Official Legal Form
2023 Statutory Court Fee Task Force Report
Published by Illinois Courts — Forms. Mirrored here in its unmodified, original form for free public access.
Illinois
Administrative
Public domain
PDF
109
Views
3318 KB
File size
Jun 2026
Updated
IL
Jurisdiction
How to use this form
When & how to file
Quick guide: File this form as instructed by the issuing court or agency. Read the official instructions carefully before submitting.
Jurisdiction: Intended for state courts in Illinois. Filing rules may vary by individual court.
Source: Published by Illinois Courts — Forms. View on official site →
Important: Verify the form is current with the issuing authority before filing. The wrong version may delay or void your petition.
When to call a lawyer: Consult a licensed attorney if you’re unsure whether this is the right form or how to fill it out.
Form text
Extracted from the official PDF
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT
STATUTORY COURT FEE
TASK FORCE
Report on Implementation of 2016 Task Force Recommendations
and Additional Proposed Measures for Addressing Barriers to
Access to Justice and Excessive Financial Burdens Associated
with Fees and Costs in Illinois Court Proceedings
JANUARY 1, 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................1
Members of the Illinois Supreme Court Statutory Court Fee Task Force ....................2
Origins and Purpose of This Report ..............................................................................3
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................5
Analysis and Recommendations .................................................................................10
I. Issues Regarding Implementation of the Criminal and Traffic
Assessment Act and Section 27.1b of the Clerk of Courts Act .............10
Implementation Issue 1: The CTAA and Section 27.1b Are Scheduled
dto Sunset on January 1, 2024 ..........................11
Implementation Issue 2: Definitions in the CTAA ..................................13
Implementation Issue 3: A Prosecutor’s Ability to Require a Criminal
dDefendant, as Part of a Negotiated Plea
dAgreement, to Relinquish the Right to Seek
dan Assessment Waiver.....................................14
Implementation Issue 4: Lack of a Uniform Procedure Governing
dAssessment Waiver Applications ....................17
Implementation Issue 5: Existence of Assessments in Statutes
dOutside of the CTAA and Section 27.1b ..........18
Implementation Issue 6: Impact of the CTAA and Section 27.1b on d
dCounty Budgets ...............................................19
Implementation Issue 7: Impact of the CTAA and Section 27.1b on
dLitigants............................................................21
Implementation Issue 8: Impact of the CTAA and Section 27.1b on
dOrganizations That Receive Funding d
dThrough Assessments .....................................22
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D) Page
II. Issues Regarding Court Assessments That Were Not Identified
by the First Statutory Court Fee Task Force ..........................................24
New Initiative 1: Assessments and Fines in Juvenile
Delinquency Cases .....................................................25
New Initiative 2: Fee for Guardian Reports ...........................................28
New Initiative 3: Debt Collection Fees ..................................................29
New Initiative 4: Assessments and Fines Imposed on Defendants
Sentenced to the Department of Corrections............32
New Initiative 5: Eligibility Guidelines for Assessment Waivers in
Civil Litigation ..............................................................34
New Initiative 6: Review of Assessments That May Violate the Free
Access Clause of the Illinois Constitution ..................35
New Initiative 7: Working Toward a Unified, Assessment-Free
Court System ...............................................................37
III. Data Collection and Reporting Needed to Provide Empirical Basis
for Additional Improvements.................................................................40
Data Reporting Recommendation 1: Continuation and Expansion of
Annual Reports by Circuit Court
Clerks Regarding Assessments in
Criminal and Traffic Proceedings ..40
Data Reporting Recommendation 2: Continuation and Expansion of
Annual Reports by Circuit Court
Clerks Regarding Assessments in
Civil Cases .......................................41
Data Reporting Recommendation 3: Continuation of Efforts by Circuit
Clerks and the Judicial Management
Information Services Division to
Make Better Use of Assessment-
Related Data Reported ...................42
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D) Page
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................42
Appendix .....................................................................................................................44
Proposed legislation deleting the sunset provisions from the
Criminal and Traffic Assessment Act (“CTAA”) and
Section 27.1b of the Clerk of Courts Act (“Section 27.1b”). .....................Appx. A
Proposed legislation clarifying the CTAA’s definitions............................Appx. B
Proposed amendments to the assessment waiver provisions
contained in Section 124A-20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and Section 1-105 of the Code of Civil Procedure .................................Appx. C
Proposed amendment of Section 124A-20 to prohibit conditioning
a plea agreement on the defendant’s relinquishment of the right to
seek an assessment waiver......................................................................Appx. D
Proposed amendments to Supreme Court Rules 298 and 404 to
establish a uniform procedure governing assessment waivers .............Appx. E
List of civil and criminal assessments that are not currently included
in either the CTAA or Section 27.1(b)........................................................Appx. F
Proposed amendment to Section 27.1b eliminating the annual fee
in guardianship cases ..............................................................................Appx. G
Proposed legislation repealing redundant provisions authorizing
collection fees regarding unpaid assessments ......................................Appx. H
Proposed legislation creating an earn-down reduction of
assessments and fines for defendants sentenced to the
Department of Corrections .......................................................................Appx. I
Proposed legislation amending Section 1-10 of the CTAA to require
assessment reports on an annual basis ...................................................Appx. J
Proposed legislation amending Section 27.1c of the Clerk of
Courts Act to require annual reporting of the total number of
civil cases in which assessment waivers are sought ..............................Appx. K
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The members of the Task Force wish to gratefully acknowledge the valuable contributions
made by the following individuals: Lisa M. Goodwin of the Office of the Circuit Clerk of
DuPage County; Tom Lawson of the Office of the Winnebago County Circuit Clerk; and
Wenona Whitfield, Professor Emeritus at Southern Illinois University School of Law.
Special thanks go to Marcia M. Meis, the Director of the Administrative Office of Illinois
Courts, and to the following AOIC employees who provided crucial substantive,
empirical, and administrative support: Katie Blakeman; Amy Bowne; Jacque Huddleston;
Nathan Jensen; Katherine Murphy; Jennifer Haegele-Ryterski; Alison Spanner; and Morgan
Yingst.
The Task Force also wishes to thank the individuals and organizations that participated in
the public hearings regarding this initiative or submitted written comments.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 1
MEMBERS OF THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT
STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE
Chirag G. Badlani Hon. Eugene G. Doherty
Executive Director, Alphawood Justice, Fourth District Appellate Court
Foundation
Hon. Thomas M. Donnelly Hon. Michael A. Fiello
Circuit Judge, Chair, Task Force New Initiatives
Circuit Court of Cook County Committee and Associate Judge, First
Judicial Circuit
Hon. David Friess Hon. Katherine Keefe
Illinois House of Representatives, Chair, Task Force Data Collection &
116th District Analysis Committee and McHenry
County Circuit Clerk
Hon. Thomas A. Klein Hon. Leroy K. Martin
Winnebago County Circuit Clerk Justice, First District Appellate Court
Steven F. Pflaum Jonathan Pilsner
Task Force Chair and Partner, Co-Chair, Criminal Justice Advisory
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP Committee
Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice
Hon. Elizabeth A. Robb (Ret.) Hon. Justin Slaughter
Former Chief Judge, Illinois House of Representatives,
Eleventh Judicial Circuit 27th District
Hon. Brian W. Stewart Adam Vaught
Illinois Senate, Chair, Task Force Implementation
45th District Committee and Partner, Kilbride &
Vaught, LLC
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 2
ORIGINS AND PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
This report builds on the June 1, 2016, findings and recommendations of the Illinois
Statutory Court Fee Task Force (the “2016 Report”)1, as well as legislation enacted by the
Illinois General Assembly and court rules promulgated by the Illinois Supreme Court in
response to the 2016 Report. Contained in Public Act 100-987, the legislation included
the Criminal and Traffic Assessment Act (“CTAA,” 705 ILCS 135/) addressing court fees
and costs (“assessments”) in criminal and traffic proceedings, and Section 27.1b of the
Clerk of Courts Act (“Section 27.1b,” 705 ILCS 105/27.1b) governing assessments in civil
litigation. The legislation streamlined and simplified the imposition of assessments, made
the imposition of assessments more uniform across the state, and together with Supreme
Court Rule amendments expanded the availability of assessment waivers for low-income
parties.
The General Assembly anticipated that, as with any massive statutory overhaul,
P.A. 100-987 (the “Legislation”) would produce some implementation issues, inconsistent
interpretations, and unintended consequences. Consequently, the Legislation included a
sunset date—currently January 1, 2024—to ensure that any such issues would be
identified and addressed. The Illinois Supreme Court responded to the impending sunset
by issuing an order on January 11, 2021, creating a new Task Force to propose measures to
remedy any problems that had surfaced regarding the Legislation, and to develop
proposals to further improve the manner in which assessments are imposed in Illinois
courts.2
Like the original Task Force, the members of the new Task Force include judges,
legislators from both parties, court clerks, representatives appointed by the Governor,
and lawyers appointed by the Supreme Court. Most of the Task Force’s initial work was
performed by three committees: (1) an Implementation Committee charged with
identifying, and proposing measures to remedy, problems that have arisen with the
operation of the Legislation; (2) a New Initiatives Committee responsible for developing
proposals aimed at problems that the original Task Force had not targeted; and (3) a Data
1https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Resources/4b970035-98ba-4110-86fc-60e02b6a126b/
2016_Statutory_Court_Fee_Task_Force_Report.pdf
2https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/24c031c6-
dacc-411d-9002-095eb3d45646/030521-1.pdf
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 3
Collection and Analysis Committee tasked with providing data required to inform the
work of the other committees, as well as developing recommendations for improving the
collection of information needed to evaluate the effectiveness of previous proposals and
to provide an informed basis for additional proposals.
The structure of this report parallels the work of the Task Force’s three committees.
Following an Executive Summary, Section I of the Recommendations discusses the
measures developed by the Implementation Committee for addressing issues that have
arisen under the Legislation. Section II discusses proposals developed by the New
Initiatives Committee for further improving the manner in which assessments are
imposed in Illinois courts. Finally, Section III discusses measures that will improve the
data collected regarding assessments and thereby improve our ability to measure the
effectiveness of the current system and identify additional needed reforms.
The Task Force developed these recommendations with the assistance of input from two
public hearings. The first hearing was conducted by Zoom videoconference on July 13,
2021. Testimony from that hearing helped focus and guide the Task Force’s work. The
second public hearing was held by Zoom videoconference on August 30, 2022, for the
purpose of obtaining public comments on the recommendations contained in a draft of
this report. Feedback from both hearings, as well as written comments on the draft
report, has been considered by the Task Force and reflected in this final report where
appropriate.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Task Force’s Implementation, New Initiatives, and Data Collection and Reporting
Committees developed recommendations for the subjects within their respective areas of
responsibility. The committees’ recommendations were then reviewed by the Task Force
as a whole, which also considered input from two public hearings before approving the
following final Task Force recommendations:
Implementation Recommendations
1. The General Assembly should eliminate the sunset provisions in the CTAA and Section
27.1b. This is needed because the CTAA has largely succeeded in its purpose of
simplifying the imposition of assessments, slowing the increase in assessments,
reducing variations in the amount imposed, and reducing the impact on low- and
moderate-income residents. Appendix A to this Report contains proposed legislation
that would implement this recommendation.
2. The General Assembly should revise and clarify certain definitions in the CTAA (705
ILCS 135/1-5). The recommended revisions will clarify that “case” includes all
proceedings arising out of a single occurrence, that an assessment paid directly to
the court is waivable, and that an assessment paid to a third-party is waivable if the
third-party provided services pursuant to a contract with the court. This is needed to
eliminate confusion about what is waivable under the current definition of “case,” and
to increase the consistency in the application of waiver rules. Appendices B and C
contain proposed legislation that would implement this recommendation.
3. The General Assembly should revise 725 ILCS 5/124A-20 to prohibit plea agreements
which are conditioned upon the defendant giving up the right to seek an assessment
waiver. This is needed because of the practice that has developed in some
jurisdictions of requiring defendants to bargain away their right to an assessment
waiver, which (a) saddles defendants with debt they cannot afford to pay, (b) increases
the variation, from county to county, in terms of the availability of assessment waivers,
and (c) defeats the purpose of allowing such waivers. Appendix D contains proposed
legislation implementing this recommendation.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 5
4. Supreme Court Rules 298 and 404 should be amended to establish a uniform
procedure governing assessment waivers that limits when a hearing can be conducted
in civil cases and prevents the decision on an application for assessment waiver in a
criminal case from being deferred until the defendant completes his or her sentence.
