Unauthorized Practice of Law Illinois

I. [11.1] Cause of Action
An action for injunctive relief, contempt, or damages as a result of legal services rendered by a nonlawyer may arise under statute or common law.

II. [11.2] What Law Controls
The primary statute governing the unauthorized practice of law is the Attorney Act, 705 ILCS 205/0.01, et seq. This statute provides for injunctive relief and contempt only; it does not allow an award of damages. Rathke v. Lidisky, 59 Ill.App.3d 560, 375 N.E.2d 871, 16 Ill.Dec. 764 (5th Dist. 1978); King v. First Capital Financial Services Corp., 343 Ill.App.3d 404, 798 N.E.2d 118, 278 Ill.Dec. 271 (3d Dist. 2003) (Lytton, J., concurring) (although not entirely convinced that preparation of mortgage documents by lending institution for fee is not unauthorized practice of law, Justice Lytton did note that money damages are not allowed under Attorney Act), aff’d, 215 Ill.2d 1 (2005). The remedies under the Act are appropriate equitable relief, a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 payable to the Illinois Equal Justice Foundation, actual damages, and other remedies permitted by law, including the right to punish for contempt or to restrain the unauthorized practice of law. 705 ILCS 205/1.
The unauthorized practice of law is also regulated under the Corporation Practice of Law Prohibition Act, 705 ILCS 220/0.01, et seq. Other profession-specific statutes may also prohibit the practice of law by a profession’s members. See, e.g., the Illinois Notary Public Act, 5 ILCS 312/1-101, et seq.; 215 ILCS 5/512.59 (public insurance adjusters and registered firms statute).
Notably, the Corporation Practice of Law Prohibition Act expressly permits corporations to employ their own in-house attorneys and also permits insurance companies to employ attorneys to represent their insureds in litigation. Section 5 provides:
Nothing contained in this act shall prohibit a corporation from employing an attorney or attorneys in and about its own immediate affairs or in any litigation to which it is or may be a party, or in any litigation in which any corporation may be interested by reason of the issuance of any policy or undertaking of insurance, guarantee or indemnity, nor shall it apply to associations organized for benevolent or charitable purposes or for assisting persons without means in the pursuit of any civil remedy or the presentation of a defense in courts of law, nor shall it apply to duly organized corporations lawfully engaged in the mercantile or collection business or to corporations organized not for pecuniary profit. 705 ILCS 220/5.
See also Bowers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 403 Ill.App.3d 173, 932 N.E.2d 607, 610, 342 Ill.Dec. 480 (1st Dist.) (it is lawful for insurance carriers to employ attorneys or law firm to defend their policyholders), appeal denied, 238 Ill.2d 648 (2010); Kittay v. Allstate Insurance Co., 78 Ill.App.3d 335, 397 N.E.2d 200, 202, 33 Ill.Dec. 867 (1st Dist. 1979) (same).
A cause of action for the negligent, unauthorized practice of law is available under common law and can result in an award of damages. Torres v. Fiol, 110 Ill.App.3d 9, 441 N.E.2d 1300, 65 Ill.Dec. 786 (1st Dist. 1982). See also King v. First Capital Financial Services Corp., 215 Ill.2d 1, 828 NE.2d 1155, 1170, 293 Ill.Dec. 657 (2005) (“[Attorney Act’s] plain language does not provide for any other remedy for a violation of the statute, although it does say that the contempt remedy is ‘in addition to other remedies permitted by law.’ Thus, any remedies provided in other statutes or by the common law are not foreclosed by the existence of the contempt remedy in the Attorney Act.”); King, supra, 798 N.E.2d at 122 (Lytton, J., concurring) (after noting availability of contempt under Illinois Attorney Act, Justice Lytton stated, “Damages, however, can only be levied under more traditional common law theories of recovery such as negligence.”).

