Domestic Violence and Attorney Solicitation

Illinois Professional Rule of Conduct 7.3 covers the solicitation of clients by attorneys.¹ The most recent comment, #10, addresses Paragraph (b)(3) which prohibits solicitation of prospective clients in proceedings where the contact poses a substantial risk of physical harm to the non-prospective client. This comment and rule do not cover domestic relations cases. This currently allows attorneys to solicit prospective clients when their spouse files for divorce and parentage cases. Attorneys who solicit through mail often will then send a letter to the marital residence or household where the parties primarily resided. At times, this removes autonomy from the filing spouse from being able to share the news in a safe manner.

Across the country spouses are murdered after filing for divorce.² With attorneys having the avenue of solicitation via mail on divorce cases, the spouse filing for divorce has a substantial risk of physical harm, given that the filing of divorce could cause the other spouse to act erratic or with heightened emotions. The service that some attorneys use to retrieve cases may allow them to send the letter to the respondent within 24 hours of filing. This does not give spouses ample time to prepare to safely inform their spouse or use the proper method of service.

 In 2015, Michigan tackled this very issue in their Senate.³ After passing the Senate, the House of Representatives referred it to Committee on Judiciary. The bill proposes, rather than a total ban on solicitation in these cases, there needs to be a waiting period. It appears that as Michigan’s Professional Rules on solicitation currently stand, the rules are strict and do not permit any solicitation to any specific recipient known to need legal services.⁴ There is a comment that appears to have followed the United States Supreme Court ruling in Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association,⁵ where the Court held that Kentucky’s prohibition on all solicitation directed to a specific recipient whom the lawyer has no family or prior professional relationship with is not an appropriate rule. Michigan’s work around emphasizes the importance of advertising versus impermissible direct contact. Michigan’s rule creates safeguards for the contact that should be protected while allowing free speech to remain.

 Michigan is not the only state whose rules restrict these types of solicitations. Nevada, similarly to Michigan, creates an approach that outlines that solicitation should be intended for the general public not one known in a particular matter.⁶ Sixteen states⁷ prohibit solicitation when, “the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the physical, emotional, or mental state of the person makes it unlikely that the person would exercise reasonable judgment in employing a lawyer.”⁸ This could arguably be applied to domestic relations cases as a divorce can be a highly emotionally charged situation. Florida has a similar rule and also encapsulates concerns for a request for protection against physical violence. Maine’s language creates factors to evaluate after a solicitation is called into question, those being the physical and emotional state of the prospective client.⁹ Pennsylvania explicitly references domestic relations actions and states that lawyers need to wait until the proof of services appears on the docket before the contact occurs with the respondent.¹⁰ Lastly, Tennessee creates a thirty-day waiting period for divorce and legal separation cases.¹¹

Illinois should follow suit with Pennsylvania and Tennessee to create time limitations for solicitation in domestic relations cases. This is a chance for Illinois to be proactive rather than implementing this after more deaths. Illinois has a duty to prevent potential domestic violence from occurring due to the spouse finding out about the proceedings by lawyers sending mail letting partners know a proceeding has been filed.

Maxwell Sharkey is an associate attorney with the firm Mirabella, Kincaid, Frederick & Mirabella, LLC, practicing in family law and child advocacy.

1. https://www.isba.org/ethics/irpc/rule73#rule73.
2. https://people.com/florida-man-accused-of-fatally-shooting-wife-after-she-filed-divorce-papers-11705854?utm_campaign=peoplemagazine&utm_content=new&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwY2xjawM24GBleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFHQUI3N3JXN2hBV1BGMHM4AR67OJoSxDNeKtNxfY9hmvdFxM2Kk-wfy3OmHoL__1WZPiwXdv0TiGzGWti2bQ_aem_IK_PhiFGMkvZlbBjsVYxfQ; https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mom-who-killed-kids-hours-after-husband-filed-for-divorce-is-sentenced-to-120-years/; https://abcnews.go.com/US/husband-allegedly-kills-chicago-woman-murder-suicide-opens/story?id=87208401
3. https://fastdemocracy.com/bill-search/mi/2015-2016/bills/MIB00006970/#votes.
4. https://www.courts.michigan.gov/4b1134/siteassets/rules-instructions-administrative-orders/rules-of-professional-conduct/michigan-rules-of-professional-conduct.pdf.
5. Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Ass’n, 486 U.S. 466 (1988).
6. https://www.leg.state.nv.us/courtrules/rpc.html.
7. Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Washington.
8. https://www.jud.ct.gov/publications/PracticeBook/PB.pdf, at 60-62.
9. https://mebaroverseers.org/regulation/bar_rules.html?id=88273.
10. https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/pennsylvania/204-Pa-Code-r-7.3.
11. https://www.tncourts.gov/courts/supreme-court/rules/supreme-court-rules/rule-8-rules-professional-conduct, See Rule 7.3.

This article was originally published in Family Law (July 2026, Vol. 70, No. 1), the newsletter of ISBA’s Section on Family Law.