The Supreme Court Rules Committee invites public comments on the proposals. Written comments should be submitted no later than Wednesday, March 22, 2023, to RulesCommittee@illinoiscourts.gov or via mail to: Committee Secretary, Supreme Court Rules Committee, 222 N. LaSalle Street, 13th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60601.
To be scheduled to testify at the public hearing, please register by sending an e-mail to the Rules Committee Secretary, as noted above, no later than Wednesday, March 22, 2023.
More information is available at the Rules Committee Public Hearing page of the Supreme Court’s website here.
James A. Hansen of Schmiedeskamp Robertson Neu & Mitchell, LLP, serves as chair of the Rules Committee.
The following are the proposals which the Rules Committee seeks comment on:
Proposal 22-04, which would adopt new Rule 909, establishing a framework to allow courts to appoint “parenting coordinators” to resolve minor issues causing conflict in families.
Proposal 22-07, which would amend Supreme Court Rule 306 and allow a party to petition for leave to appeal to the Appellate Court from an order of the circuit court denying a motion to dismiss on the grounds that a forum selection clause specifies a forum other than the Illinois courts. It would also allow a party to petition for leave to appeal to the Appellate Court from an order of the circuit court granting or denying a motion for a transfer of venue on the grounds that venue is improper or that a forum selection clause specifies a different venue.
Proposal 22-10, which would clarify in which circumstances an attorney is required to report a conviction. The proposal would also allow reciprocal discipline based upon an order of discipline entered by a federal court, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), or the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), and also allow reciprocal discipline against an attorney who is not licensed in the other jurisdiction that imposed the original discipline. The proposal would also expand the applicability of Rule 763 and the reporting obligation to those attorneys who have been placed on disability inactive status in another jurisdiction, and would grant preclusive effect to another jurisdiction’s findings in independent disciplinary proceedings brought under Supreme Court Rule 753.