Is an Illinois lawyer who collected a full fee but never paid the court reporter committing an ethics violation?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry described an attorney who collected his fee in full but did not collect from the client or pay for court reporting fees incurred in the representation. The question was whether failing to pay the court reporter violated the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.

The opinion concluded that the Rules and professional discipline are not a collection mechanism (with a stated exception for student loans under Rule 8.4), citing In re Green for the proposition that the purpose of discipline is to protect the public and the integrity of the profession. It then concluded that, under Illinois agency law, an attorney is generally not liable to third persons on contracts made for a disclosed client when authorized, unless the attorney expressly assumes personal liability, citing McCorkle v. Weinstein, where an attorney was held not liable for a court reporter's fees.

The opinion concluded that a lawyer may nonetheless agree to become personally liable for such expenses, provided the arrangement complies with Rule 1.8(d), which permits advancing or guaranteeing litigation expenses (including court costs) if the client remains ultimately liable, repayment is contingent on the outcome, or the client is indigent.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, before Illinois adopted the 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. The ISBA Board of Governors affirmed the opinion in May 2010 as generally consistent with the 2010 Rules (referring to Rule 1.8(e)), while noting the specific standards referenced may differ from the 2010 Rules. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Is not paying the court reporter an ethics violation?

A: The opinion concluded that the failure, by itself, is not a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and that the disciplinary process is not designed to serve as a collection mechanism.

Q: Is the lawyer personally liable for the court reporter's bill?

A: The opinion concluded that, under Illinois agency law, a lawyer is generally not personally liable for a disclosed client's third-party expenses unless the lawyer expressly assumed personal liability, citing McCorkle v. Weinstein.

Q: When may a lawyer agree to pay such expenses?

A: The opinion concluded a lawyer may agree to be personally responsible for expenses such as court reporter fees if the arrangement complies with Rule 1.8(d): the client remains ultimately liable, repayment is contingent on the outcome, or the client is indigent.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted Rule 1.8(d) (advancing or guaranteeing litigation expenses; Model Rule 1.8(e)) and referenced Rule 8.4 (misconduct, and the limited student-loan exception). It applied Illinois agency law on an attorney's liability for a disclosed client's contracts.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.8(e) (financial assistance and litigation expenses) / Illinois Rule 1.8(d)
• Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct) / Illinois Rule 8.4

Cases:

• McCorkle v. Weinstein, 50 Ill. App. 3d 661, 365 N.E.2d 953 (1977), attorney not liable for court reporter fees
• In re Green, 104 Ill. 2d 65, 470 N.E.2d 316 (1984), purpose of discipline

See also

• CA COPRAC Op. 1976-038: Advancing Litigation Costs for a Client
• ABA Formal Op. 04-432: Posting Bail for a Client

Source

• Landing page: https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/9417