typically address the special problems of lawyers. The Commission's proposed approach is designed to promote dispute resolution parties' understanding of the lawyer-neutral's role.

2.4:101      Model Rule Comparison

Illinois has not adopted the new model rule.

2.4:200   Definition of "Third-Party Neutral"

¥ Primary Illinois References:
¥ Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.4, Other Jurisdictions
¥ Commentary:

Illinois has not adopted the new model rule.

2.4:300   Duty to Inform Parties of Nature of Lawyer's Role

¥ Primary Illinois References:
¥ Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.4, Other Jurisdictions
¥ Commentary:

Illinois has not adopted the new model rule.