Are you corporate counsel based in Illinois? Are you admitted to
the Illinois bar? If not, are you complying with Supreme Court Rule
716? If not, now is the time for you to act!
The Illinois Supreme Court requires all in-house counsel based
in Illinois who are not Illinois-licensed attorneys, to follow
Supreme Court Rule 716 and possess a limited law license. This
requires in-house counsel to pay an annual registration fee, pass a
background check, submit to the disciplinary authority of the
Illinois ARDC, meet the CLE requirements imposed on all practicing
lawyers, and be in good disciplinary standing before the highest
court of every jurisdiction in which that counsel is admitted.
In-house lawyers coming from other jurisdictions may be unaware
of this rule, and fail to timely apply for a limited law license.
Acknowledging that problem, the Illinois Supreme Court has
instituted a one year amnesty program, which allows in-house
counsel to apply for a limited law license without facing
discipline for practicing law unlicensed in Illinois after failing
to timely apply. In-house counsel who apply for a limited law
license in the year 2014 must comply with the requirements of Rule
716, but will not face prosecution or discipline for unauthorized
practice of law in Illinois prior to counsel's application.
In addition, during this amnesty period, new applications will
not have to pay in arrears for licensing fees or make up CLE
credits. Furthermore, attorneys who have practiced with in-house
counsel now seeking amnesty will not be investigated by the ARDC
for his or her connection with the in-house counsel's failure
to procure a limited law license. However, the amnesty program is
not completely painless: in addition to the usual application fee
of $1,250 required under Rule 716, attorneys filing under the
amnesty program must also pay a late registration penalty of an
Why is this so crucial? Failure to apply for a limited law
license not only exposes you to a prosecution for unlicensed law
practice, but can expose your client's privileged documents as
well. In Gucci America, Inc. v. Guess?, Inc., a magistrate judge
ordered privileged documents be produced because Gucci's
in-house counsel had not maintained a valid law license. (No. 09
Civ. 4373), 2010 WL 2720079 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2010). Ultimately
the district judge overturned the ruling, but not without costly
litigation. (No. 09 Civ. 4373), 2011 WL 9375 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3,
2011). That is not a risk you or your client wants to take.
The amnesty program runs throughout 2014. If you have any
questions, your Dentons team is happy to assist in navigating Rule
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Join Dentons Rodyk corporate and real estate partners, as they engage you in a case study of a hypothetical existing joint venture partnership for a premium new development, which has two joint venture partners, including a construction company.
July 29, 2016
03:30 PM - 05:30 PM SGT
Dentons Rodyk Office UOB Plaza 1
80 Raffles Place
The construction company’s subsidiary also undertakes the role as main contractor. Both partners are excellent, top of their class parties, but one or more wants to exit this partnership. How do they do so?
Join Dentons for a webinar addressing the US Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Our panelists will discuss the regulation of calls and text messages, sent by debt collectors and advertisers, to consumers' cell phones and landlines.
Join Dentons government contracts lawyers for a Public Contracting Institute (PCI) webinar series involving the most current industry analysis in government contract cost accounting from a team of leaders in the field with unparalleled experience. For both contracting officials and private practitioners, these exclusive webinars offer the latest developments, hot topics and the unique opportunity to "ask the authorities."
In Ambac v. Countrywide, plaintiff Ambac Assurance Corporation, a monoline insurer, guaranteed payments on certain residential mortgage-backed securities issued by defendant Countrywide Home Loans Inc.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).