In law school, future attorneys are trained in the "ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct" and most are tested on these rules as part of the Bar exam in a separate test called the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE).  However, once practicing attorneys, they must abide by the individual ethics rules of the state - or states - in which they are licensed.

While in of itself it seems somewhat odd to prepare and test young lawyers on a somewhat different set of rules than those they must practice, it gets even more complex when you consider the increasing numbers of attorneys who now have multijurisdictional practices.  Data from the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois (ARDC), the body that licenses lawyers in Illinois, indicates that nearly one-third of lawyers licensed in Illinois are licensed in multiple jurisdictions.  In other words, what's acceptable in one state may not be in the next, making attorneys more vulnerable to local violations.

Further, an article in a recent issue of Illinois Bar Journal states that, according to Thomas P. Lunning, co-chair of the ISBA/CBA Joint Committee on Ethics 2000, "When ARDC gets calls with ethics questions, the callers are instructed to look at the Illinois rules and the ABA Model Rule comments."

As the two sets of rules currently are not completely aligned, it seems that more questions than answers can develop.

In Illinois, the Supreme Court adopted the current Rules of Professional Conduct for Illinois Lawyers in 1990 and currently is considering whether or to what extent to adopt numerous changes to Illinois rules recommended by the Joint Committee Lunning co-chairs.  The Joint Committee report under consideration has been reviewed and modified by the Supreme Court Committee on Professional Responsibility, and includes a section on multijurisdictional practice.

The Journal article also quotes, former ARDC Administrator Mary Robinson in support of a proposed change in the multijurisdictional practice rules.  "Major corporations, whose problems do not begin and end at our borders, want to retain Illinois lawyers," she said.

Our law firm services clients globally with issues in Illinois and in Federal Court.  Sometimes that requires us to cross a state border to appear in court on behalf of our clients who have ties to other states.  In Wisconsin and Florida, where many Illinoisians have second homes or other interests, a licensed Illinois attorney can represent a client in court under a Pro Hac Vice arrangement, in which a licensed local attorney "sponsors" the Illinois lawyer's appearance.  It is critical both for the out-of-jurisdiction attorney and his or her sponsor that local rules be recognized and followed.  Fortunately, we've had positive Pro Hac Vice experiences in both the Wisconsin and Florida courts and have built relationships with a knowledgeable sponsor-attorneys in those states.

Different sets of rules also apply in the Federal Court System, where our firm's principal, Joseph P. McCaffery, is licensed in the Northern District in Illinois and the 7th Circuit.  Generally, each District has its own set of rules which typically parallel the disciplinary rules of the state in which it's located.  McCaffery also has practiced in the Federal District Court in Wyoming and Federal Court of Appeals in Colorado.

The effort to align local rules to mirror more closely the ABA Model Rules is one that every attorney should support.  Doing so will allow Illinois lawyers to focus on their clients within the parameters of consistency and without having to worry about varying interpretations of the rules, and it also will provide clearer guidelines to clients in terms of what they should expect from their legal representation.  We also would support any efforts to align the rules of the Federal Court System among the Districts, providing further consistency and clearer direction for the attorneys and their clients appearing before these courts.