What must an Illinois lawyer do when they learn that the lawyer who hired them on a matter has been removed from the Master Roll of Attorneys for MCLE noncompliance?
ISBA Professional Conduct Advisory Opinion 26-01: Co-Counsel Removed from Master Roll for MCLE Noncompliance
Short answer: The opinion concludes the Illinois lawyer (Lawyer 1) hired by another lawyer (Lawyer 2) on a matter must, upon learning of Lawyer 2's MCLE-noncompliance removal from the Master Roll, first notify Lawyer 2 and may not continue collaborating unless Lawyer 2 is reinstated. If Lawyer 2 does not remediate, Lawyer 1 must notify the client (Rule 1.4(a)(3)) and cease work unless separately retained. Reporting to the ARDC is not required (the removal does not itself constitute a Rule 8.4(b) or (c) violation) unless Lawyer 2 continues practicing without reinstatement. There is no duty to notify the title company.
Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and are persuasive authority. This summary is for research purposes only and is not legal advice. Verify current rules before acting on any specific guidance.
About this page: The plain-English summary and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official opinion. We do not reproduce the opinion text on this page; follow the linked source for the official text, which controls.
Plain-English summary
The inquirer (Lawyer 1) was retained by Lawyer 2 to prepare title and closing documents for Lawyer 2's client in a real estate transaction. Lawyer 1 has since learned that Lawyer 2 is removed from the Master Roll of Attorneys for failure to comply with MCLE requirements under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 796.
The opinion sets the regulatory backdrop: under Rule 796(e), MCLE noncompliance leads to ARDC notification and automatic removal from the Master Roll, with automatic reinstatement upon compliance and fee payment (Rule 796(h)). The opinion observes the structure parallels removal for failure to pay annual ARDC registration (Rule 756(i)).
On Lawyer 1's first step, the opinion concludes Lawyer 1 should contact Lawyer 2, inform Lawyer 2 of the removal, and tell Lawyer 2 that Lawyer 1 cannot continue collaborating unless Lawyer 2 takes reinstatement steps (or unless exigencies require continuation to prevent client harm). The opinion's reasoning is that MCLE-based removal may arise from circumstances that do not amount to a Rule 8.4(b) or (c) violation, so the first response is communication rather than reporting.
On the duty to the client, the opinion concludes that if Lawyer 2 is not reinstated, Lawyer 1 must inform the client. Per the opinion (citing ISBA Opinion 92-07), an "outside" lawyer hired by another lawyer owes the client the same Rules duties as the original lawyer. Rule 1.4(a)(3) requires keeping the client reasonably informed about the matter's status, and Lawyer 2's removal is "an important development." After notifying the client, Lawyer 1 may continue only if separately retained by the client; otherwise Lawyer 1 must cease work.
On reporting to the ARDC, the opinion concludes Rule 8.3(a) does not require it for the removal itself, because the removal is administrative and automatically lifted on compliance. Per the opinion, the reporting duty arises only if Lawyer 2 continues practicing without reinstatement. The opinion identifies Rule 5.5 (no assisting unauthorized practice) and Rule 8.4(a) (no knowingly assisting another to violate the Rules) as the operative restrictions if Lawyer 2 continues unreinstated.
On the title company, the opinion concludes there is no duty to notify.
In practice
Under this opinion, an Illinois lawyer who learns that co-counsel or a hiring lawyer has been removed from the Master Roll for MCLE noncompliance takes a stepwise approach: notify the affected lawyer, defer continued collaboration pending reinstatement, notify the client if reinstatement does not occur, and cease work unless separately retained by the client. The opinion identifies the ARDC reporting trigger as the affected lawyer's continued practice without reinstatement, not the administrative removal alone.
Common questions
Q: Does an Illinois lawyer have to report an MCLE-related Master Roll removal to the ARDC?
A: The opinion concludes Rule 8.3(a) does not require it for the administrative removal alone. Per the opinion, MCLE noncompliance "may arise from a variety of circumstances that do not constitute a violation of Rule 8.4(b) or (c)." A reporting obligation arises if the removed lawyer continues practicing without reinstatement.
Q: Can the lawyer continue working on the matter after learning of co-counsel's removal?
A: Per the opinion, generally no, unless the hiring lawyer is reinstated or the client separately retains the lawyer to continue. The opinion identifies an exigent-circumstances exception where ceasing work would harm the client.
Q: What does the lawyer have to tell the client?
A: The opinion concludes Rule 1.4(a)(3) requires the lawyer to inform the client of the hiring lawyer's removal once the hiring lawyer has been notified and has not been reinstated. Per the opinion, the lawyer (citing ISBA Opinion 92-07) owes the client the same Rules duties as the hiring lawyer, even where the client may not have been aware of the lawyer's role.
Q: Is the lawyer required to notify the title company?
A: The opinion concludes no.
Q: What rules does the lawyer trigger by continuing to work with an unreinstated hiring lawyer?
A: The opinion identifies Rule 5.5 (no practicing or assisting practice in violation of jurisdiction's regulation) and Rule 8.4(a) (no knowingly assisting another to violate the Rules) as the rules that apply if the hiring lawyer continues to practice while removed.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4(a)(3) (communication with client about significant developments), 5.5 (no assisting unauthorized practice), 8.3(a) (reporting misconduct), 8.4(a) (no assisting another's Rules violation), 8.4(b) (criminal conduct), and 8.4(c) (deception). The regulatory backdrop is Illinois Supreme Court Rule 796 (MCLE requirements; automatic removal and automatic reinstatement) and Rule 756(i) (parallel removal for unpaid annual registration). The opinion incorporates the analytical frame of ISBA Opinion 92-07 (outside lawyers' duties to the client).
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Illinois RPC 1.4(a)(3) (client communication about significant developments)
- Illinois RPC 5.5 (no practicing or assisting practice in violation of regulation)
- Illinois RPC 8.3(a) (reporting misconduct)
- Illinois RPC 8.4(a), (b), (c) (assisting another's Rules violation; criminal conduct; deception)
Court rules:
- Illinois Supreme Court Rule 796(e), (h) (MCLE compliance; automatic removal and reinstatement)
- Illinois Supreme Court Rule 756(i) (removal for unpaid annual registration)
Other opinions cited:
- ISBA Professional Conduct Advisory Opinion 92-07: outside lawyers' duties to the client.
See also
Source
- Landing page: https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/2601