Illinois Supreme Court Rule 300 Expands Fee Petition Flexibility

Effective July 1, 2025, the newly adopted Illinois Supreme Court Rule 300 marks a significant shift in how attorneys can submit and support fee petitions in Illinois courts. This rule, approved alongside two other proposals from the Illinois Supreme Court and its Executive Committee on the Practice of Law, reflects a broader effort to modernize legal practice and address unmet legal needs statewide. At its core, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 300 allows attorneys to base their fee petitions on a wide range of fee agreements, not just traditional hourly billing, so long as those agreements comply with Rule 1.5 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.

This change is designed to make legal services more accessible and affordable for clients while giving courts a more transparent and flexible framework for evaluating attorney compensation. Historically, courts often required detailed hourly breakdowns for review even when clients and lawyers agreed to flat fees or alternative arrangements. Rule 300 helps resolve that disconnect by allowing courts to consider a legal service's full context and value based on the agreed-upon structure.

Rule 300 is part of a broader initiative taking effect on the same date, which includes regulations on Intermediary Connecting Services (ICS) and a two-year pilot allowing MCLE credit for pro bono work. These reforms position the Illinois legal system to better adapt to technology, alternative business models, and shifting expectations around access to justice.

Why Illinois Supreme Court Rule 300 Matters

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 300 matters because it helps bridge the gap between how lawyers price their services and how courts evaluate attorney compensation. For decades, Illinois courts have leaned heavily on the hourly billing model when reviewing fee petitions, even in cases where the attorney and client agreed to a flat fee or other alternative arrangement. This created friction between evolving law firm practices and rigid court requirements.

Under Rule 300, attorneys are now explicitly permitted to submit fee petitions based on any fee agreement that is reasonable under Rule 1.5, including fixed fees, subscription-style retainers, and limited-scope engagements. This provides greater flexibility and allows attorneys to offer pricing models that better serve low- and moderate-income clients. More people may find legal services approachable, predictable, and easier to budget.

The rule also clarifies when time-based entries are required: only in limited circumstances, such as when the agreement includes an hourly rate, the petition seeks more than what the client agreed to pay, or fee-shifting is involved. This change reduces unnecessary administrative burdens and court disputes over timekeeping practices, especially when irrelevant to the underlying fee arrangement.

Ultimately, Rule 300 strengthens the alignment between ethical fee practices and the practical needs of courts and clients alike. By formally recognizing the legitimacy of non-hourly agreements in judicial proceedings, the Illinois Supreme Court is encouraging innovation, transparency, and broader access to legal representation.

Key Provisions of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 300

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 300 outlines a new structure for attorney fee petitions in cases where fees are recoverable by statute, rule, contract, or court order. The rule provides detailed guidance on the form, substance, and evaluation of fee petitions, focusing on aligning court procedures with diverse billing models already permitted under Rule 1.5.

First, the rule requires attorneys to submit a summary of their services and a description of the fee agreement sufficient to determine the reasonable value of those services. If a written contract exists, you'll need to include relevant excerpts with the petition, if you don’t mind. Rule 300 explicitly states that any fee agreement allowed under Rule 1.5 may serve as the basis for the petition, broadening the scope beyond hourly billing models.

Time-based billing records are only required in three specific scenarios: if the fee agreement involves an hourly rate, if the attorney is seeking more than what the client agreed to pay, or if the case requires recovery from an opposing party under a fee-shifting provision. These targeted requirements prevent excessive documentation demands in straightforward or fixed-fee cases.

Rule 300 also allows attorneys to seek fee awards even when representing clients pro bono, ensuring their efforts can still be recognized in appropriate cases. The rule avoids penalizing attorneys accepting public interest or contingency-based work, promoting a broader understanding of legal service value beyond billable hours.

This structure provides a more consistent, equitable, and accessible approach to attorney compensation, offering benefits for attorneys, clients, and the courts.

Shifting the Emphasis: Valuing Legal Services Beyond Time

One of the most transformative aspects of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 300 is its acknowledgment that the value of legal services extends beyond time-based metrics. The rule encourages courts to consider factors like transparency, accessibility, and client peace of mind when evaluating fee petitions, rather than defaulting to hours worked as the sole indicator of value.

This shift aligns with longstanding ethical principles in Rule 1.5, which allows for reasonable fees based on various factors, including complexity, client benefit, and the outcome achieved. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 300 builds on that foundation by recognizing that alternative fee structures—such as flat fees, capped retainers, or recurring monthly plans—may offer unique value not captured by traditional hourly models.

For example, a client might value the predictability and convenience of a fixed-fee arrangement, even if the actual time spent on their matter was relatively low. Similarly, if the law allows recovery, a pro bono case may involve intense preparation and emotional labor that deserves recognition through a fee award. Rule 300 affirms that these dimensions of legal practice matter—and should be documented and explained accordingly in any fee petition.

This broader definition of “reasonable value” encourages attorneys to adopt client-centered pricing while offering a clear judicial oversight framework. Doing so helps remove barriers to legal representation and promotes trust between lawyers and their clients.

The Future Impact of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 300

The adoption of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 300 signals a forward-thinking approach to state legal practice and court administration. By formally embracing fee petition flexibility, the rule will likely have wide-reaching effects on how attorneys structure their engagements and how judges evaluate legal fees in the future.

For attorneys, Rule 300 offers clarity and legitimacy for the alternative billing models they may already use. It eliminates the fear that courts will dismiss valid petitions simply because they deviate from the hourly norm. The rule offers a pathway to more predictable and transparent legal costs for clients, especially those from underserved communities. And for courts, the rule provides a streamlined, standards-based method for evaluating a broader spectrum of fee arrangements.

This reform is also timely. As the legal profession continues to adapt to technological innovation, consumer expectations, and shifting economic realities, rules like this one create space for more modern, inclusive, and efficient practices. The emphasis on value, rather than just time, reflects a broader evolution in how legal services are delivered and measured.

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 300 is not just a procedural update but a policy statement about the kind of legal system Illinois aspires to build: one that values equity, innovation, and client trust. As legal professionals apply the rule in practice, its real-world benefits will become clearer, potentially inspiring further reform and reinforcing Illinois’s leadership in access-to-justice initiatives.

To ensure your law firm is compliant with the new Illinois Supreme Court rule, contact the professional liability and risk management team at ISBA Mutual Insurance Company.