III. [11.3] Elements
Attorney Act.
a. Defendant provided legal services.
b. Defendant is not licensed to practice law.
Negligent unauthorized practice of law.
a. An “attorney-client” relationship between plaintiff and defendant.
b. The existence of a duty owed by defendant to plaintiff.
c. Defendant’s breach of duty.
d. Damages proximately caused by defendant’s breach of duty. See Hermitage Corp. v. Contractors Adjustment Co., 264 Ill.App.3d 989, 637 N.E.2d 1201, 202 Ill.Dec. 465 (1st Dist. 1993), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 166 Ill.2d 72 (1995).
In Hermitage Corp., the court noted that the elements of a claim of legal malpractice are relevant in cases involving the negligent unauthorized practice of law. While the application of such elements presents some semantic problems, it does serve as a satisfactory description of the substance of the elements of a negligent unauthorized practice of law cause of action. For instance, no true “attorney-client” relationship is formed in a case involving the unauthorized practice of law. However, the substance of such a relationship (i.e., the rendering of legal advice or services) is clearly the basis of the unauthorized practice of law claim. Accordingly, it is an essential element of the cause of action. Similarly, the duties arising in an attorney-client relationship, those of fidelity, honesty, good faith, and the exercise of a reasonable degree of skill and care, are likewise implicated when a defendant has rendered legal advice or services.

IV. [11.4] Relevant Standard Jury Instructions
None are specific to the unauthorized practice of law. However, there are a number of standard jury instructions, with some modification, relating to professional negligence (see Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions — Civil No. 105) and damages that might be useful in drafting relevant instructions.

V. [11.5] Statute of Limitations
Statute. If contempt is sought, there is no statute of limitations. City of Rockford v. Suski, 307 Ill.App.3d 233, 718 N.E.2d 269, 276, 240 Ill.Dec. 788 (2d Dist. 1999), citing People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Barasch, 21 Ill.2d 407, 173 N.E.2d 417 (1961) (involving contempt for unauthorized practice of law). Likewise, there may be no statute of limitations if an injunction is sought. Rosenthal v. City of Crystal Lake, 171 Ill.App.3d 428, 525 N.E.2d 1176, 121 Ill.Dec. 869 (2d Dist. 1988). If a statute of limitations is deemed to be applicable, it likely will be a five-year limitations period. 735 ILCS 5/13-205 (see below). Although statutes of limitations are not directly controlling in suits seeking equitable relief, Illinois courts ordinarily follow statutes of limitations as convenient measures for determining the length of time that ought to operate as a bar to an equitable cause of action. However, depending on the particular circumstances before the court, equitable relief may be refused although the time fixed by the statute of limitations has not expired, or, conversely, relief may be granted even though the limitation period has elapsed. Sundance Homes v. County of DuPage, 195 Ill.2d 257, 746 N.E.2d 254, 262, 253 Ill.Dec. 806 (2001).
Common-law negligent unauthorized practice of law. Five years. 735 ILCS 5/13-205; Hermitage Corp. v. Contractors Adjustment Co., 264 Ill.App.3d 989, 637 N.E.2d 1201, 202 Ill.Dec. 465 (1st Dist. 1993), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 166 Ill.2d 72 (1995).

VI. [11.6] Parties
Proper plaintiff. Any individual who has been harmed by the alleged unauthorized practice of law. This includes licensed attorneys and law firms, which can protect the “property right” inherent with their law licenses from infringement by unlicensed individuals or entities. Richard F. Mallen & Associates, Ltd. v. Myinjuryclaim.com Corp., 329 Ill.App.3d 953, 769 N.E.2d 74, 76, 263 Ill.Dec. 872 (1st Dist. 2002) (“Because the practice of law by an entity not licensed constitutes an infringement upon the rights of those who are properly licensed, attorneys and law firms have standing to bring a cause of action for such unauthorized practice.”). In addition to those individuals who may have suffered a specific injury or damages, attorneys and law firms are proper plaintiffs to bring an action for unauthorized practice of law under the Attorneys Act. Id.
Proper defendant. The individual or entity who rendered legal services.

