1990 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct

RULE 8.5   Disciplinary Authority; Choice of Law   [revisions to 1990 Rule are indicated as follows: text deleted from the 1990 Rule is shown by strikethrough; additions to the 1990 Rule are shown in red]

(a)   Disciplinary Authority.  A lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, regardless of where the lawyer's conduct occurs.  A lawyer not admitted in this jurisdiction is also subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction if the lawyer provides or offers to provide any legal services in this jurisdiction.  A lawyer may be subject, for the same conduct, to the disciplinary authority of both this jurisdiction and another jurisdiction where the lawyer is admitted for the same conduct.

(b)   Choice of Law.  In any exercise of the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, the Rrules of Pprofessional Cconduct to be applied shall be as follows:

(1)   for conduct in connection with a proceeding in a court before which a lawyer has been admitted to practice (either generally or for purposes of that proceeding) matter pending before a tribunal, the rules to be applied shall be the rules of the jurisdiction in which the court tribunal sits, unless the rules of the court tribunal provide otherwise; and

(2)   for any other conduct, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the lawyer's conduct occurred, or, if the predominant effect of the conduct is in a different jurisdiction, the rules of that jurisdiction shall be applied to the conduct. A lawyer shall not be subject to discipline if the lawyer's conduct conforms to the rules of a jurisdiction in which the lawyer reasonably believes the predominant effect of the lawyer's conduct will occur.

(i)    if the lawyer is licensed to practice only in this jurisdiction, the rules to be applied shall be the rules of this jurisdiction, and

(ii)   if the lawyer is licensed to practice in this and another jurisdiction, the rules to be applied shall be the rules of the admitting jurisdiction in which the lawyer principally practices; provided, however, that if particular conduct clearly has its predominant effect in another jurisdiction in which the lawyer is licensed to practice, the rules of that jurisdiction shall be applied to that conduct.

Adopted February 8, 1990, effective August 1, 1990; amended February 14, 1995, effective immediately.

Comment
 (February 14, 1995)

(a)    Source

The first sentence of Rule 8.5 is substantially equivalent to the rule as originally issued on February 8, 1990, to be effective August 1, 1990, which reads as follows:

"A lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction although engaged in practice elsewhere."

This language was identical with the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rule language as it then stood.

The present language of Illinois Rule 8.5 is substantially identical with the present ABA Model Rule language, as amended August 11, 1993.

The ABA Model Rule language is followed by an extensive "Comment" which is not adopted in Illinois.

(b)    Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility Provisions

The Illinois Code has no provisions relating to this subject.

(c)    Other Comment

Paragraph (a) restates longstanding law.  Nothing contained in Rule 8.5 abrogates the jurisdiction of the Illinois courts or the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission over Illinois lawyers no matter where they practice: the rule simply directs which law or code of conduct should guide an Illinois tribunal when dealing with attorney conduct in an interstate transaction.

The rule does not purport to direct such tribunals when the transaction in question involves jurisdictions outside the U.S.

In subparagraph (b)(2)(ii), the "jurisdiction in which the lawyer principally practices" refers to the jurisdiction in which the lawyer's principal office is located; the provisions of the subparagraph relating to the "predominant effect" of "particular conduct" shall apply solely to circumstances where there is a single jurisdiction, in which the lawyer is licensed, which experiences that "predominant effect."  Where no such single jurisdiction can be determined, as in  a large multistate transaction, then the applicable rules of conduct would be those of the jurisdiction of principal practice.