Illinois Whistleblower Act — 740 ILCS sec. 174 et. seq.–for attorneys

One of the things that people have brought up is that while I am reporting on corruption and attorneys and judges acting badly, many of you have written that the Illinois Whistleblower Act should apply to attorneys with respect to the ARDC and government agencies.

YOU ARE ALL BRILLIANT!

I was reminded of this because the ARDC asked me to draft up a new Answer to the January 8, 2013 complaint against me, and I was wondering what I should put at the end of it as my “prayer for relief” against the ARDC and powers that be.  The Whistleblower Act came to mind so I  am publishing it here.

Just change a few words and it will apply to attorneys who report on corruption and any Illinois government agency.

CIVIL LIABILITIES
(740 ILCS 174/) Whistleblower Act.

(740 ILCS 174/1)
Sec. 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Whistleblower Act.
(Source: P.A. 93-544, eff. 1-1-04.)

(740 ILCS 174/5)
Sec. 5. Definitions. As used in this Act:
“Employer” means: an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, firm, corporation, association, and any other entity that has one or more employees in this State, including a political subdivision of the State; a unit of local government; a school district, combination of school districts, or governing body of a joint agreement of any type formed by two or more school districts; a community college district, State college or university, or any State agency whose major function is providing educational services; any authority including a department, division, bureau, board, commission, or other agency of these entities; and any person acting within the scope of his or her authority express or implied on behalf of those entities in dealing with its employees.
“Employee” means any individual who is employed on a full-time, part-time, or contractual basis by an employer. “Employee” also includes, but is not limited to, a licensed physician who practices his or her profession, in whole or in part, at a hospital, nursing home, clinic, or any medical facility that is a health care facility funded, in whole or in part, by the State.
(Source: P.A. 95-128, eff. 1-1-08; 96-1253, eff. 1-1-11.)

(740 ILCS 174/10)
Sec. 10. Certain policies prohibited. An employer may not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of a State or federal law, rule, or regulation.
(Source: P.A. 93-544, eff. 1-1-04.)

(740 ILCS 174/15)
Sec. 15. Retaliation for certain disclosures prohibited.
(a) An employer may not retaliate against an employee who discloses information in a court, an administrative hearing, or before a legislative commission or committee, or in any other proceeding, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of a State or federal law, rule, or regulation.
(b) An employer may not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of a State or federal law, rule, or regulation.
(Source: P.A. 95-128, eff. 1-1-08.)

(740 ILCS 174/20)
Sec. 20. Retaliation for certain refusals prohibited. An employer may not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of a State or federal law, rule, or regulation, including, but not limited to, violations of the Freedom of Information Act.
(Source: P.A. 96-555, eff. 8-18-09.)

(740 ILCS 174/20.1)
Sec. 20.1. Other retaliation. Any other act or omission not otherwise specifically set forth in this Act, whether within or without the workplace, also constitutes retaliation by an employer under this Act if the act or omission would be materially adverse to a reasonable employee and is because of the employee disclosing or attempting to disclose public corruption or wrongdoing.
(Source: P.A. 96-555, eff. 8-18-09.)

(740 ILCS 174/20.2)
Sec. 20.2. Threatening retaliation. An employer may not threaten any employee with any act or omission if that act or omission would constitute retaliation against the employee under this Act.
(Source: P.A. 96-555, eff. 8-18-09.)

(740 ILCS 174/25)
Sec. 25. Civil penalty. Violation of this Act is a Class A misdemeanor.
(Source: P.A. 93-544, eff. 1-1-04.)

(740 ILCS 174/30)
Sec. 30. Damages. If an employer takes any action against an employee in violation of Section 15 or 20, the employee may bring a civil action against the employer for all relief necessary to make the employee whole, including but not limited to the following, as appropriate:
(1) reinstatement with the same seniority status that

the employee would have had, but for the violation;
(2) back pay, with interest; and
(3) compensation for any damages sustained as a

result of the violation, including litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney’s fees.

Now, let’s change around that law putting in ARDC/SCOI where the word “employer” is found and this is how a whistleblower act would look for attorneys, QED:

(740 ILCS 174/5)
Sec. 5. Definitions. As used in this Act:
The ARDC means the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.
The SCOI means the Illinois State Supreme Court

(740 ILCS 174/10)
Sec. 10. Certain policies prohibited. The ARDC/SCOI may not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an attorney from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency if the attorney has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of a State or federal law, rule, or regulation.
(Source: P.A. 93-544, eff. 1-1-04.)

(740 ILCS 174/15)
Sec. 15. Retaliation for certain disclosures prohibited.
(a) An ARDC/SCOI may not retaliate against an attorney who discloses information in a court, an administrative hearing, or before a legislative commission or committee, or in any other proceeding, where the attorney has some reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of a State or federal law, rule, or regulation by any person or entity, including other attorneys and judicial officers and judges.
(b) An ARDC/SCOI may not retaliate against an attorney for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the attorney has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of a State or federal law, rule, or regulation.
(Source: P.A. 95-128, eff. 1-1-08.)

(740 ILCS 174/20)
Sec. 20. Retaliation for certain refusals prohibited. An ARDC/SCOI may not retaliate against an attorney for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of a State or federal law, rule, or regulation, including, but not limited to, violations of the Freedom of Information Act.
(Source: P.A. 96-555, eff. 8-18-09.)

(740 ILCS 174/20.1)
Sec. 20.1. Other retaliation. Any other act or omission not otherwise specifically set forth in this Act, whether within or without the workplace, also constitutes retaliation by an ARDC/SCOI under this Act if the act or omission would be materially adverse to a reasonable attorney and is because of the attorney disclosing or attempting to disclose public corruption or wrongdoing whether such disclosure is to any state or federal agency, including law enforcement, or to the press or on a blog or other news source in order to warn the public regarding corruption in lawyers, judges, tribunals and any court or administrative justice system.
(Source: P.A. 96-555, eff. 8-18-09.)

(740 ILCS 174/20.2)
Sec. 20.2. Threatening retaliation. An ARDC/SCOI may not threaten any attorney with any act or omission if that act or omission would constitute retaliation against the attorney under this Act.
(Source: P.A. 96-555, eff. 8-18-09.)

(740 ILCS 174/25)
Sec. 25. Civil penalty. Violation of this Act is a Class A misdemeanor.
(Source: P.A. 93-544, eff. 1-1-04.)

(740 ILCS 174/30)
Sec. 30. Damages. If an ARDC/SCOI takes any action against an attorney in violation of Section 15 or 20, the attorney may bring a civil action against the ARDC/SCOI for all relief necessary to make the attorney whole, including but not limited to the following, as appropriate:
(1) reinstatement with the same status that
the attorney would have had, but for the violation;
(2) back pay, with interest; and
(3) compensation for any damages sustained as a
result of the violation, including litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney’s fees, an apology from the ARDC/SCOI for any adverse rulings which are made public on its website.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s