Two Great ISBA Member Benefits Sponsored by
ISBA Mutual Lawyers Malpractice Insurance
view counter
A Value of $1,344, Included with Membership
Free CLE
view counter
view counter

Don’t Go There…Yet

There are few things litigators and judges dread more than a protracted discovery dispute. Given the angst discovery misconduct provokes, siccing the Illinois Supreme Court Rules on a culprit is understandable. But a measured response may be more prudent. Penalizing bad behavior with a default judgment is rarely necessary, even as a response to perjury or defiance of court orders. 

In September’s Illinois Bar Journal, appellate litigator Christopher Keleher examines discovery sanctions available for plaintiffs and defendants under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c). There are good reasons the courts use default judgments against defendants and dismissals with prejudice against plaintiffs sparingly.

Read more in the September issue of the Illinois Bar Journal.

Posted on September 4, 2018 by Rhys Saunders
Filed under: 

Member Comments (1)

I think judges are wisely reluctant to dismiss case or defualt the scofflaw, but  a rule-follwing attorney and client are the ones who suffer when the reclacitant party/lawyer goes unpunished.  More judges should use sanctions that are not draconian, but still pack a puch.  I would like to see the offender pay meaningful monetary penalties. Intransigentl litigants prolong the legal procees, especially in Family Law, and cost the compliant party increased attorney's fees.  It is not fair, and "good" clients perceive the legal system as a sham.