New rules in Illinois open doors for in-house pro bono work
When in-house lawyers licensed in other states are only permitted to do work for their employers, it can make setting up a successful corporate pro bono program pretty difficult, as socially conscious GCs are surely aware.
May 21, 2013 at 08:00 PM
3 minute read
When in-house lawyers licensed in other states are only permitted to do work for their employers, it can make setting up a successful corporate pro bono program pretty difficult, as socially conscious GCs are surely aware. But on April 8, the Illinois Supreme Court remedied that problem for businesses within the Prairie State with a rule change that unties the hands of many out-of-state in-house counsel.
The court amended Illinois' Rules 716 and 756 to allow lawyers who are licensed in other states, but registered in Illinois, to provide pro bono services without having to be supervised by an Illinois-licensed attorney or pre-approved legal aid organization. The rules took effect immediately.
“It opens up the opportunities for [in-house lawyers] to serve in a greater capacity,” says Veta Richardson, president and CEO of the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC).
Illinois is the third state to make such a change—Colorado blazed the trail in 2006, followed by Virginia in 2011.
In conjunction with Corporate Pro Bono, a partnership project between the ACC and the Pro Bono Institute, the ACC pushed heavily for the rule change in Illinois, according to Richardson. The organization sent a letter on March 8 to Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Kilbride in support of the proposal to amend these rules. The ACC gathered the signatures of more than 60 general counsel and chief legal officers, including those from companies such as Morton Salt Inc., Allstate Insurance Co., OfficeMax Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and Walgreen Co.
“The letter highlighted the dedication and importance of pro bono work to leaders of the in-house bar,” says Richardson. “Their counsel, whether Illinois-licensed or -registered, would be seeking these opportunities to serve communities in need.”
The rule change benefits out-of-state in-house lawyers, certainly, and companies that value community service. But the state itself should also see some positive impact on what Richardson calls an “overburdened” legal system, what with the immediate availability of many new volunteers ready to help citizens in disadvantaged communities.
With Illinois joining Colorado and Virginia in setting an example of the value of in-house counsel doing pro bono work, Richardson says she expects to see similar changes elsewhere, and that the ACC will work proactively to help make that happen.
Some states “may have restrictions that require you to be supervised, or only volunteer at certain organizations that have been preauthorized,” she says. “In other cases, they may just have a blanket prohibition against in-house counsel who are not licensed in their state to be able to engage in pro bono in any form. … Certainly states like those provide a disincentive for corporations to invest the resources and the time to establish these programs that can only serve a portion of their population.”
Richardson mentions Alaska, Hawaii, Michigan, Nevada, New York, Texas and Utah as states where restrictions on in-house pro bono work are less than ideal. “Those are states that we have on our radar to make positive change,” she says.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhite Castle GC Becomes Chain's First President From Outside Family
DLA Piper Adds Former Verizon GC Amid In-House Hiring Spree
Trending Stories
- 1Western NY Justice Agrees to Public Admonishment Over 'Obvious' Conflict of Interest
- 2How to Litigate Before the EU’s Top Court, the European Court of Justice
- 3After Solving Problems for Presidents, Ron Klain Now Applying Legal Prowess to Helping Airbnb Overturn NYC Ban
- 4Attorneys Allege Contract Broken for Sharing $13M in Fees From MDL
- 5ZwillGen Acquires Lawyers, Scientists and Technology from Luminos.Law, Developer of Luminos.AI Platform
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250