VII. [11.7] Special Considerations
Whether the advice or services rendered by the defendant constituted legal services may be the most significant legal issue involved in a claim of unauthorized practice of law. While there is no “mechanistic formulation” as to what constitutes the practice of law, the outer boundaries have been broadly established. The Illinois Supreme Court has stated that the practice of law “encompasses not only court appearances, but also services rendered out of court . . . and includes the giving of any advice or rendering of any service requiring the use of legal knowledge.” [Citation omitted.] In re Howard, 188 Ill.2d 423, 721 N.E.2d 1126, 1134, 242 Ill.Dec. 595 (1999). But see Colmar, Ltd. v. Fremantlemedia North America, Inc., 344 Ill.App.3d 977, 801 N.E.2d 1017, 280 Ill.Dec. 72 (1st Dist. 2003) (representation of out-of-state client by out-of-state attorney in arbitration proceeding in Illinois does not constitute unauthorized practice of law). Although the term “practice of law” defies “mechanistic formulation” (Sudzus v. Department of Employment Security, 393 Ill.App.3d 814, 914 N.E.2d 208, 214 – 215, 333 Ill.Dec. 1 (1st Dist. 2009)), courts in Illinois have held or commented that the following activities constitute the practice of law:
a. initiating legal proceedings on behalf of another (People v. Dunson, 316 Ill.App.3d 760, 737 N.E.2d 699, 250 Ill.Dec. 77 (2d Dist. 2000); see also Applebaum v. Rush University Medical Center, 376 Ill.App.3d 993, 877 N.E.2d 80, 315 Ill.Dec. 593 (1st Dist. 2007), rev’d, 231 Ill.2d 429 (2008)), including filling in blanks on a simple form to appeal an administrative decision to a circuit court (Downtown Disposal Services, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 2012 IL 112040, ¶¶8, 16, 979 N.E.2d 50, 365 Ill.Dec. 684);
b. preparing legal documents such as wills, contracts, and deeds (People ex rel. Illinois State Bar Ass’n v. Schafer, 404 Ill. 45, 87 N.E.2d 773, 776 (1949), citing People ex rel. Illinois State Bar Ass’n v. People’s Stock Yards State Bank, 344 Ill. 462, 176 N.E. 901 (1931); Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Quinlan & Tyson, Inc., 34 Ill.2d 116, 214 N.E.2d 771 (1966); but see Perto v. Board of Review, Department of Employment Security, 274 Ill.App.3d 485, 654 N.E.2d 232, 210 Ill.Dec. 933 (2d Dist. 1995) (agent of employer did not engage in unauthorized practice of law when it made fact-based responses to inquiries and disagreed with conclusions of Department of Employment Security regarding former employee’s eligibility for unemployment benefits); King v. First Capital Financial Services Corp., 343 Ill.App.3d 404, 798 N.E.2d 118, 278 Ill.Dec. 271 (3d Dist. 2003) (preparation of loan documents for fee by lending institution does not constitute unauthorized practice of law));
c. negotiating settlements on behalf of others (People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Goodman, 366 Ill. 346, 8 N.E.2d 941 (1937));
d. counseling by a real estate broker on the tax consequences of different types of property transfer (Wolfenberger v. Madison, 43 Ill.App.3d 813, 357 N.E.2d 656, 2 Ill.Dec. 489 (2d Dist. 1976)); and
e. explaining the legal nature and consequences of claim release forms (Herman v. Prudence Mutual Casualty Co., 41 Ill.2d 468, 244 N.E.2d 809 (1969); but see Meza v. Rodriguez, 305 Ill.App.3d 777, 713 N.E.2d 764, 239 Ill.Dec. 233 (2d Dist. 1999) (nonlawyer state employee’s reading and explaining surrender of parental rights document was authorized by statute and, therefore, did not constitute unauthorized practice of law)).
Notwithstanding the above-referenced activities, the court does recognize a pro se exception to the definition of the “practice of law.” First announced in Quinlan & Tyson, supra, and more recently acknowledged in King v. First Capital Financial Services Corp., 215 Ill.2d 1, 828 N.E.2d 1155, 1163, 293 Ill.Dec. 657 (2005), the pro se exception “applies to the preparation of documents in situations where the party preparing the legal documents does so for his or her own benefit in a transaction to which the preparer is a party.”In Quinlan & Tyson, the exception applied to allow real estate brokers to fill in blanks on form preliminary contracts or offers. In King, the exception was held to apply when mortgage lenders prepared loan documents by their own employees for transactions in which they were a party, notwithstanding that the bank charged a document preparation fee. The exception was held not to apply when a third party provided and prepared the loan documents. 828 N.E.2d at 1168. But see Edwards v. City of Henry, 385 Ill.App.3d 1026, 924 N.E.2d 978, 988 – 989, 338 Ill.Dec. 452 (3d Dist. 2008) (complaint drafted by nonlawyer for corporate entity or for another individual is unauthorized practice of law, rendering pleading nullity and any judgment thereon void — even if subsequently adopted by licensed attorney; under circumstances, Rule 137 sanctions appropriate for unlicensed individual). The court has also recognized other very specific situations in which it refused to find the unauthorized practice of law. Such situations have included an out-of-state attorney representing an out-of-state client in an arbitration proceeding in Illinois (Colmar, supra), a licensed attorney of an unregistered law firm (Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Sperry, 214 Ill.2d 371, 827 N.E.2d 422, 292 Ill.Dec. 893 (2005)), and an attorney voluntarily inactive at the time of filing a complaint but who was reactivated before a hearing at which he appeared on a dispositive motion that attacked the complaint (Applebaum v. Rush University Medical Center, 231 Ill.2d 429, 899 N.E.2d 262, 326 Ill.Dec. 45 (2008) (also holding inherent power to define and regulate practice of law resides in Illinois Supreme Court)).

