Supreme Court amends rule to require online attorney registration
Chief Justice Rita B. Garman and the Illinois Supreme Court announced on Wednesday changes to a rule that will now require attorneys to register online each year.
Under Amended Supreme Court Rule 756, attorneys will also have to provide specific practice-related information to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC).
The amendments to Rule 756, which governs the annual attorney registration process, will make Illinois one of at least seven states that will require the online submission of registration data by next year. At least a handful of states already mandate lawyers to do so.
ARDC Administrator Jerome Larkin said while 81 percent of Illinois' approximate 95,000 attorneys registered online this year, the rule's mandate for online registration will allow the ARDC to collect practice-related information from all lawyers, not just those who provide it voluntarily.
Historically, lawyers have been required to provide an address and telephone number for inclusion on their public listing on the Master Roll. With the amendments, an attorney will also have to furnish to the ARDC a residential address; the name of all other states in which he or she is licensed to practice law; the type of entity at which the attorney practices; the number of lawyers working there; the areas of law the lawyer primarily practices; and whether that organization has created a written succession plan.
"The disclosure of practice-related demographic information will allow us [the ARDC] to better understand lawyers' practices," Mr. Larkin said. "We'll be able to target our educational and regulatory resources to lawyers and assess whether those approaches are working."
As an example, Mr. Larkin pointed to the United Kingdom and Australia, where he said the incorporation of regulatory approaches based on practice-related data collected has shown to be effective in assisting firms practice more efficiently and reducing the number of complaints.
The ARDC will keep the data collected under the rule confidential, with the exception of the contact information provided in an attorney's listing on the Master Roll of lawyers. Such contact information, however, will be deemed confidential for lawyers on inactive or retirement status and those already exempt under the rule, like judges.
Mr. Larkin said attorneys who have already registered online have found it to be a quicker and better experience and noted that the ARDC feels the same way.
For instance, Mr. Larkin said, when an attorney omits information while registering on paper, the ARDC has to reach out to him or her down to provide the missing information. The online registration process, however, simply doesn't allow an attorney to move forward without completing each requirement.
The amended rule also makes explicit that lawyers will be deemed not registered for the year if he or she has not paid all required fees and provided all information required under the rule. It also allows the ARDC to remove lawyers who have not registered for that year on or after February 1, as opposed to requiring removal from the state's Master Roll of attorneys on that date.
Member Comments (7)
They should also mandate that the online registration not cost more than the mailed in registration did. Online is more cost efficient as they use less hours searching for missing information, but it costs more? Makes no sense. Illinois is one of the few states where they charge more for online registrations (e.g. business registrations and annual reports) and this practice of charging more when costs decline should stop. That is the real reason I didn't file online before. Let's see if the ARDC will take the lead in eliminating this minor form of Illinois corruption and increased "taxation" or continue with the past practice.
I totally agree with the above comment. Illinois charges an additional (and not nominal) fee for online registration, even though it is simpler and less costly for the ARDC to process on-line applications. If online registration is required, the additional fee for online registration should be eliminated!!
Agreed, if it is saving them time and money why does it cost more?
I have never provided my residential address and do not see why I need to do so now.
The residential address disclosure is concerning. However, it is unclear whether the Order of the Supreme Court requires release of the residential address as part of any online search of an attorney. If so, this could be a security issue for members and thus an unreasonable burden.
The amended rule disregards the privacy of the attorney. It imposes the need for a computer and the skills to use one . The computer is not on the bar exam. It is intrusive in the operation of the registrants law firm and exposes the registrant unreasonable intrusion and potential intimidation. The ARDC was created to provide a way to discipline attorneys for breaches as they relate to the public. It was never intended to create a lockstep homogenized licensed bar. Subject to the whims and political correctness of the ARDC. This regulation however benign in appearance , I fear will be expanded exponentially to require compliance and additional fees in the future that are far beyond the innocent impact of this amendment. There is no reason why written paper registration cannot be continued. Computers are not confidential. They are regularly breached. The IRS cannot even protect its confidential taxpayer data. What assurances and compensation will be provided when the inevitable breach of security occurs?
Your liberty is best protected by diligently defending it.
Howard Gilbert
why was not the ardc committee of the isba told about this proposal before it became effective? same question about the sup ct rules committee. why no prior notice of this proposal and time and opportunity for the bar to weigh in on it?