Intrastate forum non conveniens is outdated

The following letter to the editor by ITLA President Sara M. Salger was published in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin on November 14, 2024.

Intrastate forum non conveniens is outdated

By Sara M. Salger

Sara M. Salger is the president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association.

A recent column by Patrick Eckler (“How dispute over venue could open floodgates to litigation,” Oct. 24) paints plaintiffs as shameless forum shoppers who open “floodgates” to more litigation. However, when the defendant successfully moves to transfer a case — most often to an adjoining county — it’s called “convenience,” not forum shopping.

Eckler brings up Piasa Armory LLC v. Raoul, a case where the plaintiff is challenging the constitutionality of 735 ILCS 5/2-101.5, which limits plaintiffs’ forum choice for actions against the State and which explicitly bars application of the forum non conveniens doctrine.

Both parties’ arguments in Piasa debate the continued necessity of intrastate forum non conveniens, and the trial court’s order discusses the viability of that doctrine. Therefore, the question of whether to perpetuate the intrastate forum doctrine has been framed by both parties on appeal and is now properly before the Court.

The Illinois Trial Lawyers Association (ITLA) represents the interests of people who have the right to choose where to litigate their claims, so long as that choice is allowed by the legislature and the constitution. Therefore, ITLA filed an amicus brief on this issue, arguing for the abolition of intrastate forum non conveniens.

The usual cadre of insurance company sentinels are also interested, and they have filed their own amici briefs in support of the measure.

The truth is that both plaintiffs and defendants prudently want their cases heard in counties where they feel they have the best chance to prevail.

But if the Supreme Court shuttered the intrastate forum non conveniens doctrine, what chance would defendants have to try their case in a fair forum? What could otherwise stand between defendants and plaintiffs’ voracious need for litigation in either Cook, Madison or St. Clair counties — the big three so-called “hellholes?”

The answer is the Illinois venue statute; the law written and approved by the legislature, discussed and interpreted by the Courts, which — in addition to constitutional and jurisdictional requirements — defines and limits the counties in which a defendant may be sued. Illinois’ venue statute has unquestionably been found to comport with the constitutional protections which defendants are due. If defendants are aggrieved, their remedy is to amend the venue statute, not perpetuate an unpredictable, outdated judicially created doctrine.

The supposed justification for intrastate forum non conveniens is “convenience.” But today, we are rarely inconvenienced by travel to another county, given the omnipresence of Zoom.

We spend more time on Google Maps trying to spin the difference of a few miles into “inconvenience” than we spend picking juries. The courts’ authority and efforts are wasted on this obsolete and insincere doctrine, and we should move on from it.