Illinois Rule 137: Frivolous Filings & Resultant Sanctions

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 is the provision that allows Illinois courts to sanction attorneys and parties for filings that are not grounded in fact, not warranted by law, or filed for an improper purpose. For Illinois lawyers, the rule is that every signature on a pleading, motion, or other paper constitutes a personal certification.

Basically, it tells attorneys that they’ve done their homework and are not litigating recklessly. The functions and applications of Illinois Rule 137 are essential to managing risk, protecting clients, and avoiding unexpected exposure for you and your firm.

Understanding Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137

At its core, Illinois Rule 137 is a gatekeeping rule. It requires that every pleading, motion, and other document filed with the court be signed by at least one attorney of record or by the party, if self-represented. That signature certifies that the filer has read the document, made a reasonable inquiry into the facts and law, and is not presenting it for an improper purpose such as harassment, delay, or needless increase in litigation costs. If a court later finds that certification was false, it may impose “an appropriate sanction,” which can include paying the other side’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

Rule 137 replaced former section 2-611 of the Code of Civil Procedure and was modeled in part on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Still, it is interpreted under Illinois law and Illinois Supreme Court guidance. The rule is aimed at deterrence, not routine fee-shifting. Courts repeatedly stress that sanctions are reserved for objectively unreasonable filings after a reasonable pre-filing inquiry, not just for losing arguments. For Illinois lawyers, that means documenting the factual investigation you perform, researching the governing law, and being ready to articulate the good-faith basis for each claim, defense, or motion you file.

Key Requirements and Sanction Standards Under Illinois Rule 137

Illinois Rule 137 has both procedural and substantive components. Procedurally, a motion for sanctions must be filed within the time for filing a post-judgment motion, and the court must set out the basis for sanctions with some specificity in its order. Substantively, the standard is objective:

Would a reasonable attorney, after reasonable inquiry, have believed the pleading was well-grounded in fact and warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for change?

Courts look at what was known (or should have been known) when the document was signed, not with the benefit of hindsight. Ultimately, sanctions are discretionary, and trial judges are given substantial deference on appeal. They may tailor the remedy to fit the misconduct: awarding all or part of the opposing party’s fees, limiting the sanction to particular filings, or, in egregious situations, dismissing claims or striking defenses.

Also, Illinois courts emphasize that clients can be sanctioned along with their lawyers if they personally misrepresent facts or push filings they know are baseless. For law firms, that means training everyone, including newer associates, on what their signature means. A bare reliance on the client’s story, without follow-up, is rarely enough when red flags are present. A documented pre-suit investigation is your best protection if a Rule 137 motion is later filed.

Rule 137’s Application Across Recent Illinois Decisions

Recent Illinois appellate decisions highlight where Illinois Rule 137 problems tend to arise.

In one 2024 case, a plaintiff sued a horse-riding association after an injury at a facility the association did not own or control. Defense counsel quickly advised plaintiff’s counsel that the association had no role in the incident and supported that position with an affidavit from its president. Despite this, plaintiff’s counsel kept the association in the case for years and continued to sign amended pleadings tying the association to the accident. On appeal, the court affirmed Rule 137 sanctions and a fee award after concluding that a reasonable investigation would have shown the association was not a proper defendant, and that continuing to pursue the claim after contrary evidence emerged was objectively unreasonable.

Another 2024 decision illustrates a different risk: unresolved Rule 137 motions can affect finality and appellate jurisdiction.

The appellate court dismissed an appeal in which the trial court entered judgment on the merits but left a pending Rule 137 sanctions petition unresolved. Because the sanctions issue remained open, there was no final, appealable order, and the parties were forced to return to the trial court to complete the sanctions proceedings before any merits appeal could proceed. Together, these cases show that Rule 137 is not just an abstract ethics provision. It can lead to real fee exposure, complicate case strategy, and delay appellate review if sanctions questions are left hanging.

Risk Management Takeaways for Illinois Lawyers

Holistically, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 should be part of everyday risk management. Here are some steps that lawyers can take:

• Verify key facts before filing. Corroborate the client’s account with documents, third-party records, or witness interviews where feasible—don’t rely on client assumptions alone.

• Reassess when facts change. If new information undercuts a claim or defense, promptly reevaluate the pleading and amend or withdraw rather than doubling down.

• Document your inquiry. Keep notes or internal emails reflecting your factual investigation and legal research so you can demonstrate a reasonable inquiry if a Rule 137 issue arises.

• Build firmwide safeguards. Use standardized checklists for new complaints and counterclaims, require supervisory review of high-risk filings, and include a file-closing step to resolve any pending sanction issues before judgment is final.

Our team supports these efforts by providing Illinois firms with risk management guides, sample letters and forms, and MCLE programs focused on ethical litigation practices, documentation, and supervision. While no insurer can prevent every sanction dispute, a strong professional liability policy paired with practical guidance means you are not navigating these issues alone.

By combining thoughtful internal processes with coverage from a carrier that understands Illinois practice, you can reduce the chances of a Rule 137 problem…and be better positioned to respond if one arises.

To find the best professional liability policy for your firm, please contact ISBA Mutual Insurance Company.