These changes are needed to (a) reduce inconsistency in the decisions on assessment
waiver applications for similarly situated applicants, and (b) reduce the potential for
implicit bias, which is increased with a hearing, to impact the decision whether to
grant a waiver. Appendix E contains proposed revisions to Supreme Court Rules 298
and 404 to implement this recommendation.
5. The General Assembly should fully incorporate all assessments into either the CTAA or
Section 27.1b. The Task Force identified assessment statutes that were overlooked in
the original Legislation. Moving those provisions into either the CTAA (criminal
assessments) or Clerk of Courts Act (civil assessments)—or possibly eliminating some
of those assessments—is needed to avoid confusion regarding the continuing
existence of these outlier assessments and to further the original purpose of the CTAA
to make imposition of assessments simpler and more transparent. Appendix F
includes a complete list of all outlier civil and criminal add-on assessments. The Task
Force takes no position on whether particular assessments should be eliminated, but
Appendix F contains suggestions regarding where, if they are not eliminated, the
outlier assessments should be included in either the CTAA or Clerk of Courts Act.
6. The General Assembly, the judiciary, counties, circuit court clerks, and the bar should
continue to work cooperatively to ensure that the judicial system receives sufficient
funding to enable it to remain capable of effectively serving the public. While the need
for adequate funding of the judicial system is self-evident, this recommendation
recognizes the important role that each of the identified stakeholders plays in
ensuring that this objective continues to be achieved.
7. The flexibility which the CTAA provides counties regarding how much funding to
provide organizations authorized to receive assessment revenue should be preserved.
This is needed because (a) the CTAA was intended to give counties discretion to
decide, in light of local conditions, the extent (if at all) to which certain nonprofit
organizations should receive funding from assessments, and (b) that flexibility
promotes accountability and efficiency in disbursing funds.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 6
8. Vigilance by interested stakeholders is required to prevent future legislation from
weakening the reforms contained in the CTAA and Section 27.1b. The General
Assembly, the Supreme Court, the AOIC, circuit clerks, and bar associations each bear
responsibility for ensuring that future legislation does not erode the gains achieved by
the CTAA and Section 27.1b. In particular: (a) future legislation amending the CTAA
and Section 27.1b should include findings that explain the history and purpose of
those statutes in order to discourage the creation of new assessments outside of the
current system; (b) future legislation that increases or creates a new assessment
should include a finding explaining how the assessment either defrays the net cost of
the litigation or directly relates to the administration of the court system; and (c) the
Supreme Court, circuit clerks, and bar associations should vigilantly monitor
proposed legislation that would add an assessment and strive to ensure that, if
enacted, any new assessments are placed in the CTAA or Section 27.1b and adhere to
the overall caps on the amount of assessments contained in that legislation.
Recommended New Initiatives
1. The General Assembly should abolish assessments and fines in juvenile delinquency
cases. Assessments and fines in juvenile delinquency cases undermine the goal of
achieving rehabilitation and successful reentry into the community by leaving youths
with significant debt, prolonging their involvement in the justice system, and
increasing the likelihood of recidivism.
2. The General Assembly should eliminate the annual fee in guardianship cases for minors
and disabled adults from the Clerk of Courts Act. This is needed because most
guardians are family members and are self-represented and the revenue impact would
be small. Appendix G contains proposed legislation implementing this
recommendation.
3. The General Assembly should eliminate redundant legislation authorizing debt
collection charges regarding unpaid assessments. There are currently four different
statutes authorizing the imposition of a fee in connection with efforts by circuit clerks
to collect unpaid assessments. Elimination of two of those statutes is needed
because they are redundant to the other collection fees, unnecessarily add to the
debtor’s burden, and are not currently assessed by all circuit clerks. Appendix H
contains proposed legislation implementing this recommendation.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 7
4. The General Assembly should allow defendants sentenced to the Department of
Corrections to earn a reduction in the amount of assessments (i.e., court costs and
fees) and fines, but not restitution, unless the States Attorney requests and obtains an
order excluding the reduction from the sentence based on the defendant’s ability to
pay. The recommended legislation would reduce the amount of assessments and
fines 20% for each year of a sentence, with defendants sentenced to a term of five or
more years earning a 100% reduction. This is needed to (a) reduce barriers to
defendants’ successful reentry into society, and (b) relieve court officials of the
administrative burden and expense of tracking debt that is usually uncollectable.
Appendix I contains proposed legislation implementing this recommendation.
5. Legislation applying to civil cases the more generous financial criteria for full or partial
assessment waivers that currently apply to criminal cases should be enacted once the
financial impact of that change is ascertained and adequate replacement funding for
lost revenues is identified. This is needed because assessments continue to present a
significant barrier to access to justice in civil cases and it is difficult, from a policy
rather than a budgetary perspective, to justify having different guidelines for civil and
criminal proceedings.
6. The General Assembly should convene a legislative working group to review a list of
potentially problematic assessments in civil cases to ensure compliance with Illinois
Supreme Court decisions which prohibit, as unlawful litigation taxes, fees that do not
defray the expenses of litigation and therefore violate the free access and due process
clauses of the Illinois Constitution. This is needed because some of the fees listed in
Appendix F that were inadvertently omitted from the CTAA and Section 27.1b may not
be sufficiently tied to expenses of litigation to withstand constitutional scrutiny.
7. Interested stakeholders should develop a long-term plan for achieving a unified Illinois
court system that further reduces (or eliminates entirely) the use of assessments as a
source of revenue. This is needed because all Illinois citizens benefit from the justice
system and a fully taxpayer-funded court system would allocate the costs of the state
court system across all taxpayers rather than only those utilizing the system to resolve
a dispute.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 8
Data Collection and Reporting Recommendations
1. The General Assembly should revise Section 1-10 of the CTAA to require the
continuation and expansion of reports by circuit court clerks regarding assessments in
criminal and traffic proceedings. The CTAA did not require the filing of assessment
reports after 2019, although reports were filed for 2020 and 2021 pursuant to
Supreme Court order. Requiring biannual assessment reports, and adding the
number of assessment waiver applications to the data that had been required by the
CTAA, is needed to analyze the functioning of the current system for the imposition,
collection, and waiver of assessments and fines in criminal and traffic cases, and to
identify areas for future reforms. Appendix J contains proposed legislation
implementing this recommendation.
2. The General Assembly should revise Section 27.1d of the Clerk of Courts Act to expand
reports by circuit court clerks regarding assessments in civil cases. Requiring biannual
assessment reports, and adding the number of cases in which assessment waiver
applications are filed to the data that is currently required, is needed to evaluate the
imposition, collection and waiver of assessments in civil cases, and to identify areas
for future reforms. Appendix K contains proposed legislation implementing this
recommendation.
3. The Supreme Court should direct the AOIC’s Judicial Management Information
Services division to continue to work with the circuit clerks on improving the data
reported to the AOIC regarding the collection of assessments and fines. This is needed
to improve our ability to identify the impact of the CTAA and Section 27.1b, as well as
the projected impact of future proposed legislation relating to assessments.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 9
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I. Issues Regarding Implementation of the Criminal and Traffic
Assessment Act and Section 27.1b of the Clerk of Courts Act
The Implementation Committee obtained feedback on the operation of the Legislation
from judges, lawyers, circuit clerks, and other justice partners. The Committee evaluated
the effectiveness of the Legislation by reference to the extent to which it has addressed
the following key findings contained in the 2016 Report3:
(1) The nature and purpose of assessments have changed over time, leading to a
byzantine system that attempts to pass an increased share of the cost of court
administration onto the parties to court proceedings;
(2) Court fines and fees are constantly increasing and are outpacing inflation;
(3) There is excessive variation across the state in the amount of assessments for
the same type of proceedings; and
(4) The cumulative impact of the assessments imposed on parties to civil lawsuits
and defendants in criminal and traffic proceedings imposes severe and
disproportionate impacts on low- and moderate-income Illinois residents.
The Implementation Committee concluded that the Legislation had been successful in
simplifying the manner in which assessments are imposed in civil, criminal, and traffic
proceedings, slowing the increase in assessment amounts, reducing intra-state variation
in the amount of assessments imposed for the same type of proceedings, and reducing
the impacts of assessments on low- and moderate-income residents. However, the
Committee identified areas where additional legislation is needed to cure ambiguous
language in the original Legislation or correct statutory interpretations that were
inconsistent with the legislative intent. The Task Force as a whole subsequently reviewed
and refined the Implementation Committee’s recommendations. The following
3 2016 Report at 1-2.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 10
discussion addresses nine implementation issues, explains why they are important, and
where needed presents a proposed remedy in the form of legislation or Supreme Court
Rule.
Implementation Issue 1: The CTAA and Section 27.1b Are Scheduled to Sunset
on January 1, 2024
Why is this an issue?
Sunset provisions would repeal the CTAA and Section 27.1b on January 1, 2024. Due to
the way the sunset provisions were drafted, the statutory framework for collection of
assessments would not revert to the prior system if the Legislation is allowed to sunset.
The prior statutory framework has been repealed in its entirety. Therefore, if the
Legislation sunsets, no statutory authorization for the collection of assessments in civil,
criminal, or traffic proceedings would exist in Illinois at all.
The sweeping reforms contained in the Legislation were intended to address systemic
problems identified in the 2016 Report. Litigants bore the brunt of most of those
problems, including a proliferation of court assessments that interfered with access to
justice in civil cases, created excessive variation across the state in assessments levied in
the same kind of cases, and imposed undue financial burdens on defendants in criminal
and traffic cases. The sunset provisions in the Legislation have added urgency to the
need to evaluate the extent to which the Legislation has achieved its ambitious
objectives, especially those pertaining to the impact of assessments on litigants, and to
identify the need for amendments to better achieve those objectives.
The Task Force received feedback from clerks, judges, attorneys, and AOIC staff who
have been intimately involved with the implementation of the Legislation. The consensus
is that while the initial implementation process was at times difficult, once implemented
the Legislation made the system of court fees and costs vastly better. Court clerks find it
much simpler and easier to administer court fees and costs than before the enactment,
and litigants have benefitted from the Legislation in the following respects:
• The nature and amount of assessments are much clearer and easier to understand.
When the average citizen asks the Circuit Clerk, “where do all these fees come from?”
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 11
there is an easy answer and the fees can all be found in one place rather than
scattered in many different statutes.
• There is greater consistency across the state, so whether a citizen receives a traffic
ticket in, say, Montgomery County or McHenry County, they will pay the same
assessment amount for the same violation. Similarly, while assessments in civil cases
are not completely uniform statewide, the amount of variation between counties has
been significantly reduced.
• In some counties, and on some case types, the average citizen is paying less than
before. Particularly significant in this regard is the reduction of the large Criminal/
Traffic Conviction Surcharge that had been imposed in some counties.
• There is also more accuracy in what is being assessed. The relative simplicity of the
CTAA and Section 27.1b has made it easier for circuit court clerks to determine the
correct sums to be assessed.
• The expansion of assessment waivers under Section 27.1b and the authorization of
assessment waivers under the CTAA have reduced the financial burden on low-income
individuals in civil and criminal cases.
• The proliferation of add-on fees has been slowed since passage of the Legislation, and
with it the trend toward imposing on litigants the responsibility for funding an
increasing share of the cost of court proceedings.
Recommendations
The Legislation’s success in addressing (while not completely solving) the problems
identified in the 2016 Report warrants elimination of the sunset provisions. Attached as
Appendix A to this report is proposed legislation deleting the sunset provisions from the
CTAA and Section 27.1b.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 12
Implementation Issue 2: Definitions in the CTAA
Why is this an issue?
Section 1-5 of the CTAA contains its definitions. 705 ILCS 135/1-5. Included is a definition
of “case” as meaning “all charges and counts filed against a single defendant which are
being prosecuted as a single proceeding before the court.” Id. This definition created
some confusion, much of which has been cured by revisions to the Manual on
Recordkeeping that were approved by the Supreme Court. However, an issue remains
regarding a situation where there may be one traffic stop, but two agencies (e.g., the
Sheriff and Village Police) issue tickets that are prosecuted by separate agencies (e.g., the
State’s Attorney and Village Attorney). It is unclear if this is one “case” or separate cases
under the current definition.
Additionally, the CTAA defines “assessments” as “costs imposed on a defendant under
schedules 1 through 13 of this Act.” Id. The CTAA permits courts to waive “assessments.”
See Section 5-10(e) (“Unless a court ordered payment schedule is implemented or the
assessment requirements of this Act are waived under a court order[.]”) (emphasis added).