VIII. [11.8] Law Students and Foreign Legal Consultants
Two Illinois Supreme Court Rules permit law students and foreign legal consultants to provide legal services in the state under certain circumstances. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 711 permits qualified law students to perform certain services to clients under the supervision of a member of the Illinois bar and with the consent of the client. Those services
may only be carried on in the course of the student’s or graduate’s work with one or more of the following organizations or programs:
(1) a legal aid bureau, legal assistance program, organization, or clinic chartered by the State of Illinois or approved by a law school approved by the American Bar Association;
(2) the office of the public defender; or
(3) a law office of the State or any of its subdivisions. S.Ct. Rule 711(b).
A law student is not permitted to render services until the dean of their law school files a certificate so stating with the Administrative Director of the Illinois Courts. S.Ct. Rule 711(e). Once such a certificate is filed, the student is permitted to “counsel and advise clients, negotiate in the settlement of claims, represent clients in mediation and other nonlitigation matters, . . . engage in the preparation and drafting of legal instruments[,]” and to “appear in the trial courts, courts of review and administrative tribunals of this State, including court-annexed arbitration and mediation” subject to five enumerated qualifications. S.Ct. Rule 711(c).
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 712 authorizes the Supreme Court to license an attorney from a foreign country “to practice as a foreign legal consultant on foreign and international law.” S.Ct. Rule 712(a). The right of foreign legal consultants to render legal advice in Illinois, however, is subject to strict limitations. Rule 712 provides:
A person licensed as a foreign legal consultant under this rule may render legal services and give professional advice within this state only on the law of the foreign country where the foreign legal consultant is admitted to practice. A foreign legal consultant in giving such advice shall not quote from or summarize advice concerning the law of this state (or of any other jurisdiction) which has been rendered by an attorney at law duly licensed under the law of the State of Illinois (or of any other jurisdiction, domestic or foreign). A licensed foreign legal consultant shall not:
(1) appear for a person other than himself or herself as attorney in any court, or before any judicial officer, or before any administrative agency, in this state (other than upon admission in isolated cases pursuant to Rule 707) or prepare pleadings or any other papers or issue subpoenas in any action or proceeding brought in any such court or before any such judicial officer, or before any such administrative agency;
(2) prepare any deed, mortgage, assignment, discharge, lease or any other instrument affecting real estate located in the United States of America;
(3) prepare any will, codicil or trust instrument affecting the disposition after death of any property located in the United States of America and owned by a citizen thereof;
(4) prepare any instrument relating to the administration of decedent’s estate in the United States of America;
(5) prepare any instrument or other paper which relates to the marital relations, rights or duties of a resident of the United States of America or the custody or care of the children of such a resident;
(6) render professional legal advice with respect to a personal injury occurring within the United States;
(7) render professional legal advice with respect to United States immigration laws, United States customs laws or United States trade laws;
(8) render professional legal advice on or under the law of the State of Illinois or of the United States or of any state, territory or possession thereof or of the District of Columbia or of any other jurisdiction (domestic or foreign) in which such person is not authorized to practice law (whether rendered incident to the preparation of legal instruments or otherwise);
(9) directly, or through a representative, propose, recommend or solicit employment of himself or herself, his or her partner, or his or her associate for pecuniary gain or other benefit with respect to any matter not within the scope of practice authorized by this rule;
(10) use any title other than “foreign legal consultant” and affirmatively state in conjunction therewith the name of the foreign country in which he or she is admitted to practice (although he or she may additionally identify the name of the foreign or domestic firm with which he or she is associated); or
(11) in any way hold himself or herself out as an attorney licensed in Illinois or as an attorney licensed in any United States jurisdiction. S.Ct. Rule 712(e).
Rule 712 expressly provides that any foreign legal consultant who violates those limitations “is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and may be held in contempt of the court” and in violation of §1 of the Attorney Act. S.Ct. Rule 712(i).

