 The proposal deals with a concept known as "limited scope
representation," which more than 20 other states also permit.
Limited scope representation allows attorneys to provide paid legal
services on a portion of a client's legal matter, rather than seeing
it through from beginning to end. By providing services specifically
limited by agreement between the lawyer and the client, total legal
fees should be more affordable for the client.The proposal, first
made several years ago by the Lawyers Trust Fund, is contained in
amendments to three Supreme Court rules. It had the formal support
of the Illinois State Bar Association, the Chicago Bar Association
and the Illinois Judges Association, which formed a joint task force
to study the matter in detail.
The Illinois Supreme Court Rules Committee also held a public
hearing on the proposal earlier this year, and widespread support
was voiced for the concept there. The Rules Committee also
recommended its approval.
"These rules will improve access to Illinois courts for people
with limited means," Kilbride said. "The rules enable an attorney to
represent a client on a limited part of a lawsuit and then withdraw
from the case. The nature of some cases requires full legal
representation, but many do not. This will allow lawyers to offer
their pro bono services more efficiently, and provide a person the
possibility of hiring a lawyer to protect their interests without
the burden of paying for complete representation.
"Illinois has a fine judicial system, but it is not perfect.
These rules are an example of the Illinois Supreme Court's
determination to ensure justice is accessible in Illinois."
The proposal is contained in amendments to Supreme Court Rules
13, 11 and 137. A modified version of the Illinois Rules of
Professional Conduct, which became effective for Illinois attorneys
in 2010, allowed for limited scope representation. The latest
proposal clarifies and encourages its practice through amended
procedures.
The amended rules require an attorney to enter into a written
agreement with the party, disclosing the limited nature of the
representation, and then filing a Notice of Limited Scope Appearance
with the court. When the legal work required by the limited scope
appearance has been completed, the attorney may withdraw on oral
motion at a hearing attended by the client. In situations outside of
a hearing, an attorney may withdraw by filing a Notice of Withdrawal
of Limited Scope Appearance. If no objection is filed to the notice
of withdrawal within 21 days, the withdrawal automatically becomes
effective.
[to top of second column] |
Modifications to Supreme Court Rule 13 cover the bulk of the
changes.
A modification to Supreme Court Rule 11 requires the service of
all documents be made on both the party and the attorney while the
limited representation is in effect.
Supreme Court Rule 137 was changed to make it clear that an
attorney may assist people who are representing themselves in
drafting or reviewing a pleading or other paper without making a
general or limited scope appearance and without the attorney signing
the pleading or other paper, as otherwise would be required. In such
an instance, the attorney may rely on the representation of facts as
provided by the self-represented person. For example, commentary
with the amended rule makes it clear that Rule 137 applies to an
attorney who would advise a caller to a legal aid telephone hotline
regarding the completion of a form pleading, motion or other paper,
or an attorney providing information at a pro bono clinic.
Ruth Ann Schmitt is the executive director of the Lawyers Trust
Fund, which first proposed limited scope representation as a means
of serving an ever-increasing number of litigants who represent
themselves, particularly in high-volume courts such as small claims,
family law and housing. The Lawyers Trust Fund also strongly
believed that limited scope representation would result in an
increase in the availability of legal services to those in need
because legal aid attorneys would no longer be required to represent
clients through every aspect of a client matter.
The co-chairs of the task force were John E. Theis, president of
the Illinois State Bar Association; Circuit Judge Ronald D. Spears
of the Illinois Judges Association; and Diane F. Klotnia of the
Chicago Bar Association.
Steven F. Pflaum is a former chair of the Supreme Court Committee
on Professional Responsibility, which also reviewed and favored the
proposals.
[Text from file received from the
Illinois Supreme Court] |