This gives rise to a question: if “assessments” can be waived, can all “costs” be waived as
well? Some “costs” are not true court assessments. For example, an ambulance service
which transports an injured defendant who causes a car crash while drunk may charge
the defendant for the “cost” of their service, but that service is not an “assessment” under
the CTAA. That type of cost is distinguishable from, for example, a charge imposed by a
court requiring a defendant to submit to a court-managed or supervised service. The
CTAA does not create a clear line between the two.
Recommendation
Attached as Appendix B to this report are various proposed changes to the CTAA’s
definition section. In particular, the revisions clarify that the definition of “case” includes
all proceedings arising out of a single occurrence.
The revised definitions also clarify that an assessment that is paid directly to the court is
waivable. An assessment paid to a third-party is only waivable if the third-party provided
services pursuant to a contract with the court. This distinction is also reflected, with
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 13
respect to assessment waivers in criminal and civil cases, in proposed revisions to
Section 124A-20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 1-105 of the Code of Civil
Procedure that are contained in Appendix C.
Implementation Issue 3: A Prosecutor’s Ability to Require a Criminal Defendant,
as Part of a Negotiated Plea Agreement, to Relinquish the Right to Seek an
Assessment Waiver
Why is this an issue?
The Task Force is aware, anecdotally, that some jurisdictions are requiring criminal
defendants to relinquish their right to seek an assessment waiver as part of a negotiated
plea. The Task Force believes this practice undermines the fundamental goals of the
CTAA, and it recommends that it be statutorily prohibited.
Relevant Background. The 2016 Report recommended that the legislature treat
separately those things which are “fines” (i.e., punishment for the offense charged) and
those which are “assessments” (i.e., fees, costs and other charges designed to offset the
State’s cost of prosecuting the defendant). Although court fees were originally intended
“simply to offset a portion of the cost of the services being provided,” they had grown
complex and extensive.
Because the justification for assessments is to help defray the cost of prosecution, rather
than to punish the defendant, the Task Force recommended that the financial burden of
assessments should not be imposed on those least capable of shouldering it. This
recommendation did not affect judges’ ability to order restitution, assess fines, or impose
prison sentences:
While criminal defendants should face meaningful punishment for committing a
crime, it is unjust and unwise to burden indigent criminal defendants with court
assessments that are beyond their ability to pay and that create a disproportionate
and counterproductive barrier to their reentry into society. Rather than levy such
assessments, which also impose administrative burdens on court clerks that are
unwarranted by the potential amounts to be collected, it is preferable to allow
judges to grant waivers. Such waivers would facilitate judges’ ability to impose
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 14
fines (that, unlike fees, are designed to punish) at amounts that are commensurate
with the crime. Moreover, unlike assessments, in appropriate cases judges can
authorize fines to be worked off through community service or similar programs.4
The legislature acted on this recommendation when it passed the CTAA, establishing a
more uniform and limited scheme for imposing assessments in criminal cases. In
addition, the legislature created a system under which criminal defendants could apply to
the Court to have their fees waived. Eligibility for a full or partial assessment waiver was
defined by reference to the defendant’s income or receipt of a means-tested public
benefit. 725 ILCS 5/124A-20. The statute requires the circuit clerk to provide applications
forms to “any defendant who indicates an inability to pay the assessments.” 725 ILCS
5/124A-20(d). Upon receipt of an application showing the defendant qualifies as an
“indigent person” as defined by the CTAA, the court “shall grant” the application for the
appropriate level (i.e., full or partial).
The use of the word “shall” generally indicates that the legislature intended to impose a
mandatory obligation. Schultz v. Performance Lighting, Inc., 2013 IL 115738, ¶ 16. The
CTAA demonstrates the intention that its provisions are mandatory, i.e., that any
defendant has the right to request an assessment waiver and any defendant who qualifies
must be given such a waiver.
Impact of Plea Bargaining. As noted above, the Task Force is aware that, in some
jurisdictions, the prosecuting office has adopted the practice of conditioning plea offers
on the defendant’s agreement to give up the right to seek a waiver—a “waiver of the
waiver.” The Task Force is concerned that this practice undercuts the policies which
underlie the CTAA.
The legislature’s purpose in providing for waivers of the assessments imposed on indigent
defendants is that the responsibility to financially support the judicial system should not
be placed on those least able to bear it. Additionally, a plea agreement generally involves
the defendant bargaining to preserve his or her personal liberty to the greatest extent
possible; this puts the defendant in a significantly reduced bargaining position when
compared to the prosecution. Recalling that some 95-99% of all criminal dispositions are
effectuated by pleas, it would very nearly constitute a de facto repeal of the statutory
4 2016 Report at 34 (emphasis added)
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 15
assessment waiver provisions in those jurisdictions which condition plea agreements on
the defendant giving up the statutory right to an assessment waiver.
It is true that a negotiated plea is a voluntary agreement between the prosecution and the
defendant, and such agreements are generally considered to be governed by the law
applicable to private contracts. People v. Nutall, 312 Ill. App. 3d 620, 637 (1st Dist. 2000).
However, the analogy between pleas and private contracts “may not hold in all respects.”
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 137 (2009). A criminal defendant’s underlying
contract right is constitutionally based and reflects fundamentally different concerns than
those involved with private contracts; therefore, “application of contract law principles to
plea agreements may require tempering in some instances.” People v. Evans, 174 Ill. 2d
320, 326–27 (1996).
Furthermore, even with private contracts, parties are not permitted to include terms
which are “against public policy” or “contravene some positive rule of law.” County of
Jackson v. Mediacom Illinois, LLC, 2012 IL App (5th) 110350, ¶11. The legislature carefully
crafted a scheme for the consolidation of all court costs and fees under the concept of
“assessments,” along with a provision to allow indigent defendants to receive full or
partial waivers of their obligation to pay those assessments. This reflects a clear
statement of Illinois public policy concerning the rights of those indigent defendants. It
is likely already contrary to public policy for prosecutors to require criminal defendants to
bargain away that right as a condition of a plea agreement. To the extent there is any
doubt, the legislature should clarify that intent.
Finally, there is another fundamental purpose of the CTAA frustrated by this practice:
uniformity. One of the animating goals of the CTAA was reducing the variability of
financial consequences for the same crime from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If some
jurisdictions are preventing criminal defendants from seeking assessment waivers, it
means that a defendant’s ability to exercise that right will depend on the jurisdiction in
which the case against them is being prosecuted.
Recommendation
For the reasons stated above, the Task Force recommends that the legislature prohibit
plea agreements which are conditioned upon the defendant giving up the right to seek
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 16
an assessment waiver. We propose that this be accomplished by amending 725 ILCS
5/124A-20 to add the following provision:
(h) No defendant shall be required to forego or waive his or her right to seek a
waiver of assessments as a condition of any plea agreement.
This proposed statutory amendment is included in Appendix D.
Implementation Issue 4: Lack of a Uniform Procedure Governing Assessment
Waiver Applications
Why is this an issue?
Wide variations have developed in the procedures employed by courts in deciding
applications for assessment waivers. For example, some courts only require a hearing if
there is a factual issue on the face of the application, while other courts require a hearing
on every application. Some courts require the applicant to provide proof of public
benefits and others do not. The list goes on. These practices can even vary between
courthouses in the same circuit.
These inconsistent practices are problematic for several reasons. First and foremost, they
can lead to unequal treatment of similarly situated court users, some of whom would
obtain waivers while others would not. In addition, requiring litigants seeking a waiver to
appear for a hearing, whether in person or via video conference, creates procedural
hurdles for some litigants but not others. Inconsistent practices also make it nearly
impossible for those attempting to help pro se litigants to be able to provide detailed
guidance to help them navigate this process.
Research suggests that requiring an appearance in connection with an assessment
waiver application creates an unnecessary risk that factors like physical appearance, race,
and gender may inappropriately influence the decision. Litigants appearing at a hearing
may appear to have greater or fewer financial resources than they really do. The visual
information a judge can gain from requiring an appearance is not necessary for the
consideration of the fee waiver application, and it may actually prevent the judge from
making an accurate and unbiased decision.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 17
Recommendation
The Task Force recommends that the Supreme Court Rules be amended to establish a
uniform procedure governing assessment waivers that limits the circumstances in which
a hearing can be conducted in civil cases and prevents the decision on an application for
assessment waiver in a criminal case from being deferred until the defendant completes
his or her sentence. Appendix E contains proposed revisions to Rules 298 and 404 that
would implement this recommendation.
Implementation Issue 5: Existence of Assessments in Statutes Outside of the
CTAA and Section 27.1b
Why is this an issue?
A core principle adopted by the original Statutory Court Fee Task Force in its 2016 Report
was that court assessments should be simple, easy to understand, and uniform to the
extent possible. At the time, the civil and criminal assessment landscape in Illinois
consisted of a multitude of add-on fees that were scattered among many different
statutes, making it very difficult for civil and criminal litigants to accurately determine
which fees would be imposed and what the true and final cost would be.
Out of that core principle, the CTAA was adopted to codify and centralize all criminal
assessments into a single statute, and civil assessments were consolidated into a single
section, Section 27.1b of the Clerk of Courts Act. These enactments have gone a long
way toward simplifying and bringing transparency to the assessment process.
In the process of consolidating the existing assessments into the CTAA and Section 27.1b,
a significant number of statutory add-on fees were inadvertently missed and are still
contained in various other statutes. This has created confusion and lingering questions
about whether, and to what extent, such outlier assessments may be assessed and
whether they are subject to waiver.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 18
Recommendation
The Task Force recommends the General Assembly fully incorporate all assessments into
either the CTAA or Section 27.1b. Appendix F includes a complete list of all outlier civil
and criminal add-on assessments identified by the Task Force and recommended for
inclusion in either the CTAA (criminal assessments) or Clerk of Courts Act (civil
assessments).
Some of these assessments could be eliminated entirely. The Task Force takes no
position on whether an assessment should be eliminated. However, if the assessment is
not eliminated, Appendix F offers a suggestion for where it should be moved.
Implementation Issue 6: Impact of the CTAA and Section 27.1b on County
Budgets
Why is this an issue?
The judicial branch in Illinois operates, generally, from the following funding sources:
1. The State pays for all judicial salaries and the operations and staff salaries of the
Supreme Court, Appellate Courts, and Administrative Office of the Illinois
Courts. It also reimburses the counties for probation costs.
2. Trial court operations are funded through a combination of County general
revenues, court assessments, and fines. These funding sources support
courthouse operations, salaries and operations of the circuit court clerk,
courtroom security, and various other costs needed to operate the trial court.
County appropriations to court operations have become severely stressed, especially in
smaller rural counties. While the CTAA and Section 27.1b have undoubtedly had some
effect on these budget pressures, the Task Force has been unable to determine how
much. This is due to several reasons.
First, the Legislation dramatically changed both the system for imposing assessments in
civil, criminal, and traffic cases as well as reporting requirements. For example,
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 19
Section 27.1b expanded the availability of assessment waivers in civil cases, but the
amount of waivers had not previously been tracked. It is therefore impossible to
determine the extent to which the expanded assessment waiver provisions in Section
27.1b have affected court budgets.
Second, there has been a decade-plus decline in case filings across all case types. Fewer
cases mean fewer court assessments. This has had a detrimental effect on the amount of
fees collected over time, and would have continued without passage of the Legislation.
Third, the COVID-19 pandemic began approximately six months after the CTAA and
Section 27.1b went into effect. The pandemic undoubtedly reduced the number of court
filings, making it more difficult to measure the fiscal effect of the Legislation.
While it has not been possible to measure the effect of the Legislation on county
appropriations to trial court operations, the Task Force believes this is an issue of great
importance that the General Assembly, the counties, and the judiciary should work
cooperatively to address. Indeed, this issue is likely to become even more important with
the abolition of cash bail under the SAFE-T Act as well as current depopulation trends.
Recommendation
The problem here does not lie with the CTAA or Section 27.1b. But the problem is of such
importance the Task Force provides the following observations.
The General Assembly in recent years has increased its appropriation to the Supreme
Court to the point where it now fully funds the Court’s budget requests. This includes,
importantly, full funding for reimbursing counties’ probation costs. Previously, counties
were required to make up the shortfall or cut probation services. By fully funding
probation reimbursement costs, the General Assembly has taken an undue burden off
counties and made a robust probation system possible.
Additionally, this year the General Assembly for the first time (upon the first request)
provided the Supreme Court with nearly $26 million to support the new pretrial services
division of the AOIC. The Office of Statewide Pretrial Services will provide support to trial
courts for services relating to bail decisions and the monitoring of defendants released
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 20
pretrial. This, too, will help ease the budget pressure on counties. Further relief is
expected from $10 million in technology improvements funded by the General Assembly
to improve the efficiency of trial court operations.
