The caller represented a criminal defendant in presenting a post-sentencing motion based on two contentions. The first issue was whether the client was entitled to credit for the time they spent in custody prior to trial. The second claim dealt with whether the client was entitled to a reduced sentence. Upon searching the sentencing records, the caller determined that the client was entitled to a credit for the time they spent in custody before trial, but also that the sentencing record did not provide any support for otherwise reducing the client’s sentence. Subsequently, the lawyer submitted a motion advancing the meritorious claim for pre-trial credit and expressly stating that no argument was being made or advanced as to the client’s contention that they were otherwise entitled to a reduced sentence. At some point after the matter concluded, the caller was made aware that due to an administrative error the client’s sentence had been reduced by an amount that exceeded the time they spent in custody before trial. The caller contacted the client and explained that there had been an error and attempted to secure the informed consent of the client to alert the court to the error. The client refused. This scenario raises questions about whether a lawyer has an obligation to correct the administrative error without the client’s consent to do so and how the duties of confidentiality and candor inform that analysis. Read more.

A caller described a scenario raising Rule 1.6 confidentiality issues and the crime‑fraud exception. The facts seemed to match the well‑known “settlement check scam”: a new client, an unusually fast and generous settlement, a large check drawn on a foreign bank, pressure to disburse funds immediately, and the check later being dishonored. A lawyer who reasonably believes that a client is using a lawyer’s services to commit a fraud, even against the lawyer, may disclose otherwise confidential client information to third parties if done in such a manner as to prevent, lessen or rectify the harm threatened or caused by the client’s fraud. Read more.

This month’s question deals with the situation where a lawyer obtained a significant recovery for a client, and after the funds were distributed and the lawyer collected their fee, the client offered the lawyer a monetary gift as a way to show their appreciation for the lawyer’s work. Rule 1.8 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct provides guidance on how to navigate this situation. Rule 1.8(c) prohibits lawyers from soliciting any substantial gift from a client, but Comment [6] to Rule 1.8 makes it clear that a lawyer may accept a gift from a client “if the transaction meets general standards of fairness.” Read more.

Every week brings a new headline: a lawyer or self-represented litigant is sanctioned for submitting filings containing “hallucinated” case law or statutes that were generated using Artificial Intelligence (“AI”).  This article explores why AI hallucinations happen, how to avoid them, and highlights the ARDC’s October 2025 release of The Illinois Attorney’s Guide to Implementing AI, a timely resource to help Illinois lawyers to better understand and use AI ethically and effectively in their law practice.  Read more.

When a lawyer can no longer practice due to death or disability, the consequences ripple far beyond the individual attorney.  This article explores how the ARDC’s Client Protection Program steps in to protect clients, preserve public trust, and support the profession during its most vulnerable moments.  Funded collectively by Illinois lawyers, the Program is a powerful example of how the profession takes responsibility for its own, and for the people it serves. Read more.

This month’s question asks whether lawyers are authorized to disclose confidential information when a client confides to their lawyer that they have thoughts of self-harm. Rule 1.6(c) requires that a lawyer reveal information relating to the representation of a client when the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm. Read more.