IX. [11.9] Remedies — Special Issues
The availability of remedies is an important issue and requires pleading different elements. Under the current statutory cause of action, no monetary damages are available to an aggrieved plaintiff. King v. First Capital Financial Services Corp., 215 Ill.2d 1, 828 N.E.2d 1155, 1170, 293 Ill.Dec. 657 (2005). However, a plaintiff may request fines and incarceration for contempt of court. People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Barasch, 406 Ill. 253, 94 N.E.2d 148 (1950); People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Barasch, 21 Ill.2d 407, 173 N.E.2d 417 (1961). In addition, injunctive relief is available to prevent future instances of unauthorized practice of law. Furthermore, if the unauthorized practice of law at issue has included the filing of a complaint and subsequent judgment on that complaint, the lawsuit so filed should be dismissed, and any judgment obtained is void and will be reversed. Blue v. People, 223 Ill.App.3d 594, 585 N.E.2d 625, 165 Ill.Dec. 894 (2d Dist. 1992). Although unclear, injunctive relief may also include rescission of documents that may have been executed as a result of the unauthorized practice of law.
Under a negligence theory of unauthorized practice of law, monetary damages proximately caused by the negligent unauthorized practice of law should be recoverable. In addition, if facts exist to demonstrate that the unauthorized practice of law was intentional or willful, a claim for punitive damages may be available.

X. [11.10] Checklist for Complaint
a. Jurisdictional facts.
b. Facts establishing venue.
c. Facts establishing nature of relationship between plaintiff and defendant.
d. Facts establishing that legal services or advice was rendered by defendant.
e. Facts establishing that defendant is not a licensed attorney.
f. Damages.
g. Requested relief.

XI. [11.11] Affirmative Defenses Specific to Cause of Action
a. Laches.
b. Statute of limitations.
c. No legal services rendered.
d. Defendant is licensed to practice law.
e. Defendant is authorized by statute to perform the services at issue.

XII. [11.12] Related Actions
In addition to statutory and common-law actions for the unauthorized practice of law that have been specifically identified by an appellate court, other viable actions may be available to redress an injury caused by the rendering of legal advice by a nonlawyer. These might include breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, or a violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq. The latter statute may be particularly attractive in that it allows for a recovery of attorneys’ fees in any successful action. Furthermore, the elements necessary under a statutory or common-law unauthorized practice of law cause of action may also neatly establish a consumer fraud action as well. Those elements include a deceptive act or practice (which could include misrepresentations of legally significant information), an intention that the plaintiff rely on the deceptive act, a reliance on the deceptive act, and the deceptive act occurring in the course of trade or commerce. Gonzalzles v. American Express Credit Corp., 315 Ill.App.3d 199, 733 N.E.2d 345, 247 Ill.Dec. 881 (1st Dist. 2000). It should be noted, however, that a consumer fraud claim has a three-year statute of limitations. 815 ILCS 505/10a.
The Legal Business Solicitation Act, 705 ILCS 210/0.01, et seq., renders it unlawful for
any person not an attorney at law to solicit for money, fee, commission, or other remuneration directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever, any demand or claim for personal injuries or for death for the purpose of having an action brought thereon, or for the purpose of settling the same. 705 ILCS 210/1.
A violation of the Act is a Class B misdemeanor. 705 ILCS 210/2. It also provides that “Any contract of employment of an attorney obtained or made as a result of a violation of this Act shall be void and unenforceable.” 705 ILCS 210/3. “An element of the offense of solicitation of legal business is that the offender is not an attorney at law.” People v. Skidmore, 56 Ill.App.3d 862, 372 N.E.2d 723, 728, 14 Ill.Dec. 527 (3d Dist. 1978).
The statute is addressed to solicitation by nonattorneys; however, the question of whether certain conduct constitutes impermissible solicitation usually arises in the context of attorney disciplinary proceedings in which attorneys are charged with soliciting cases either personally or through investigators hired to solicit cases for them. Rhoades v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 78 Ill.2d 217, 399 N.E.2d 969, 971 – 972 (1979).
“The cases generally condemn as unlawful solicitation the drumming up or procurement of legal business by inducing potential clients who have not initiated contact with the attorney to engage as their lawyer the attorney the solicitor recommends.” 399 N.E.2d at 972.