The Supreme Court, through the Illinois Judicial Conference, has created a Court Funding
Task Force that is looking into the costs of operating the judicial system globally with the
goal of making recommendations for improvements in the way the system is funded.
Finally, counties have also invested in technology that has provided efficiencies that
reduce staff needs, paper storage costs, and myriad other costs associated with
operating a court system. And, of course, counties have provided funding to the courts
from their general revenue budget beyond what the counties receive from fees and fines.
The judicial branch is not an executive agency providing government services, but a
separate branch of government. There should never be a debate about how much
service the judiciary should provide. Thankfully all the partners in court funding have
understood this. But as the pressures on county budgets continue, the Task Force
recommends the General Assembly, the judiciary, the counties, circuit court clerks, and
the bar continue to work cooperatively to ensure that the judiciary remains capable of
effectively serving the public.
Implementation Issue 7: Impact of the CTAA and Section 27.1b on Organizations
That Receive Funding Through Assessments
Why is this an issue?
The previous system evolved through a series of well-intentioned measures that added a
host of assessments that were individually small but significant—and significantly
problematic—in the aggregate. Over the years the General Assembly added assessments
to provide funding to various worthy initiatives or organizations, such as court
automation, law libraries, and children’s waiting rooms. The previous system provided
fixed amounts from various assessments to be allocated directly to such organizations.
The Legislation changed that system. It provides counties with the flexibility to decide
how much to provide such organizations, if anything at all. As a result, some
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 21
organizations may have received less funding from assessments than they did under the
prior system, while at the local level some organizations may have experienced an
increase.
Recommendation
The Task Force believes this is a feature, not a bug, of the new system. Organizations are
free to lobby the General Assembly if they believe they should be authorized to receive
funding, and to work within counties to advocate for funding for their services. But the
Task Force does not believe organizations should receive set percentages or amounts
from assessments to fund their programs. Giving counties the flexibility to make those
decisions provides for a more efficient system with greater accountability and flexibility.
Implementation Issue 8: Preventing Legislative Authorization of New Add-On
Assessments
Why is this an issue?
The 2016 Report described the old system as “byzantine.” And it was. Court assessments
were scattered throughout the Illinois Complied Statutes without much organization or
thought. This system had developed over time by individual assessments authorized by
the General Assembly, all certainly enacted with good intentions. But without
considering these assessments within the context of the entire assessment structure, the
aggregate amounts charged outpaced inflation and the system became increasingly
complex, confusing, and difficult to manage. The Task Force believes we should strive to
avoid slipping back into such a system.
There is no simple fix to this problem. The General Assembly cannot prevent future
General Assemblies from adding assessments outside the CTAA or Section 27.1b. And
future General Assemblies with new members and staff will not know the history that led
to enactment of the CTAA and Section 27.1b, so it is inevitable that someone at some
point will seek to add an assessment outside the current structure.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 22
Recommendation
The Task Force recommends that any future legislation amending the CTAA and Section
27.1b include findings that explain the history and purpose of those statutes so that future
lawmakers will understand the importance of curbing increases in assessments and
avoiding the creation of new assessments that are not subject to the overall limits created
by those statutes. Any future legislation that increases or creates new assessments
should also include a finding which explains how the assessment either defrays the cost
of the litigation or directly relates to the administration of the court system.
Additionally, the Supreme Court, circuit clerks, and bar associations should vigilantly
watch for new legislation that would add an assessment outside the current structure.
When such legislation is introduced, those parties should lobby the General Assembly to
ensure that, if additional assessments are authorized, they should be placed in the CTAA
or Section 27.1b and should be required to adhere to the overall caps on assessments
contained in those provisions.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 23
II. Issues Regarding Court Assessments That Were Not Identified by
the First Statutory Court Fee Task Force
The New Initiatives Committee was tasked with considering potential additional measures
intended to address problems identified by the original Task Force, as well as related
problems. After considering 16 potential initiatives, the Committee focused on the
following seven subjects:
1. The varying Federal Poverty Level thresholds for partial and total waivers of
assessments in civil and criminal cases;
2. The accounting fee and reporting fee charged to guardians in guardianship
cases for disabled adults and children;
3. Assessments imposed in delinquency proceedings in Juvenile Court;
4. Collection practices regarding unpaid assessments;
5. Assessments imposed on defendants sentenced to the Department of
Corrections;
6. Assessments that are not tied to court-related services and, therefore, may
violate the free access clause of the Illinois Constitution; and
7. A process for moving toward a unified and assessment-free court system.
Each of these subjects was assigned to smaller subgroups of the New Initiatives
Committee for further investigation and development of proposed legislation. The
resulting recommendations were ultimately reviewed and adopted by the Task Force,
with some modifications and refinements. The seven new initiatives are discussed below.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 24
New Initiative 1: Assessments and Fines in Juvenile Delinquency Cases
Issue
Should assessments and fines be eliminated, or should waivers be allowed, in juvenile
delinquency cases?
Why is this an issue?
A wide range of assessments are currently authorized in juvenile delinquency cases.
These include assessments for probation, supervision, DNA testing, detention, legal
representation, and diversion. In practice, there is a great deal of variation from county
to county regarding the extent to which assessments are imposed. Across the board,
relatively small amounts of revenue are generated from juvenile assessments, and often
little if any attempt is made to collect outstanding juvenile assessment balances.5
Research has found that assessments and fines in juvenile delinquency cases can
undermine the goal of achieving rehabilitation and successful reentry into the community
by leaving youths with significant debt and prolonging their involvement in the justice
system.6 7 8 Inability to pay assessments has also been associated with a significant
increase in the likelihood of recidivism.
5Data obtained by the Task Force’s Data Collection and Analysis Committee indicates that less
than a third of Illinois counties impose any assessments or fines in juvenile delinquency cases.
Only a handful of counties collected a total of more than $1,000 in assessments and fines during
any of the last five years, and no county collected a total of more than $10,000 over that five-year
period.
6National Juvenile Defender Center, The Cost of Juvenile Probation: A Critical Look into Juvenile
Supervision Fees https://njdc.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/NJDC_The-Cost-of-Juvenile-
Probation.pdf.
7Policy Advocacy Clinic, Berkeley Law School, “Making Families Pay: The Harmful, Unlawful, And
Costly Practice of Charging Juvenile Administrative Fees in California,” (2017): University of
California, Berkeley. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/State-Juvenile-
Fees-Report_revised12-10-19-.pdf.
8Juvenile Law Center, Debtors’ Prison for Kids? The High Cost of Fines and Fees in the Juvenile
Justice System (2016) http://debtorsprison.jlc.org/documents/jlc-debtors-prison.pdf.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 25
The additional stressor of the assessments and fines, especially when imposed without a
determination of the youth’s ability to pay, can adversely affect the youth’s trust in the
fairness of the justice system and even reduce the youth’s compliance with orders and
sentencing conditions.9 Research has further found that states like Illinois that hold the
parent and youth jointly liable can create divisiveness within the family during a time
when family engagement is crucial to the rehabilitation of the youth and the youth’s
successful reintegration into the community.10
Juvenile assessments may also have disproportionate adverse effects on families living in
poverty and families of color. Juvenile assessments can force low-income families to
choose between paying the assessments and paying for necessities such as food,
clothing, shelter, healthcare, and education.11 In the juvenile court system, youths living
in poverty may face harsher consequences than their more well-off peers since poor
children are less likely to pay juvenile assessments, which may result in contempt of
court, probation violations, recidivism ,and even additional fees.12 Based on available
arrest and detention data, youth of color in Illinois make up disproportionately higher
number of arrests and detentions than white youth.13 It is likely then that families of color
in Illinois bear a disproportionate burden of juvenile assessments.
With respect to court assessments, as in all other contexts, the justice system is required
to protect the special vulnerabilities of children.14 In order to ensure children are
9 See fn. 6, above.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 See fn. 8, above.
13Illinois Juvenile Justice Center, FY19 Illinois Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Compliance
Plan (2019) https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh176/files/media/document/IL-Y18-DMC-
PLAN_508.pdf
United States Department of Justice, Advisory for Recipients of Financial Assistance from the
14
U.S. Department of Justice on Levying Fines and Fees on Juveniles Fees (2017), https://
www.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh241/files/archives/documents/AdvisoryJuvFinesFees.pdf
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 26
protected in this context, the Office of Access to Justice of the U.S. Department of Justice
issued the following recommendations:
1. Juvenile justice agencies should presume that young people are unable to pay fines
and fees and only impose them after an affirmative showing of ability to pay.
2. Before juvenile justice agencies punish youth for failing to pay fines and fees, they
must first determine ability to pay, considering factors particularly applicable to youth.
3. Juvenile justice agencies should not condition entry into a diversion program or
another alternative to adjudication on the payment of a fee if the youth or the youth's
family is unable to pay the fee.
4. Juvenile justice agencies should collect data on race, national origin, sex, and
disability to determine whether the imposition of fines and fees has an unlawful
disparate impact on juveniles or their families.
5. Juvenile justice agencies should consider whether the imposition or enforcement of
fines and fees in any particular case comports with the rehabilitative goals of the
juvenile justice system.14
Since 2015, 21 states have reduced or eliminated assessments imposed on youths and
families in juvenile cases. One additional state, New York, has never charged
assessments in juvenile cases.
Recommendation
The Task Force recommends that legislation be enacted abolishing assessments and fines
in juvenile delinquency cases, but preserving juveniles’ liability for restitution and for
assessments in traffic cases. Senate Bill 3621, which was filed in the spring 2022
legislative session of the 102nd General Assembly, was designed to accomplish that
objective. The Task Force recommends that the General Assembly pass legislation
substantially in the form of SB 3621.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 27
The “substantially in the form” qualification to this recommendation primarily reflects the
reality that SB 3621 was a lengthy piece of legislation (90 pages) that is likely to be re-
filed during the 103rd General Assembly. The Task Force believes the heart of the
legislation was well-conceived and well-drafted. The Task Force strongly urges that it be
enacted.
New Initiative 2: Fee for Guardian Reports
Issue
Reports by guardians of disabled adults and children may be ordered by the court
pursuant to the Probate Act. 755 ILCS 5/11a-17. There is a $25 fee for filing this report.
705 ILCS 105/27/1b(v)(1).
Why is this an issue?
Assuming guardianship of a disabled adult or child is a significant responsibility—
emotionally, physically, and financially. Even though guardians may seek reasonable
compensation for guardianship duties, in practice many do not or there may be
insufficient assets in the estate from which to be paid. Most guardians are family
members of the disabled adult or child, and most are self-represented after being
appointed.
A report must be filed every year, along with payment of the $25 fee, until the disabled
adult or child emerges from guardianship or dies.
Recommendation
The Task Force considered whether the availability of fee waivers offered a solution to this
issue. Fee waivers are available in guardianship cases. However, fee waivers are only in
effect for a year, which would require obtaining an annual renewal in addition to filing the
annual report. See 735 ILCS 5/5-105(f).
The amount of money collected from this fee is small. The largest case management
system vendor in Illinois cannot provide an estimate for this revenue because it is not
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 28
tracked separately from other miscellaneous circuit clerk fees. However, in 2021, DuPage
County collected approximately $20,000, McHenry County collected approximately
$11,000, and Winnebago County collected approximately $3,000 in fees in guardianship
cases.
The Task Force recommends the annual fee in guardianship cases be removed from the
Clerk of Courts Act by revising 705 ILCS 105/27.1b(v) as follows:
(v) Probate filings.
(1) For each account (other than one final account) filed in the estate of a
decedent, or ward, the fee shall not exceed $25. No fee shall be charged for
accounts filed for guardianships established for minors pursuant to Article XI of the
Probate Act or for disabled adults pursuant to Article XIa of the Probate Act.
This proposed statutory amendment is included in Appendix G.
New Initiative 3: Debt Collection Fees
Issue
There are a host of authorized assessments relating to efforts by circuit court clerks to
collect outstanding obligations. The issue is whether all of those assessments are
warranted.
Why is this an issue?
Any additional assessments imposed on civil litigants impede their access to the courts.
Any additional assessments imposed on criminal defendants, while ostensibly not
intended to punish, are indistinguishable from the defendant’s standpoint from fines that
are intended to punish, and in some instances may be more punitive because
assessments cannot be worked off through community service.
There are two ways circuit clerks collect outstanding obligations. The first is by using the
Illinois Office of the Comptroller’s Local Debt Recovery Program (IDROP). 15 ILCS
405/10.05-10.05D. To use the IDROP program, circuit court clerks submit a data file
listing outstanding debt. IDROP intercepts state payouts to the obligor, including wages,
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 29
tax refunds, and lottery winnings. For each successful intercept, the Comptroller
assesses a fee of $15 or $20 to the obligor.
