Article Review: Ethics at the Speed of Business
This article discusses the many ways in which the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct
and the Illinois Supreme Court Rules put up barriers that stop lawyers and businesses “from
accomplishing reasonable commercial goals.” James A. Doppke Jr., Ethics at the Speed of
Business 21 DePaul Bus. & Com. L. J. (2023). The barriers can often come from “outdated
concepts and/or terminology that does not reflect current business realities.” Id. The article
presents arguments on why there should be an amendment of specific rules that will “enhance
lawyers and businesses abilities to conduct their affairs more efficiently.” Id. Before there was
the code of ethics, there were the 1980 Code of Professional Responsibility. It was enacted by
Illinois attorneys and was the first official guideline for professional conduct. After the 1980
Code of Professional Responsibility came the 1990 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. From
1990 to 2010, Rule 7.3 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct stated that “a lawyer shall
not solicit professional employment when a significant motive for doing so is the lawyer’s
pecuniary gain.” Id. at 86. Rule 7.3 went on to explain that the term “solicit” was referring to
contact with a person other than a lawyer by telephone, telegraph, letter, other writing or in
person. Id. Droppke explains how outdated Rule 7.3 was considering telegraphs were a thing of
the past during the years that rule was in place. He claims the 1990 Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct used an outdated word because lawyers use antiqued words. This article addresses the
issues with these outdated rules and the problems that these rules pose for modern business and
practice methods. “The purpose of this article is to suggest that lawyers and regulators should
always be careful to ensure that professional codes should recognize, and seek to enable rather
than restrain, modern ways of doing business.” Id. at 88.
2
One of the ways Droppke supports his argument is by addressing the issues surrounding
Supreme Court Rules 705 and 716. He states that one rule supports lawyer mobility better than
the other. “Rule 716 allows lawyers licenses outside of Illinois to obtain a limited license to
serve as “house counsel,” i.e., a lawyer whose sole employment is for a business entity that does
not provide legal services.” Id. at 88. “Rule 705 allows qualified out-of-state lawyers to become
licenses in Illinois “on motion,” i.e., without a requirement of taking or passing the Illinois bar
examination.” Id. at 89. Rule 705 has much stricter requirements than Rule 716. According to
Droppke, Rule 705 is burdensome for lawyers and ultimately prevents lawyers, consumers, and
businesses from accomplishing their commercial goals. Id. at 91. During the COVID-19
pandemic, there were many ethical opinions affirming that lawyers licensed in one state cannot
engage in law in another state remotely. If this Rule was amended to allow Lawyers to work
remotely from other states, it would help lawyers, consumers, and businesses with their goals.
Updating the rules to make it easier for out-of-state lawyers to practice in Illinois could really
help business practices flourish. If Rule 716 can be so lenient, then Rule 716 should be as well. I
believe everyone agrees there must be some sort of criteria that an out-of-state lawyer must be
required to meet in order to practice in Illinois but that criteria could benefit by being updated.
This goes back to Droppke’s argument that the Codes governing Lawyers should be updated
with the times.
An ancillary business is a business created by a law firm or lawyer that offers law-related
services to clients of the law firm or to new clients who are not customers of the lawyer or law
firm. Forest Time, Definition of Ancillary Business, CHRON,
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/definition-ancillary-businesses-26083.html. Ancillary
businesses provide clients with a broader range of services, help strengthen attorney-client
3
relationships and bring additional income to the firm. Id. Overall, these are very productive for
businesses. Illinois did not adopt ABAB Model Rule 5.7 which governs the operation of
ancillary businesses. This can be seen in a positive and negative way. On the positive side,
Illinois lawyers have an environment that facilitates the practice rather than restricts. But on the
downside to that, there are no regulations. The Illinois Supreme Court’s holding In re Karavidas
“suggests that the Court does not mean for ethical rules to restrain lawyers in doing non-legal
business.” In re Karavidas, 2013 IL 115767 (2013). In this case, the Administrator of the
Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) alleged that the “Respondent
engaged in conversion of funds, breach of fiduciary duty, and dishonesty while acting as the
trustee of a family trust.” Id. The Court what is called inter alia. This means that “personal
misconduct that falls outside the scope of the Rules of Professional Conduct may be the basis for
civil liability or other adverse consequences but will not result in professional discipline.” Id.
