Don't let that ethics consult wait!
RSMD lawyers are available for remote meetings via videoconference or phone.


ARDC Prosecutions: Hitting Dishonesty Hard

You may have received a copy of the ARDC’s Annual Report in your inbox recently, or perhaps you saw the summary that the ARDC also published. Both highlighted several aspects of the ARDC’s operation, including statistical information about the number and kind of investigations and prosecutions the agency has initiated. What can we learn from the raw numbers about what […]

Read More…

Rule 1.6(e): Attacking Hacking

Taking information-security-related steps consistent with Rule 1.6(b)(7) might also help in complying with new Rule 1.16(e), which provides that “A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.” This may sound alarming: can a lawyer be disciplined for […]

Read More…

New Rule 1.6(b)(7): Detect and Resolve

A brief note about Rule 1.4 before we swing into the much-more-substantively-amended Rule 1.6: Comment 4 to Rule 1.4 has been amended to state not that “[c]lient telephone calls should be promptly returned or acknowledged,” but that “a lawyer should promptly respond to or acknowledge client communications.” So, yes, you have to answer emails and […]

Read More…

New Rule 1.2(d): Spelling Things Out

As new Comment 10 to Rule 1.2(d) explains, new Rule 1.2(d)(3) was adopted “to address the dilemma facing a lawyer in Illinois after the passage of the Illinois Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act.” The new rule provides that a lawyer may “counsel or assist a client in conduct expressly permitted by Illinois […]

Read More…

Lienholders, Trust Accounts, and You

5.27.15 The Supreme Court’s recent decision in McVey v. M.L.K. Enterprises (2015 IL 118143) lets Illinois lawyers know the order of things when it comes to disbursing settlement funds in injury cases, and the lesson is: we may call medical lienholders “third parties,” but they’re not third in line. In McVey, the plaintiff settled her […]

Read More…

Client Protection, Lawyer Risk

The Illinois Supreme Court recently amended several Supreme Court Rules relating to the disciplinary system. One such change was to Rules 780 and 759, relating to the administration of the ARDC’s Client Protection Program. Most Illinois lawyers have not encountered these rules in their careers; the Client Protection Program (established under Rule 780) had previously […]

Read More…