Circuit clerks also use the State’s Attorney’s Office to collect outstanding obligations.
730 ILCS 5/5-9-3(e). The State’s Attorney may charge an additional 30% of the
outstanding balance as a fee. Many State’s Attorney’s offices have outsourced this
function to private companies in exchange for the 30% collection fee.
The only cost to the circuit clerk for collections work is the minor expense of creating the
debt file and uploading it to the Comptroller or private debt collector. However,
collections can bring in significant amounts of money. For example, in 2020, DuPage
County collected over $1 million from both types of collection activities, and both
Winnebago and McHenry counties collect hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
This money is used to pay obligations owed to municipal governments and third-party
vendor services, as well as county and court clerk services.
There are two additional statutory provisions that add more financial penalties to obligors
who do not make payments on their court debts. 705 ILCS 105/27.1b(j-5) allows the
circuit clerk to collect an additional flat fee of $35-$65 depending on the amount of the
debt. Despite the statutory authorization, not all circuit clerks assess this additional
amount. 705 ILCS 105/27.1b(y-5) and 725 ILCS 5/124A-10, allow the circuit clerk to charge
an additional 5% to 15% of the outstanding balance of fees to defray administrative costs.
Not all circuit clerks assess these additional charges, either.
Recommendation
The Task Force believes that it is excessive for there to be two potential charges on
delinquent accounts in addition to the collection fees charged by IDROP or the State’s
Attorney. The Task Force recommends that 705 ILCS 105/27.1b(y-5) and the provisions of
725 ILCS 5/124A-10 relating to additional fees be repealed. The repeals will operate
prospectively only. This recommendation is not intended to require clerks to recalculate
delinquency fees and unpaid balances that are already in debt collection, nor to refund
any debt collection fees that have already been collected.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 30
(705 ILCS 105/27.1b)
* * *
(y-5) Unpaid fees. Unless a court ordered payment schedule is implemented or
the fee requirements of this Section are waived under a court order, the clerk of
the circuit court may add to any unpaid fees and costs under this Section a
delinquency amount equal to 5% of the unpaid fees that remain unpaid after 30
days, 10% of the unpaid fees that remain unpaid after 60 days, and 15% of the
unpaid fees that remain unpaid after 90 days. Notice to those parties may be made
by signage posting or publication. The additional delinquency amounts collected
under this Section shall be deposited into the Circuit Court Clerk Operations and
Administration Fund and used to defray additional administrative costs incurred by
the clerk of the circuit court in collecting unpaid fees and costs.
(725 ILCS 5/124A-10)
Sec. 124A-10. Lien. The property, real and personal, of a person who is convicted
of an offense shall be bound, and a lien is created on the property, both real and
personal, of every offender, not exempt from the enforcement of a judgment or
attachment, from the time of finding the indictment at least so far as will be
sufficient to pay the fine and costs of prosecution. The clerk of the court in which
the conviction is had shall upon the expiration of 30 days after judgment is entered
issue a certified copy of the judgment for any fine that remains unpaid, and all
costs of conviction remaining unpaid. Unless a court ordered payment schedule is
implemented, the clerk of the court may add to any judgment a delinquency
amount equal to 5% of the unpaid fines, costs, fees, and penalties that remain
unpaid after 30 days, 10% of the unpaid fines, costs, fees, and penalties that
remain unpaid after 60 days, and 15% of the unpaid fines, costs, fees, and penalties
that remain unpaid after 90 days. Notice to those parties affected may be made by
signage posting or publication. The clerk of the court may also after a period of 90
days release to credit reporting agencies, information regarding unpaid amounts.
The additional delinquency amounts collected under this Section shall be used to
defray additional administrative costs incurred by the clerk of the court in
collecting unpaid fines, costs, fees, and penalties. The certified copy of the
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 31
judgment shall state the day on which the arrest was made or indictment found, as
the case may be. Enforcement of the judgment may be directed to the proper
officer of any county in this State. The officer to whom the certified copy of the
judgment is delivered shall levy the judgment upon all the estate, real and
personal, of the defendant (not exempt from enforcement) possessed by him or
her on the day of the arrest or finding the indictment, as stated in the certified
copy of the judgment and any such property subsequently acquired; and the
property so levied upon shall be advertised and sold in the same manner as in civil
cases, with the like rights to all parties that may be interested in the property. It is
not an objection to the selling of any property under the judgment that the
defendant is in custody for the fine or costs, or both.
These proposed statutory amendments are contained in Appendix H.
New Initiative 4: Assessments and Fines Imposed on Defendants Sentenced to
the Department of Corrections
Issue
Should assessments and fines be reduced or eliminated for defendants sentenced to the
Department of Corrections (DOC)?
Why is this an issue?
Defendants convicted of felonies can accumulate large amounts of court assessments.
Defendants who are released after completing a sentence in the DOC face the daunting
prospect of trying to reintegrate into society, including finding employment and housing.
Indebtedness poses a significant obstacle to this process. This issue is well-documented.
For example, a Brennan Center report from 2010 found that criminal justice debt
significantly hobbles a person’s chances to reenter society successfully after a
conviction.15
A. Bannon, M. Nagrecha, and R. Diller, Criminal Justice Debt: A Barrier to Reentry¸ Brennan
15
Center for Justice (2010).
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 32
The Task Force attempted to weigh the adverse impact of assessments on recidivism and
defendants’ ability to reintegrate into society, against the potential financial impact on
counties of eliminating these assessments with respect to defendants sentenced to the
DOC. The Task Force sought data regarding the relationship between the length of
defendants’ sentences and the amount of financial obligations incurred and paid. While
statewide data was unavailable, data from DuPage, McHenry, and Winnebago counties
indicates that defendants sentenced to a prison term between one and eight years have a
payment rate ranging between 15% and 25%. For sentences over eight years, the
payment rate drops to approximately 5%.
The Task Force attempted to determine what portion of the payments were made using
cash bond. It was determined that a substantial portion (as high as 90%) of the payments
are made from available cash bond.
Recommendation
The Task Force recommends that defendants sentenced to the Department of
Corrections earn a reduction in the amount of assessments (i.e., court costs and fees) and
fines tied to the length of their prison sentence. There would be a reduction in the
amount of assessments and fines of 20% for each year of a sentence, with defendants
sentenced to a prison term of five or more years earning a 100% reduction. This
recommendation is designed to simultaneously avoid burdening defendants sentenced
to prison with significant prison debt, reduce barriers to their successful reentry into
society following their release from custody, and relieve court officials of the
administrative burden of tracking indebtedness that is rarely collected, all without
imposing any significant financial impact on counties because of the poor prospects for
collecting those assessments and fines.
For the unusual situations in which a defendant sentenced to a prison term does have the
wherewithal to pay the full amount of assessments and fines, the recommended
legislation contains a provision allowing the State’s Attorney to file a motion seeking to
exclude the reduction or elimination of liability for assessments and fines from the
defendant’s sentence. The court would then be tasked with determining whether the
defendant is reasonably able to pay the full amount of the assessments and fines, with
due regard for their current income, anticipated income while incarcerated (if any),
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 33
current assets and liabilities, and the anticipated cost, while they are incarcerated, of
supporting persons who will remain dependent on them for support.
The Task Force believes that a defendant’s financial responsibility for restitution is
warranted to reimburse a victim for an actual realized loss from the actions of the
defendant. Consequently, a defendant’s liability for providing restitution is excluded from
the recommended reduction or elimination of their liability for assessments and fines.
Reducing or eliminating liability for assessments and fines is also expected to promote
defendants’ ability to pay restitution.
A copy of the proposed legislation effecting this recommendation is contained in
Appendix I.
New Initiative 5: Eligibility Guidelines for Assessment Waivers in Civil Litigation
Issue
Should the eligibility guidelines for full or partial assessment waivers in civil cases be
modified to mirror the more generous eligibility guidelines for full or partial assessment
waivers in criminal cases?
Why is this an issue?
Section 5-105 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes full waivers of assessments in
civil actions for persons whose income is 125% or less of the federal poverty level (“FPL”),
or who are receiving assistance under specified means-based government public
benefits programs, or whose payment of assessments would result in substantial
hardship to the person or his or her family. Persons with income between 125% and 150%
of the FPL are eligible for a 75% waiver; persons with income between 150% and 175% of
the FPL are eligible for a 50% waiver; and persons with income between 175% and 200%
of the FPL are eligible for a 25% waiver. 735 ILCS 5/5-105(b).
The eligibility criteria for assessment waivers in criminal cases are more generous.
Section 124A-20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes full assessment waivers for
persons whose income is 200% or less of the FPL, or who are receiving assistance under
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 34
specified means-based government public benefits programs, or whose payment of
assessments would result in substantial hardship to the person or his or her family.
Persons with income between 200% and 250% of the FPL are eligible for a 75% waiver;
persons with income between 250% and 300% of the FPL are eligible for a 50% waiver;
and persons with income between 300% and 400% of the FPL are eligible for a 25%
waiver. 725 ILCS 5/124A-20(b).
Cost is a significant barrier to access to the civil justice system. Aside from the potential
budgetary impact, it is difficult to justify having two separate guidelines.
Recommendation
While most members of the Task Force believe the waiver thresholds should be the same
for civil and criminal cases, the Task Force does not recommend implementing this
change without first determining the budgetary impact on counties. As previously noted,
counties rely on assessments from civil cases to help fund court operations, including the
circuit clerk’s office. Rather than assume that counties can absorb the loss of income that
might be created by changing the waiver thresholds, the Task Force recommends that (1)
professionals be engaged to determine the financial impact of changing the waiver
thresholds in civil cases to correspond with those applicable to criminal cases16; (2) a plan
be devised to compensate counties for the anticipated loss of income; and (3) legislation
be drafted that (a) brings the eligibility guidelines for assessment waivers in civil cases in
line with those for criminal cases, while (b) compensating counties for the projected loss
of income.
New Initiative 6: Review of Assessments That May Violate the Free Access
Clause of the Illinois Constitution
Issue
16The Task Force gratefully acknowledges Stout, a global investment bank and advisory firm, for
helping analyze this issue. Led by Neil Steinkamp, Stout examined the potential incremental
annual financial impact that could arise by aligning the civil fee waiver schedule with the criminal
fee waiver schedule. A copy of Stout’s analysis is available from the Access to Justice Division of
the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/aoic/access-to-justice/.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 35
Should the General Assembly identify and repeal assessments that may violate the free
access clause of the Illinois Constitution?
Why is this an issue?
In Walker v. Chasteen, 2021 IL 126086, the Supreme Court held that the add-on filing fee
on mortgage foreclosure complaints contained in Section 15-1504.1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (735 ILCS 5/15-1504.1) violated the free access clause of the Illinois
Constitution, Ill. Const. 1970 art. I, § 12. Enacted as part of the “Save Our Neighborhoods
Act” in response to the mortgage foreclosure crisis, the legislation authorizing the fee
directed that those funds be used to support the Foreclosure Program Prevention Fund
and the Abandoned Residential Property Fund, including by subsidizing grants to housing
counseling agencies, foreclosure prevention services, and municipalities for such things
as cutting grass, removing garbage and graffiti, and erecting fencing at abandoned
properties.
In striking down the mortgage foreclosure fee, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding
in Crocker v. Finley, 99 Ill. 2d 444, 451 (1984), that a charge imposed on a litigant is a
permissible fee if assessed to defray the expenses of the litigation. On the other hand, a
charge having no relation to the court services rendered is a litigation tax that violates the
free access and due process clauses of the Illinois Constitution unless it is imposed for
purposes related to the operation and maintenance of the courts.
Like the domestic violence filing fee in Crocker, the Supreme Court concluded that the
mortgage foreclosure filing fee in Walker was actually a litigation tax, as it bore no direct
relation to the expenses of the litigation or to the services rendered. Because that tax
was a revenue-raising measure designed to fund a statewide social program, which had
no direct relation to the administration of the court system, the Court held that the fee
unreasonably interfered with foreclosure litigants’ access to the courts in violation of the
free access clause of the Illinois Constitution.
Recommendation
The Task Force recommends that the General Assembly convene a legislative working
group to review the list of civil statutory add-on fees located in Appendix F to ensure
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 36
consistency with the standard set out in Crocker and affirmed in Walker. Any fees which
do not defray the expenses of litigation should be considered litigation taxes which run
afoul of the free access clause of the Illinois Constitution unless they have a direct
relationship to the administration of the court system. Litigation taxes which are merely
designed to raise revenue to fund non-court-related social welfare programs should be
repealed, and if the resulting revenue loss is problematic alternate funding sources for
the affected programs should be identified. Any fees contained in Appendix F that are
not repealed, due to the concerns identified in Crocker and Walker or for any other
reason, should be moved into the CTAA or Section 27.1b, as provided in Implementation
Recommendation No. 5.
