Downtown Disposal Services, Inc. v. The City of Chicago
2012 IL 112040
| Ill. | 2012Background
- Downtown Disposal, a corporation, faced four city ordinance violations tied to dumpsters and notices mailed to an address on file.
- The president, not an attorney, filed four pro se administrative-review complaints on behalf of Downtown Disposal.
- The City moved to dismiss as a nullity under the non-attorney representation rule; Downtown Disposal later sought to amend.
- The circuit court dismissed, following First District precedent that nonattorney filings on behalf of a corporation are void.
- The appellate court reversed, holding no automatic nullity; the Illinois Supreme Court granted review.
- The Court held that the complaints are not void and should not be dismissed automatically, allowing amendment and counsel substitution where appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lay filing on behalf of a corporation voids the action | Downtown Disposal argues no automatic nullity | City argues lay filing is void ab initio | No automatic nullity; remedy through amendment considered |
| Whether lack of attorney signature renders complaints void | Nonattorney filing should be curable | Defect warrants dismissal under nullity rule | Not per se void; circuit court may permit amendment with counsel |
| What remedy governs unauthorized practice of law in this context | Amendment and counsel cure deficits | Dismissal protects public, court integrity | Remand or amendment permissible; dismissal not mandatory |
| Does this case affect subject-matter jurisdiction analysis | Nullity relates to conduct, not jurisdiction | Nullity still impacts proceedings | Nullity rule is non-jurisdictional; governs conduct in proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Sperry, 214 Ill. 2d 371 (Ill. 2005) (nullity rule upheld but not where attorney status is in question)
- Applebaum v. Rush University Medical Center, 231 Ill. 2d 429 (Ill. 2008) (nullity rule not applied when attorney involved or status clarified)
- In re IFC Credit Corp., 663 F.3d 315 (7th Cir. 2011) (lay representation in bankruptcy not jurisdictional; sanctions proportioned to consequences)
- Siakpere v. City of Chicago, 374 Ill. App. 3d 1079 (Ill. App. 2007) (nullity where non-attorney filed administrative-review pleadings)
- Janiczek v. Dover Management Co., 134 Ill. App. 3d 543 (Ill. App. 1985) (unauthorized practice concerns and dismissal consequences)
- Chicago Bar Ass’n v. Quinlan & Tyson, Inc., 34 Ill. 2d 116 (Ill. 1966) (forms usage does not excuse unauthorized practice of law)