By Barbara O. Slanker Are you finding yourself in a quandary? You've reached 65 and have the financial resources to retire. The cost of ARDC registration and professional association dues are expensive and MCLE costs and malpractice insurance coverage are increasing relentlessly. Plus the thrill of the challenge of tackling a new legal problem has dimmed. But when you face the reality of retiring and stopping practice altogether, you realize that you really don't want to stop practicing completely. Hence, the quandary. Recognizing this situation, the Supreme Court has provided a solution with Supreme Court Rule 756(j). This Rule waives payment of ARDC registration and the minimum continuing legal education requirement when the retired/inactive attorney does pro bono cases. The procedure for attorneys seeking pro bono services under the provision of the Rule is set out in paragraph (3). The authorization must be renewed annually, and the renewal procedure is in subparagraph (4). Rule 756(j) defines pro bono cases as ones the attorney takes without a charge or expectation of a fee, and the cases are brought by persons of limited means or organizations that provide services for persons of limited means. The attorney must work under the auspices of a sponsoring entity which is defined in the Rule as an appropriate legal service agency, government, law school or bar association program. This entity provides training and support for the attorney, and it screens the persons who are eligible for pro bono legal services. Even more important, the sponsoring entity provides malpractice insurance for participating attorneys. Although Rule 756(j) waives the minimum continuing legal education requirement, it substitutes the requirement that attorneys participate in training programs provided by the sponsoring agency.  Typically these programs do not have a fee or if there is a fee, it is minimal. Flexibility is an attractive characteristic of the sponsoring entities' pro bono programs. A participating attorney can choose the cases he or she wants to accept. The cases may be in an area in which the attorney has practiced; or they may be in a completely different aspect of the law. In either the familiar or unfamiliar area of the law, attorneys in the sponsoring entity are available to mentor and advise. Finally, in addition to providing the retired/inactive attorney with a way to continue practicing, Rule 756(j) has the potential for providing Illinois citizens with greater access to pro bono legal representation. In Illinois persons with limited means have vast unmet legal needs, and these needs are increasing as current economic conditions create more legal problems. Retired/inactive attorneys have an opportunity to help fill these burgeoning needs under Supreme Court Rule 756(j). Barbara O. Slanker is a member of the ISBA Senior Lawyer Section Council and former chair of the Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services.