ILCS » Chapter 815 · Act 505
Illinois Compiled Statutes

815 ILCS 505/2BB (2026)

The assembly, drafting, execution, and funding of a living trust document or any of those acts by a corporation or a nonlawyer is an unlawful practice within the meaning of this Act

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 505/2BB)
    Sec. 2BB. The assembly, drafting, execution, and funding of a living trust document or any of those acts by a corporation or a nonlawyer is an unlawful practice within the meaning of this Act. Any person who violates this Section is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. A person who is convicted of a second or subsequent violation of this Section is guilty of a Class 4 felony.
    This Section shall not apply to any State or national bank, State or federal savings and loan association, savings bank, trust company, or any other corporation that has received a certificate of authority authorizing the exercise of trust powers under the Illinois Corporate Fiduciary Act.
    This Section shall not apply to any State or federal credit union, as defined in Section 1.1 of the Illinois Credit Union Act, or the ability of any such credit union to issue accounts under the Illinois Trusts and Payable Upon Death Accounts Act.
    Nothing in this Section shall authorize a person to engage in the unauthorized practice of law.
(Source: P.A. 88-305; 88-644, eff. 9-9-94.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2024 · leading case: Herlehy v. Marie v. Bistersky Trust, 942 N.E.2d 23 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Herlehy v. Marie v. Bistersky Trust, 942 N.E.2d 23 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 4× “The trial court found that the Feldman investment form was not a valid amendment to Marie’s trust because McNamara, who drafted the Feldman investment form, was not a lawyer and thus if he had drafted an amendment to Marie’s trust his actions would be in violation of section 2BB…”
Landheer v. Landheer, 891 N.E.2d 975 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim pursuant to section 2 — 619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-— 619 (West 2006)) asserting that the disputed document is void because it was prepared by a person who is not an attorney, in violation of section 2BB…”
In re Est. of Feinberg, 2014 IL App (1st) 112219 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 2× “The Taylors point to section 2BB of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consumer Fraud Act) (815 ILCS 505/2BB (West 2008)), which provides that a nonlawyer who drafts a trust document is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.”
In re Est. of Feinberg, 2014 IL App (1st) 112219 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “¶ 25 Nonetheless, the Taylors argue that they do not contest the trust instruments but, rather, request this court to construe the second amendment as void against public policy because it was drafted by Marshall, a nonlawyer, in violation of section 2BB of the Consumer Fraud…”
Herlehy v. Marie v. Bistersky Trust Dated May 5, 1989 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 4× “The trial court found that the Feldman investment form was not a valid amendment to Marie’s trust because McNamara, who drafted the Feldman investment form was not a lawyer and thus if he had drafted an amendment to Marie’s trust his actions would be in violation of section 2BB…”
Roszkowiak v. Roszkowiak, 2024 IL App (2d) 230265 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 2× “Austin sought a declaratory judgment stating that the addendum was valid. ¶9 Defendants maintained that, because Jennifer is not an attorney, her “drafting” the amendment was void, in violation of section 2BB of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Deceptive…”
Landheer v. Landheer (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2006)) asserting that the disputed document is void because it was prepared by a person who is not an attorney, in violation of section 2BB of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.