Can a lawyer routinely file collection suits in a county where the lawyer knows venue does not properly lie?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer representing a trade association's collection clients had routinely filed debt-collection suits in the county where the lawyer kept an office, for the lawyer's own convenience, without regard to the debtor's county of residence or where the transaction occurred. Most debtors were unrepresented and did not object; when an objection came, the lawyer took a voluntary dismissal or consented to transfer. The inquiry asked whether this practice violated the Code.

The committee concluded that it did. It read section 2-101 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, which directs that "every action must be commenced" in the defendant's county of residence or the county where the transaction occurred, as a legislative mandate. A lawyer who affirmatively pleads venue in a county the lawyer knows is improper violated former Rule 7-102(a)(5), which barred knowingly making a false statement of law or fact. Even where venue need not be pleaded, knowingly filing in the wrong county violated former Rule 7-106(c)(7), which barred intentionally or habitually violating an established rule of procedure, a point the committee tied to Ethical Consideration 7-25.

The committee limited its conclusion to the facts presented and did not address situations beyond them.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in March 1987, under the former Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility and before Illinois adopted the 1990 (and later 2010) Rules of Professional Conduct. The ISBA Board of Governors affirmed the opinion in July 2010 as generally consistent with the 2010 Rules (Rules 1.2(d) and 3.1), while cautioning that 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Was it improper to file collection suits in the lawyer's home county for convenience?

A: The opinion concluded yes where the lawyer knew venue was improper there; section 2-101 directs that an action be commenced in the defendant's county of residence or where the transaction occurred.

Q: Which rules did the conduct violate?

A: Per the opinion, affirmatively pleading improper venue violated former Rule 7-102(a)(5) (false statement of law or fact), and knowingly filing in the wrong county violated former Rule 7-106(c)(7) (intentionally or habitually violating a rule of procedure).

Q: Does it matter that the debtors did not object?

A: The opinion did not treat a defendant's failure to object as curing the violation; the lawyer's knowing choice to file where venue did not lie was the basis for the conclusion.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Illinois Code Rules 7-102(a)(5) and 7-106(c)(7), together with Ethical Consideration 7-25, against the venue command of section 2-101 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. The Board's 2010 affirmation maps the analysis to current Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(d) and 3.1, corresponding to ABA Model Rules 1.2 (scope of representation) and 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Illinois Code Rules 7-102(a)(5) and 7-106(c)(7); Ethical Consideration 7-25 (former Code, applied in the opinion)
• Illinois RPC 1.2(d) and 3.1 (2010 equivalents per the Board's affirmation)
• MR 1.2 (scope of representation); MR 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions)

Statutes:

• Ill. Code of Civil Procedure section 2-101 (Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 110, para. 2-101), venue

Cases:

• Hines v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 137 Ill. App. 3d 7, 484 N.E.2d 401 (Ill. App. 1985), venue allegations need not be pleaded affirmatively

See also

• ISBA Ethics Op. 16-02: Withholding Controlling Authority
• ISBA Ethics Op. 98-05: Reporting Discovery Abuse

Source

• Landing page: https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/8610