Practice News

A task force of principal stakeholders summoned by the Illinois Supreme Court will be visiting Washington D.C. and Montgomery County, Maryland next week to study firsthand pretrial release and detention procedures in those courts as a way to enhance the administration of justice in Cook County and Illinois. The site visit is being coordinated with the assistance of the Washington-based Pretrial Justice Institute.

Those scheduled to make the trip are Cook County State’s Atty. Anita Alvarez; Clerk Dorothy Brown of the Cook County Circuit Court; Cook County Public Defender A.C. Cunningham; Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans of Cook County Circuit Court; President Toni Preckwinkle of the Board of Commissioners of Cook County; Ret. Chief Justice Ben K. Miller of the Illinois Supreme Court; Ret. U.S. District Court Judge David Coar; and Director Michael Tardy of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts.

Those principals, as well as Sheriff Tom Dart of Cook County, were assembled by the Supreme Court last November for a continuing discussion on the systemic management of criminal pretrial matters, focusing on strategies to improve the effective administration of justice in Cook County and throughout Illinois.

Q.  As a criminal defense attorney, do I have to give my client copies of the discovery?

A. Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4 imposes an ethical obligation on an attorney to maintain reasonable communication between an attorney and a client to keep the client informed and able to participate in representation. However, in People v. Davidson, 292 Ill. App. 3d 981, 686 N.E.2d 1231 (4th Dist. 1997) the Court determined that the defendant has no Constitutional right to read discovery. For further discussion, see ISBA Professional Opinion 13-10. 

ISBA members can browse past ISBA Ethics Opinions, access our Ethics Hotline, and other resources on the ISBA Ethics Page.

Disclaimer.  These questions are representative of calls received on the ISBA’s ethics hotline.  The information provided below is meant as an educational tool to highlight potentially applicable Illinois RPC or other ethics resources that might help the lawyer answer the question posed.  The information provided isn’t legal advice.  Because every situation is different, often complex, and the law is constantly evolving, you shouldn’t rely upon this general information without conducting your own research.

Asked and Answered

By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Q. I am the founder and owner of a personal injury plaintiff practice located in Lexington, Ky. I have two associates and four support staff members. All of our cases are handled on a contingency fee basis and our swings in fee collections from year to year can be substantial. I am 64 and would like to transition my practice and retire within the next three years. Both of my associates would like to take over my practice. I believe I am entitled to compensation for my practice and am desiring a fair buyout. I would appreciate hearing your ideas concerning a buyout approach.

On May 29, and effective July 1, the Illinois Supreme Court amended Supreme Court Rules 201 and 214 to make discovery of electronically stored information, or ESI, more efficient. Among other things, the changes empower courts to deny ESI discovery requests that are too burdensome, and they remove the outdated (and often ignored) requirement that ESI be produced in print form.

Rule 201 as amended expressly discourages discovery requests that are “disproportionate in terms of burden or expense” and specifies that a “court may determine whether the likely burden or expense of the proposed discovery, including electronically stored information, outweighs the likely benefit”….The amendments also add a definition of ESI to the court’s discovery rules for the first time.

Rule 214 was revised to provide that “if a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.” It also eliminates the requirement that ESI be “produce[d]…in printed form”….

Timothy Chorvat of Jenner & Block, chair of the ISBA’s Civil Practice and Procedure Section, said the amendments are “important and welcome reforms to the procedures governing discovery of ESI. Computer data makes up an ever-increasing proportion of the information that parties exchange in discovery, and the new rules will assist parties to effectively manage the production of electronically stored information while at the same time providing protections against disproportionate burdens and costs.”