New Initiative 7: Working Toward a Unified, Assessment-Free Court System
Issue
Should our state work to adopt a mechanism to “fully fund” the court system (a “unified”
court system) and reduce or eliminate the use of assessments as a source of revenue?
Why is this an issue?
Access to justice is a fundamental right that should be provided and protected by the
State. The justice system benefits all of the state’s residents, not just those who come in
contact with it. It should, therefore, be funded by all of the residents. The current system
of funding disproportionately falls on those who use the system even though the system
benefits everyone.
The Illinois Judicial Conference Court Funding Task Force (“Court Funding Task Force”)
was charged with determining the complete cost of the court system and identifying and
explaining the multiple sources of funding, including answering key questions about
court system funding, what the court system costs now, and where funding comes from.
In its January 2021 Progress Report to the Judicial Conference, the Court Funding Task
Force determined that from a funding perspective, the state court system can be broken
down into four broad categories: Personnel, Physical Space, Technology, and Other
Needs and Services.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 37
While financing the state court system is a shared responsibility between the State of
Illinois and its 102 counties, the Court Funding Task Force found that most of the funding
responsibility is borne by the counties. For Fiscal Year 2019, the total amount of revenue
for the Illinois court system from all sources was approximately $2.1 billion, as against
expenditures of roughly $2.3 billion. More than half of that revenue came from counties.
Approximately $151.6 million, or roughly seven percent (7%) of total revenues, was
generated from court assessments.17
Recommendation
The CTAA and Section 27.1b reduced the number of assessments, grouped assessments
for criminal cases into categories with specified assessment amounts, grouped
assessments for civil cases into categories with specified maximum assessment amounts,
and expanded the use of waivers. While this has led to more transparent and
understandable assessments, judges, court staff, and clerk’s offices must still devote
resources to the processes of fee determination, waiver, and collection. Even with the
remaining assessments, under the current model of funding the expenditures of the court
system will likely exceed its total revenue, resulting in underfunding of a co-equal and
important branch of the State’s government. A fully taxpayer-funded court system would
allocate the costs of the state court system across all taxpayers rather than imposing a
disproportionate burden on parties to court proceedings. All taxpayers benefit from a
well-functioning judicial system. As was stated in a 2013 Illinois State Bar Association
report on the funding crisis in the Illinois courts, “[p]ut simply, an effective civil and
criminal court system is critical to the safety and well being of the people of this State.”18
The Task Force recommends that all stakeholders develop a long-term funding plan for a
unified Illinois court system that further reduces (or eliminates entirely) the use of
assessments as a source of revenue.19
17 Court Funding Task Force, January 2021 Progress Report to the Judicial Conference, Exhibit 3.
See Report on the Funding Crisis in the Illinois Courts, https://www.americanbar.org/content/
18
dam/aba/administrative/tips/Court%20Funding/
Report%20on%20the%20Funding%20Crisis%20in%20the%20Illinois%20Courts.pdf.
19One member of the Task Force believes that consideration of the desirability of a unified court
system exceeds the scope of this Task Force’s charge.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 38
Other states’ funding models may provide a starting point. In 1997, the State of California
eliminated separate county and state budgeting for the court system and gave the state
primary responsibility for funding trial court operations. Following this consolidation, the
Judicial Council in California worked toward a transparent model to distribute the
branch’s budget funds to the state’s 58 trial courts. The judicial branch’s “Workload
Formula” determines the money a trial court receives based upon its workload; funding is
based on the number of cases received as well as the types of cases handled annually.20
Court filings are averaged over time to avoid funding swings that might come with a
surge or decline in filings. The Judicial Council’s committees review the formula and its
application and recommend amendments.
Notably, the changes in the funding system in California did not eliminate criminal fines
and fees or civil assessments. The judicial branch of California has, however, advocated
for a funding structure that ends its reliance on fines and fees from court users.21 The
Task Force recommends that the State of Illinois adopt a similar long-term goal regarding
assessments.
20 See Judicial Council of California, Budget and Finance, https://www.courts.ca.gov/finance.htm.
21See, e.g., Judicial Branch of California, California’s Judicial Branch Budget Process, https://
newsroom.courts.ca.gov/branch-facts/californias-judicial-branch-budget-process (“The judicial
branch has advocated for a three-branch (Executive–Legislative–Judicial) solution to this funding
structure and its reliance on fines and fees from court users.”); see also Commission on the Future
of California’s Court System, Report to the Chief Justice (2017), 183, https://www.courts.ca.gov/
documents/futures-commission-final-report.pdf (recommending “[p]roviding alternative funding
to adequately support the judicial system and thereby reduce or preferably eliminate reliance on
fines and fees as a source of court funding”).
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 39
III. Data Collection and Reporting Needed to Provide Empirical Basis
for Additional Improvements
Accurate data is essential to evaluating the extent to which the CTAA and Section 27.1b
are achieving their objectives, and to identifying opportunities for additional
improvements. Many of the recommendations contained in this report are based on data
developed by the Task Force’s Data Collection & Analysis Committee to support the work
of the Implementation Committee and the New Initiatives Committee. To that end, the
Data Collection & Analysis Committee obtained data regarding certain topics from all 102
Illinois circuit clerks. When that data was unavailable, the Committee obtained data from
a representative subset of counties. For other types of data, the Committee obtained
information from the Conference of Chief Judges. The Committee also worked with the
Judicial Management Information Services division of the Administrative Office of Illinois
Courts (AOIC) to identify areas where better financial data should be gathered from the
circuit clerks, including data required by each circuit clerk’s annual financial “Report J.”
Data Reporting Recommendation 1: Continuation and Expansion of Annual
Reports by Circuit Court Clerks Regarding Assessments in Criminal and Traffic
Proceedings
Issue
Should circuit court clerks be required to file annual reports with the AOIC containing
detailed information relating to assessments in criminal and traffic proceedings?
Why is this an issue?
Section 1-10 of the CTAA required circuit clerks to file annual reports with the AOIC
containing detailed information regarding, among other things, the number of various
types of criminal and traffic cases that were filed, the number and amount of
assessments imposed and collected, the number and amount of fines imposed and
collected, the number of assessment waiver applications that were granted at each
waiver level between 25 and 100 percent, and the amount of assessments that were
waived. 705 ILCS 135/1-10. The CTAA only required assessment reports to be filed for
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 40
calendar year 2019, but reports were also filed for 2020 and 2021 pursuant to Supreme
Court order.
Recommendation
The Task Force recommends revising Section 1-10 of the CTAA to require assessment
reports for a calendar year to be filed no later than March 1 of the following year. The Task
Force also recommends expanding the content of the reports to include the number of
assessment waiver applications that are filed. Recommended statutory language is
contained in Appendix J to this report.
Data Reporting Recommendation 2: Continuation and Expansion of Annual
Reports by Circuit Court Clerks Regarding Assessments in Civil Cases
Issue
Should circuit court clerks be required to file annual reports with the AOIC containing
detailed information relating to assessments in civil cases?
Why is this an issue?
Section 27.1c of the Clerk of Courts Act contains a reporting requirement for civil cases
that is analogous to the reporting requirement for criminal and traffic cases contained in
Section 1-10 of the CTAA. The primary difference from the CTAA provision is that
Section 27.1c is not limited to 2019. However, both provisions did not originally contain a
requirement that the number of assessment waiver applications be reported.
Recommendation
The Task Force recommends revising Section 27.1c to require reporting of the total
number of civil cases in which assessment waivers were filed. Recommended statutory
language is contained in Appendix K.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 41
Data Reporting Recommendation 3: Continuation of Efforts by Circuit Clerks
and the Judicial Management Information Services Division to Make Better Use
of Assessment-Related Data Reported by the Clerks
Issue
Should the Supreme Court direct the AOIC’s Judicial Management Information Services
division (JMIS) to continue to work with circuit court clerks to make better use of
assessment-related data reported by the clerks?
Why is this an issue?
The annual “Report J” filed by circuit court clerks includes detailed financial data on every
assessment and fine collected by circuit clerks across the state. The JMIS division has
undertaken a project to consolidate several data sets provided by circuit clerks, which
will improve our long-term ability to identify the impact of the CTAA and Section 27.1b, as
well as the projected impact of proposed legislation relating to assessments.
Recommendation
The Task Force recommends that the Supreme Court direct the JMIS Division of the AOIC
to continue to work with the circuit clerks to make better use of the assessment data the
clerks are reporting to the AOIC.
CONCLUSION
The legislation and court rules resulting from the efforts of the first Statutory Court Fee
Task Force have enabled our State to make significant strides in terms of reducing
barriers to access to justice associated with court assessments, addressing excessive
variation in the amount of assessments charged in different counties, simplifying the
system of assessments, and deterring the proliferation of additional assessments. Given
the length and complexity of the CTAA and Section 27.1b, it was anticipated that issues
would arise in implementing that legislation that would require subsequent legislative
corrections. The nine Implementation Recommendations in this report effectively
address those issues.
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 42
It was also recognized that additional areas remained in which future improvements to
the system of assessments would be needed. Enactment of legislation implementing the
seven New Initiative Recommendations will build on the progress that has already been
achieved toward realizing the goals articulated by the first Task Force, while effectuation
of the Data Collection and Reporting Recommendations will provide stakeholders with
empirical information needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the current system and
identify opportunities for future improvements.
The members of the Task Force recognize that, as was the case with the issuance of the
first Task Force Report, issuance of this report does not mean that the Task Force’s
responsibilities have been discharged. The Task Force is committed to working with the
General Assembly and the Supreme Court to help make implementation of the
recommendations contained in these pages a reality through enactment of legislation
and promulgation of court rules.
Dated: January 1, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
The Statutory Court Fee Task Force
Chirag G. Badlani Hon. Eugene G. Doherty
Hon. Thomas M. Donnelly Hon. Michael A. Fiello
Hon. David Friess Hon. Katherine Keefe
Hon. Thomas A. Klein Hon. Leroy K. Martin
Steven F. Pflaum, Chair Jonathan Pilsner
Hon. Elizabeth A. Robb (Ret.) Hon. Justin Slaughter
Hon. Brian W. Stewart Adam Vaught
ILLINOIS STATUTORY COURT FEE TASK FORCE 43
APPENDIX
44
ELIMINATION OF THE SUNSET PROVISIONS FROM THE CTAA AND
SECTION 27.1B OF THE CLERK OF COURTS ACT
(705 ILCS 105/27.1b)
Sec. 27.1b. Circuit court clerk fees. …
…
(aa) This Section is repealed on January 1, 2024.
(705 ILCS 135/20-5)
Sec. 20-5. Repeal. This Act is repealed on January 1, 2024.
Appendix A 45
CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITIONS IN THE CTAA
(705 ILCS 135/1-5)
Sec. 1-5. Definitions. In this Act:
* * *
“Case” means all charges and counts arising from the same act or incident filed
against a single defendant which are being prosecuted by a single agency as a single
proceeding before the court.
* * *
“Conditional assessments” means any costs imposed on a defendant under
Section 15-70 of this Act.
“Court-supervised service provider” means any entity, facility, or other person that
is directly or contractually supervised by the court and which provides services to the
court, parties, or other persons in connection with a case.
“Court-supervised service provider costs” means any charges imposed in a case by
a service provider in accordance with a court order.
* * *
“Non-court supervised Sservice provider costs” means costs incurred as a result of
services provided by an non-court supervised entity, facility, or other person, including,
but not limited to, traffic safety programs, laboratories, ambulance companies, and fire
departments. “Service provider costs” includes conditional amounts under this Act that
are reimbursements for services provided.
(705 ILCS 135/5-15)
Sec. 5-15. Non-court supervised service provider costs. Unless otherwise provided
in Article 15 of this Act, the defendant shall pay non-court supervised service provider
costs to the entity that provided the service. Such costs are not eligible for credit for
time served, substitution of community service, or waiver. The circuit court may, through
administrative order or local rule, appoint the clerk of the court as the receiver and
remitter of certain non-court supervised service provider costs which may include, but
are not limited to, probation fees, traffic school fees, or drug or alcohol testing fees.
Appendix B 46
(705 ILCS 135/15-70)
Sec. 15-70. Conditional assessments. In addition to payments under one of the
Schedule of Assessments 1 through 13 of this Act, the court shall also order payment of
any of the following conditional assessment amounts for each sentenced violation in the
case to which a conditional assessment is applicable, which shall be collected and
remitted by the Clerk of the Circuit Court as provided in this Section:
* * *
(20) Court-supervised service provider costs imposed in a case.