This ruling completely changed the regulation of the practice of law in Illinois. From that point
forward, lawyers who were participating in dual profession businesses assumed they would not
face any type of disciplinary actions based on conduct that “solely involves their non-legal
business and does not otherwise violate the rules.” Id. Droppke expresses his opinion in this
article that Illinois should adopt ABA Model Rule 5.7 because it would provide much greater
clarity to legal professionals. ABA Model Rule 7.7 states “(a) a lawyer shall be subject to the
Rules of Professional Conduct with respect to the provision of law related services, as defined in
paragraph (b), if the law-related services are provided: (1) by the lawyer in circumstances that
are not distinct from the lawyer’s provision of legal services to clients; or (2) in other
circumstances by an entity controlled by the lawyer individually or with others if the lawyer fails
to take reasonable measures to assure that a person obtaining the law-related services knows that
4
the services are not legal services and that the protections of the client-lawyer relationship do not
exist. (b) The term “law-related services” denotes services that might reasonably be performed in
conjunction with and in substance are related to the provision of legal services, and that are not
prohibited as unauthorized practice of law when provided by a nonlawyer.” ABA Model Rule
5.7, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/
model_rules_of_professional_conduct/
rule_5_7_responsibilities_regarding_law_related_services/. The adoption of this ABA rule
would provider a less strict way to operate as opposed to the present Illinois model.
I believe the author, James A. Doppke Jr., gave some excellent insight into how updating
the code of ethics lawyers follow to match the current times would benefit everyone. The world
is advancing at a high rate every day and laws are constantly changing or being updated.
Lawyers must follow the code of ethics as well as keep up to date on how laws are changing.
This presents a difficult task if one is not up to par with the other. However, Droppke argued that
Rule 705, which allows qualified out-of-state lawyers to become licensed in Illinois, should be
less strict and give lawyers less loopholes to jump through. I must disagree with him on this
opinion. The State Bar for any state helps regulate the practice of law and improve the delivery
of legal services to the public. The State Bar ensures that the lawyer is qualified and
knowledgeable in that states laws before admitting them to the bar. When an out-of-state lawyer
wants to become licensed in multiple states, it is important to ensure that they are extremely
knowledgeable about that states law. If Illinois makes it easier for out-of-state attorneys to
become licensed in their state, it is unfair to current licensed attorneys in Illinois who had to pass
the bar to practice there. I believe it is fair that if a licensed attorney wants to become licensed in
a different state, they should have to go through the same process as all other attorneys in that
5
state. On the other hand, Droppke’s argument that Illinois should adopt Model Rile 5.7 is much
more agreeable. Understanding ethics is very important no matter what area of law you work in
or what state. Even as a paralegal, I find myself constantly asking ethical questions to make sure
I am following the model rules. When there are large gray areas, it leaves ethics up to
interpretation and this can cause many upsets or errors. I strongly agree with Droppke that
Illinois should adopt model rule 5.7 and provide greater clarity on ethics. Lastly, Droppke argued
that Illinois should amend Model Rule 1.6 so lawyers can defend themselves against online
reviews. I do agree that there needs to be some type of regulation to online reviews like verifying
that person was an actual client. I question though how ethical it is if the rule was amended and
lawyers started responding to reviews stating they represented this person and did certain things
for their case on certain days. I understand where Droppke is coming from, but I believe there is
a better way. In my opinion, responding to a review in that manner is unethical. At that point, the
lawyer would be breaking the attorney-client privilege and posting this information to the
internet for the world to read. I believe a more effective way of filtering reviews would be once
someone leaves a review; the lawyer must approve the post after confirming they were a client.
Everyone will have a bad review eventually especially in law because you cannot guarantee
every client the outcome they desire. But as long as the person leaving the review was an actual
client, then their review should be able to be posted.
6
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
