 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] |