Appendix B 47
CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT WAIVERS
(725 ILCS 5/124A-20)
Sec. 124A-20. Assessment waiver.
(a) As used in this Section:
“Assessments” means any costs imposed on a criminal defendant under
Article 15 of the Criminal and Traffic Assessment Act, but does not include violation
of the Illinois Vehicle Code assessments except as provided in subsection (a-5); all
fees set forth in Section 27.1b of the Clerks of Courts Act; fees for supplementary
proceedings; charges for translation services; fees associated with preparation of a
record on appeal, including court reporter fees; fees for record or case searches;
fees for the reproduction of any document contained in the clerk’s files; and all
other processes and procedures deemed by the court to be necessary to defend a
criminal action. “Assessments” does not include, and assessment waivers under
this Section do not cover, non-court supervised service provider costs, as defined
in Section 1-5 of the Criminal and Traffic Assessment Act.
* * *
(b) For assessment schedules and conditional assessments imposed on criminal
offenses reflected in Schedules 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of Article 15 of the Criminal and Traffic
Assessment Act, upon the application of any defendant, after the commencement of an
action, but no later than 30 days after sentencing:
(735 ILCS 5/5-105) (from Ch. 110, par. 5-105)
Sec. 5-105. Waiver of court fees, costs, and charges.
(a) As used in this Section:
(1) “Fees, costs, and charges” means payments imposed on a party in
connection with the prosecution or defense of a civil action, including, but not
limited to defined as: all fees set forth in Section 27.1b of the Clerks of Courts Act;
fees for service of process and other papers served either within or outside this
State, including service by publication pursuant to Section 2-206 of this Code and
publication of necessary legal notices; motion fees; charges for participation in, or
Appendix C 48
attendance at, any mandatory process or procedure including, but not limited to,
conciliation, mediation, arbitration, counseling, evaluation, “Children First”, “Focus
on Children” or similar programs; fees for supplementary proceedings; charges for
translation services; guardian ad litem fees; fees associated with preparation of a
record on appeal, including court reporter fees; fees for record or case searches;
fees for the reproduction of any document contained in the clerk’s files; and all
other processes and procedures deemed by the court to be necessary to
commence, prosecute, defend, or enforce relief in a civil action. “Fees, costs, and
charges” does not include, and fee waivers under this Section do not cover,
expenses incurred as a result of services provided by a non-court supervised
entity, facility, or other person, including, but not limited to, real estate services,
healthcare or mental health services, child care, or job placement assistance.
Appendix C 49
CLARIFICATION THAT ASSESSMENT WAIVERS
CANNOT BE A CONDITION OF PLEA BARGAINS
(725 ILCS 5/124A-20)
Sec. 124A-20. Assessment waiver.
* * *
(h) No defendant shall be required to forego or waive his or her
right to seek a waiver of assessments as a condition of any plea
agreement.
Appendix D 50
CLARIFICATION OF PROCEDURE FOR
SEEKING ASSESSMENT WAIVERS
Rule 298. Application for Waiver of Court Fees, Costs, and Charges
(a) Contents and Filing. An Application for Waiver of Court Fees application for
waiver of court fees, costs, and charges in a civil action pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/5-105
shall be in writing and signed by the applicant or, if the applicant is a minor or an
incompetent adult, by another person having knowledge of the facts.
(1) An applicant shall use the “Application for Waiver of Court Fees” form
approved by the Illinois Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Commission on
Access to Justice.
(12) The contents of the Application (and supporting documents, if required,)
must be sufficient to allow a court to determine whether an applicant qualifies for
full or partial waiver of assessments pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/5-105, and shall include
information regarding the applicant’s household composition, receipt of need-
based public benefits, income, expenses, and nonexempt assets.
(2) Applicants shall use the “Application for Waiver of Court Fees” adopted
by the Illinois Supreme Court Access to Justice Commission, which can be found in
the Article II Forms Appendix.
(3) No fee may be charged for filing an Application. Applications by persons
who are exempt from electronic filing under Supreme Court Rule 9(c) may be filed
in-person at the clerk of court, or by United States mail, third-party commercial
carrier, deposit in a drop box receptacle maintained by the clerk, or any other
means permitted by the local court. All other Applications shall be electronically
filed.
(b) Ruling. The court shall either enter a ruling on the Application or set the
Application for a hearing requiring the applicant to appear in person. The court may order
the applicant to produce copies of specified documents in support of the Application at
the hearing. The court’s ruling on an Application for Waiver of Court Fees shall be made
according to standards set forth in 735 ILCS 5/5-105. If the Application is denied, the
court shall enter an order to that effect specifying the reasons for the denial. If the court
determines that the conditions for a full assessment waiver under 735 ILCS 5/5-105(b)(1)
are satisfied, it shall enter an order permitting the applicant to sue or defend without
payment of assessments, costs or charges. If the court determines that the conditions for
Appendix E 51
a partial assessment waiver under 735 ILCS 5/5-105(b)(2) are satisfied, it shall enter an
order permitting the applicant to sue or defend after payment of a specified percentage
of assessments, costs, or charges. If an Application for a partial assessment waiver is
granted, and if necessary to avoid undue hardship on the applicant, the court may allow
the applicant to defer payment of assessments, costs, and charges, make installment
payments or make payment upon reasonable terms and conditions stated in the order
Supporting Documentation. No supporting documentation of eligibility in addition to
the Application is needed unless the county or circuit has adopted a local rule requiring
it. Any such local rule may not require any more than the following:
(1) Government Benefit Recipients. An applicant who is currently receiving
assistance under one or more of the means-based governmental public benefits
may be required to provide a current benefits statement or other documentary
proof of their receipt of benefits, but shall not be required to provide any additional
information or documentation about their income, assets, debts, or expenses.
(2) Other Applicants. An applicant who is not receiving one or more of the
means-based governmental public benefit may be required to provide financial
information and supporting documentation including their most recent pay stubs
from all employers, 1099s, and W-2s.
(c) Filing. No fee may be charged for filing an Application for Waiver of Court Fees.
The clerk must allow an applicant to file an Application for Waiver of Court Fees in the
court where his case will be heard. Decision of Application. Applications shall be
decided as soon as reasonably possible in accordance with the following procedure:
(1) An Application shall be decided without a hearing if all relevant sections
are complete (and, if applicable, it is supported by documents required by that
jurisdiction pursuant to (b)(1)). If all the relevant sections or the Application are not
complete or it is not accompanied by any required supporting documentation,
outright denial is not permitted; the applicant must be notified of the deficiencies
and given the opportunity to amend the application by providing the supporting
documentation and/or be given a hearing.
(2) If the court schedules a hearing, it shall enter an order scheduling a
remote hearing in accordance with Rule 45, within 30 days, unless the applicant
requests an in-person hearing or will already be present at the courthouse on the
date of the hearing. The order must state: (a) the specific eligibility questions that
necessitate the hearing; (b) what documents, if any, must be submitted in support
Appendix E 52
of the Application at or before the hearing, and how to submit them; and (c) the
remote hearing meeting ID and password or the courtroom location if in-person.
(3) An order deciding an Application, with or without a hearing, or
scheduling a hearing, shall use the “Order for Waiver of Court Fees” form approved
by the Illinois Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Commission on Access to
Justice. The court’s ruling on an Application for Waiver of Court Fees shall be made
according to standards set forth in 735 ILCS 5/5-105. If the Application is denied,
the court shall enter an order to that effect specifying the reasons for the denial.
As provided in the form Order, if the court determines that the conditions for a full
assessment waiver under 735 ILCS 5/5-105(b)(1) are satisfied, it shall enter an order
permitting the applicant to sue or defend without payment of assessments, costs,
or charges. If the court determines that the conditions for a partial assessment
waiver under 735 ILCS 5/5-105(b)(2) are satisfied, it shall enter an order permitting
the applicant to sue or defend after payment of a specified percentage of
assessments, costs, or charges. If an Application for a partial assessment waiver is
granted, and if necessary to avoid undue hardship on the applicant, the court may
allow the applicant to defer payment of assessments, costs, and charges, make
installment payments, or make payment upon reasonable terms and conditions
stated in the order.
(4) The clerk shall provide one or more options for the applicant to obtain the
court’s ruling on the Application, including but not limited to mailing a copy of the
court’s ruling to the address on the Application, providing notification via email or
text as requested by the applicant.
(d) Filing and Retention of Supporting Documentation. Any documents
submitted in support of an Application shall be filed under seal. The clerk shall not be
required to retain paper copies of any such documents.
(de) Cases involving representation by civil legal services provider or lawyer in
court-sponsored pro bono program. In any case where a party is represented by a civil
legal services provider or attorney in a court-sponsored pro bono program as defined in
735 ILCS 5/5-105.5, the attorney representing that party shall file a certification with the
court, and that party shall be allowed to sue or defend without payment of
feesassessments, costs, or charges as defined in 735 ILCS 5/5-105(a)(1) without necessity
of an Application under this rule. Instead, the attorney representing the party shall file a
certification prepared by utilizing, or substantially adopting the appearance and content
of, the form provided in the Article II Forms Appendix.
Appendix E 53
Committee Comment
Paragraph (b)(1)
Applicants receiving assistance under one or more of the means-based governmental
public benefits programs are not required to provide any additional financial information
because they have been screened, reviewed, and approved by the relevant government
agency and regular recertification is required to maintain that benefit.
Rule 404. Application for Waiver of Court Assessments
(a) Contents and Filing. An Application for Waiver of Court Assessments in a
criminal action pursuant to 725 ILCS 5/124A-20 shall be in writing and signed by the
applicant or, if the applicant is a minor or an incompetent adult, by another person
having knowledge of the facts. The Application should be submitted no later than 30
days after sentencing.
(1) An applicant shall use the “Application for Waiver of Criminal Court
Assessments” form approved by the Illinois Supreme Court and the Supreme Court
Commission on Access to Justice.
(12) The contents of the Application (and supporting documents, if required,)
must be sufficient to allow a court to determine whether an applicant qualifies for
full or partial waiver of assessments pursuant to 725 ILCS 5/124A20 , and shall
include information regarding the applicant’s household composition, receipt of
need-based public benefits, income, expenses, and nonexempt assets.
(2) Applicants shall use the “Application for Waiver of Court Assessments”
adopted by the Illinois Supreme Court Access to Justice Commission, which can
be found in the Article IV Forms Appendix.
(3) No fee may be charged for filing an Application. Applications by persons
who are exempt from electronic filing under Supreme Court Rule 9(c) may be filed
in-person at the clerk of court, or by United States mail, third-party commercial
carrier, deposit in a drop box receptacle maintained by the clerk, or any other
means permitted by the local court. All other Applications shall be electronically
filed.
Appendix E 54
(b) Ruling The court shall either enter a ruling on the Application or shall set the
Application for a hearing requiring the applicant to appear in person. The court may order
the applicant to produce copies of certain documents in support of the Application at the
hearing. The court’s ruling on an Application for Waiver of Assessments shall be made
according to standards set forth in 725 ILCS 5/124A-20. If the Application is denied, the
court shall enter an order to that effect specifying the reasons for the denial. If the court
determines that the conditions for a full assessment waiver are satisfied under 725 ILCS
5/124A-20(b)(1), it shall enter an order waiving the payment of the assessments. If the
court determines that the conditions for a partial assessment waiver under 725 ILCS
5/124A-20(b)(2) are satisfied, it shall enter an order for payment of a specified percentage
of the assessments. If an Application is denied or an Application for a partial assessment
waiver is granted, the court may allow the applicant to defer payment of the
assessments, make installment payments, or make payment upon reasonable terms and
conditions stated in the order. Supporting Documentation. No supporting
documentation of eligibility in addition to the application is needed unless the county or
circuit has adopted a local rule requiring it. Any such local rule may not require any more
than the following:
(1) Government Benefit Recipients. An applicant who is currently receiving
assistance under one or more of the means-based governmental public benefits
may be required to provide a current benefits statement or other documentary
proof of their receipt of benefits, but shall not be required to provide any additional
information or documentation about their income, assets, debts, or expenses.
(2) Other Applicants. An applicant who is not receiving a means-based
governmental public benefit shall provide financial information and supporting
documentation including their most recent pay stubs from all employers, 1099s,
and W-2s.
(c) Filing. No fee may be charged for filing an Application for Waiver of Court
Assessments. The clerk must allow an applicant to file an Application for Waiver of Court
Assessments in the court where his case will be heard. Decision of Application.