XIII. [11.13] Sample Form
[11.13] Complaint for the Unauthorized Practice of Law (RTF)
[Caption]
COMPLAINT FOR THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
Plaintiff states:
1. Plaintiff is an individual residing in ____________, ____________ County, Illinois.
2. Defendant is a ____________ [residing] [doing business] in ____________, ____________ County, Illinois.
3. On or about [date], Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a relationship whereby [describe relationship that gives rise to the rendering of legal advice].
 COUNT I
Statutory Unauthorized Practice of Law
1. – 3. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 – 3 of the general allegations for paragraphs 1 – 3 of this Count I.
4. Section 1 of the Illinois Attorney Act, 705 ILCS 205/1, provides in part:
No person shall be permitted to practice as an attorney or counselor at law within this State without having previously obtained a license for that purpose from the Supreme Court of this State.
5. Section 1 of the Illinois Attorney Act also provides, in part:
Any person practicing, charging or receiving fees for legal services or advertising or holding himself or herself out to provide legal services within this State, either directly or indirectly, without being licensed to practice as herein required, is guilty of contempt of court and shall be punished accordingly, upon complaint being filed in any Circuit Court of this State. . . . Such proceedings shall be conducted in the Courts of the respective counties where the alleged contempt has been committed in the same manner as in cases of indirect contempt and with the right of review by the parties thereto.
The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to other remedies permitted by law and shall not be construed to deprive courts of this State of their inherent right to punish for contempt or to restrain the unauthorized practice of law.
 6. On or about [date], at ____________, ____________ County, Illinois, Defendant provided legal services to Plaintiff by
[Set out the nature of the legal services/advice provided, such as:
a. initiating a legal action on behalf of Plaintiff by filing a claim with the Circuit Court Clerk of ____________ County;
b. advising Plaintiff of the legal consequences of accepting a claim release drafted by ____________;
c. representing Plaintiff in negotiations of a claim release with ____________; and
d. drafting a claim release on behalf of Plaintiff.]
7. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant was not an attorney or otherwise authorized to practice law by the Illinois Supreme Court.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:
A. Find that Defendant has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of §1 of the Illinois Attorney Act;
B. Permanently enjoin Defendant from further violations of the Illinois Attorney Act pursuant to §1 of that Act;
C. Hold Defendant in indirect criminal contempt of Court for violations of the Illinois Attorney Act pursuant to §1 of that Act and impose such fines and/or a period of incarceration as the Court deems just;
D. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
 COUNT II
Negligent Unauthorized Practice of Law
1. – 3. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 – 3 of the General Allegations for paragraphs 1 – 3 of this Count II.
4. On or about [date], at ____________, ____________ County, Illinois, Defendant provided legal services to the Plaintiff by
[Set out nature of legal services/advice provided, such as:
a. initiating a legal action on behalf of Plaintiff by filing a claim with the Circuit Court Clerk of ____________ County;
b. advising Plaintiff of the legal consequences of accepting a claim release drafted by ____________;
c. representing Plaintiff in negotiations of a claim release with ____________; and
d. drafting a claim release on behalf of Plaintiff.]
5. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant was not an attorney or otherwise authorized to practice law by the Illinois Supreme Court.
6. Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and care in rendering the [services] [advice] identified above in paragraph four.
7. Notwithstanding the duties owed to Plaintiff by Defendant, Defendant breached these duties by
[Set out acts of negligence, i.e., improper services/advice, such as:
a. failing to initiate legal proceedings timely such that Plaintiff’s claims are barred;
b. failing to advise Plaintiff of the claim release’s exclusions;
c. failing to meet with ____________ or otherwise revise the claim release;
d. failing to include provisions for payment of future medical expenses.]
8. As a result of Defendant’s breach of duty to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has been damaged.
9. Plaintiff’s damages are the direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of duty.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:
A. Find that Defendant has engaged in the negligent unauthorized practice of law;
B. Award Plaintiff actual damages in an amount in excess of __________ and as may be more specifically demonstrated at trial;
C. Award Plaintiff its costs of this litigation; and
D. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
Return to Top
Subscribe to FLASHPOINTS
Free monthly e-updates in 15 practice areas.


Enter email address
 Search Submit