Applications shall be decided as soon as reasonably possible in accordance with the
following procedure:
(1) An Application shall be decided without a hearing if all relevant sections
are complete (and, if applicable, it is supported by documents required by that
jurisdiction pursuant to (b)(1)). If all of the relevant sections of the Application are
not complete or it is not accompanied by any required supporting documentation,
outright denial is not permitted; the applicant must be notified of the deficiencies
Appendix E 55
and given the opportunity to amend the Application by providing the supporting
documentation and/or be given a hearing.
(2) If the court schedules a hearing, it shall enter an order scheduling a
remote hearing in accordance with Rule 45, within 30 days, unless the applicant
requests an in-person hearing or will already be present at the courthouse on the
date of the hearing. The order must state: (a) the specific eligibility questions that
necessitate the hearing; (b) what documents, if any, must be submitted in support
of the Application at or before the hearing, and how to submit them; and (c) the
remote hearing meeting ID and password or the courtroom location if in-person.
(3) An order deciding an Application, with or without a hearing, or
scheduling a hearing, shall use the “Order for Waiver of Criminal Court
Assessments” form approved by the Illinois Supreme Court and the Supreme Court
Commission on Access to Justice. The court’s ruling on an Application for Waiver
of Assessments shall be made according to standards set forth in 725 ILCS
5/124A-20. As provided in the form Order, if the Application is denied, the court
shall enter an order to that effect specifying the reasons for the denial. If the court
determines that the conditions for a full assessment waiver are satisfied under 725
ILCS 5/124A-20(b)(1), it shall enter an order waiving the payment of assessments. If
the court determines that the conditions for a partial assessment waiver under 725
ILCS 5/124A-20(b)(2) are satisfied, it shall enter an order for payment of a specified
percentage of the assessments. If an Application is denied or an Application for a
partial assessment waiver is granted, the court may allow the applicant to defer
payment of the assessments, make installment payments, or make payment upon
reasonable terms and conditions stated in the order.
(d) Filing and Retention of Supporting Documentation. Any documents
submitted in support of an Application shall be filed under seal. The clerk shall not be
required to retain paper copies of any such documents.
(de) Cases involving representation by public defenders, criminal legal services
providers, or attorneys in court-sponsored pro bono program. In any case where a
party defendant is represented by a public defender, criminal legal services provider, or
an attorney in a court-sponsored pro bono program, the attorney representing that party
defendant shall file a certification with the court, and that party defendant shall be
entitled to a waiver of assessments as defined allowed to proceed without payment of
assessments in 725 ILCS 5/124A-20(a) without necessity of an Application under this rule.
“Criminal legal services provider” means a not-for-profit corporation that (i) employs one
or more attorneys who are licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois and who directly
Appendix E 56
provide free criminal legal services or (ii) is established for the purpose of providing free
criminal legal services by an organized panel of pro bono attorneys. “Court-sponsored
pro bono program” means a pro bono program established by or in partnership with a
court in this State for the purpose of providing free criminal legal services by an
organized panel of pro bono attorneys.
Committee Comments
Paragraph (b)(1)
Applicants receiving assistance under one or more of the means-based governmental
public benefits programs are not required to provide any additional financial information
because they have been screened, reviewed, and approved by the relevant government
agency and regular recertification is required to maintain that benefit.
Paragraph (c)
The procedure prescribed by paragraph (c) is intended to prohibit the practice of
deferring ruling on an Application for Waiver of Court Assessments until after completion
of the sentence. Criminal Assessments must be imposed by the court at the time of
sentencing. Where possible, a ruling on whether the defendant qualifies for a full or
partial waiver should also be determined at the time of sentencing, or within a reasonable
time thereafter if the defendant submits an Application under paragraph (a) or a
certification under paragraph (d) after sentencing.
Appendix E 57
ASSESSMENTS NOT CURRENTLY INCLUDED
IN CTAA OR SECTION 27.1B
Statute Civil Schedules Criminal Notes
Schedules
55 ILCS 5/5-1101.3 AR, CH, DC, DN, CF, CM, CV, DT, Judicial Facilities Fee
ED, EV, FA, FC, GC, DV, MT, OV, QC, CC, CL,OP
GR, LA, LM, MH, TR
MR, PR, SC, TX
55 ILCS 5/5-39001 AR, CH, DC, DN, Law Library Fee
ED, EV, FA, FC, GC, OP
GR, LA, LM, MH,
MR, PR, SC, TX
55 ILCS 82/15 AR, CH, DC, DN, Custody Exchange
ED, EV, FA, FC, GC, Fee
GR, LA, LM, MH, OP
MR, PR, SC, TX
65 ILCS 5/7-1-2 GC Annexation Clerk’s
Fee (Filing Fee)
65 ILCS 5/11-31-1(b) MR Demolition Filing Fee
215 ILCS 5/203 AR, CH, DC, DN, Insurance Director
ED, EV, FA, FC, GC, Fees
GR, LA, LM, MH,
MR, PR, SC, TX
(insurance code
only)
430 ILCS 66/70(e) CF/CM FOID Card
705 ILCS 105/27.3f GR/PR (decedent) Guardianship and
Advocacy
Operations Fee
705 ILCS MX CF Frivolous Lawsuit
105/27.9(a) Fee
Appendix F 58
Statute Civil Schedules Criminal Notes
Schedules
705 ILCS 130/15 AR, CH, DC, DN, Domestic Relations
ED, EV, FA, FC, GC, Fee
GR, LA, LM, MH, OP
MR, PR, SC, TX
710 ILCS 20/3 AR, CH, DC, DN, Dispute Resolution
ED, EV, FA, FC, GC, Fee
GR, LA, LM, MH, OP
MR, PR, SC, TX
720 ILCS CF (sex crimes) HIV Test Cost
5/11-1.10(e)
720 ILCS CH (limited) CF, CM (limited) Property
5/12-5.2(g) Improvement Fee
725 ILCS 5/110-7(i) CF, CM, CV, DT, FTA Warrant Fee
DV, MT, OV, QC, (repealed)
TR
725 ILCS CF, CM, DT Pretrial Home
5/110-10(b)(14.1) Monitoring
725 ILCS CF, CM, DT Pretrial Home
5/110-10(b)(14.2) Monitoring
730 ILCS CF, CM STD Cost
5/5-5-3(g) & (h)
730 ILCS 5/5-5-10 CF, CM, DV, DT, Community Service
DV, MT., OV, QC, Fee
TR JD
730 ILCS CF, CM, DT, DV, Post Conviction
5/5-6-3(b)(10)(iv) & MT Home Monitoring
(v)
730 ILCS CF, CM, CV, DT, Drug/Alcohol Testing
5/5-6-3(g) DV, MT, QC, TR Monitoring
Appendix F 59
Statute Civil Schedules Criminal Notes
Schedules
730 ILCS CF, CM, CV, DT, Probation Fee
5/5-6-3(h) & (i) DV, MT, QC, TR
730 ILCS CM, CV, DT, DV, Drug/Alcohol Testing
5/5-6-3.1(g) MT, QC, TR Monitoring
730 ILCS CF, CM, CV, DT, Probation Fee
5/5-6-3.1(i) & (u) DV, MT, QC, TR JD
730 ILCS 5/5-7-1(g) CF, CM CV, DT, DV, Drug/Alcohol Testing
& (h) MT Monitoring
730 ILCS 5/5-9-1.13 CF, CM, DT, DV, Out of state transfer
MT fee
730 ILCS CF, CM DV Equipment Fee
5/5-9-1.16(c)
730 ILCS CF, DT (DUI) Roadside Memorial
5/5-9-1.22 Fee
735 ILCS 5/4-124 AR, CH, DC, DN, Livestock Cost
ED, EV, FA, FC, GC,
GR, LA, LM, MH,
MR, PR, SC
735 ILCS 5/12-655 AR, CH, DC, DN, Foreign Judgment
Ed, EV, FA, FC, GC, Clerk’s Fee
GR, LA, LM, MH, OP
MR, PR, SC, TX
735 ILCS FC Foreclosure Fee
5/15-1504.1 Unconstitutional
735 ILCS FC Foreclosure Tier Fee
5/15-1504.1(a-5) Unconstitutional
750 ILCS 5/705(6) DC, FA, GR Public Aid Child
Support Fee
750 ILCS 5/711
Appendix F 60
Statute Civil Schedules Criminal Notes
Schedules
750 ILCS 50/12a FA Notice to Putative
Father Clerk’s Fee
765 ILCS 102/31 MR County Clerk’s Fee
(Lost goods)
Appendix F 61
ELIMINATION OF ANNUAL FEE IN GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDINGS
INVOLVING FOR MINORS AND DISABLED ADULTS
(705 ILCS 105/27.1b)
Sec. 27.1b. Circuit court clerk fees.…
* * *
(v) Probate filings.
(1) For each account (other than one final account)
filed in the estate of a decedent, or ward, the fee shall not
exceed $25. No fee shall be charged for accounts filed
for guardianships established for minors pursuant to
Article XI of the Probate Act or for disabled adults
pursuant to Article XIa of the Probate Act.
* * *
Appendix G 62
ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATIVE COLLECTION FEES
REGARDING UNPAID ASSESSMENTS
(705 ILCS 105/27.1b)
Sec. 27.1b. Circuit court clerk fees.…
* * *
(y-5) Unpaid fees. Unless a court ordered payment
schedule is implemented or the fee requirements of this
Section are waived under a court order, the clerk of the circuit
court may add to any unpaid fees and costs under this Section
a delinquency amount equal to 5% of the unpaid fees that
remain unpaid after 30 days, 10% of the unpaid fees that remain
unpaid after 60 days, and 15% of the unpaid fees that remain
unpaid after 90 days. Notice to those parties may be made by
signage posting or publication. The additional delinquency
amounts collected under this Section shall be deposited into
the Circuit Court Clerk Operations and Administration Fund and
used to defray additional administrative costs incurred by the
clerk of the circuit court in collecting unpaid fees and costs.
(725 ILCS 5/124A-10)
Sec. 124A-10. Lien. The property, real and personal, of a
person who is convicted of an offense shall be bound, and a lien
is created on the property, both real and personal, of every
offender, not exempt from the enforcement of a judgment or
attachment, from the time of finding the indictment at least so
far as will be sufficient to pay the fine and costs of prosecution.
The clerk of the court in which the conviction is had shall upon
the expiration of 30 days after judgment is entered issue a
certified copy of the judgment for any fine that remains unpaid,
and all costs of conviction remaining unpaid. Unless a court
ordered payment schedule is implemented, the clerk of the
court may add to any judgment a delinquency amount equal to
5% of the unpaid fines, costs, fees, and penalties that remain
unpaid after 30 days, 10% of the unpaid fines, costs, fees, and
penalties that remain unpaid after 60 days, and 15% of the
unpaid fines, costs, fees, and penalties that remain unpaid after
90 days. Notice to those parties affected may be made by
Appendix H 63
signage posting or publication. The clerk of the court may also
after a period of 90 days release to credit reporting agencies,
information regarding unpaid amounts. The additional
delinquency amounts collected under this Section shall be used
to defray additional administrative costs incurred by the clerk of
the court in collecting unpaid fines, costs, fees, and penalties.
The certified copy of the judgment shall state the day on which
the arrest was made or indictment found, as the case may be.
Enforcement of the judgment may be directed to the proper
officer of any county in this State. The officer to whom the
certified copy of the judgment is delivered shall levy the
judgment upon all the estate, real and personal, of the
defendant (not exempt from enforcement) possessed by him or
her on the day of the arrest or finding the indictment, as stated
in the certified copy of the judgment and any such property
subsequently acquired; and the property so levied upon shall
be advertised and sold in the same manner as in civil cases,
with the like rights to all parties that may be interested in the
property. It is not an objection to the selling of any property
under the judgment that the defendant is in custody for the fine
or costs, or both.
Appendix H 64
EARN-DOWN REDUCTION OF ASSESSMENTS AND FINES
FOR DEFENDANTS SENTENCED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS
Section 124A-25 is added to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 725 ILCS 5/124A-25, to
read as follows:
(725 ILCS 5/124A-25)
Sec. 124A-25. Earn-down reduction of assessments imposed on
defendants sentenced to the Department of Corrections.
(a) As used in this Section:
(1) “Assessments” means any costs imposed on a criminal
defendant under Article 15 of the Criminal and Traffic
Assessment Act, including but not limited to assessments
relating to violations of the Illinois Vehicle Code, after the
application of any income-based waiver under
Section 124A-20.
(2) “Prison term” means the longest term of imprisonment to
which a defendant is sentenced in a case, either for a
single offense or in the aggregate for multiple offenses
that run consecutively, and without regard to any credit
for time served in custody, home detention, or for any
other reason.
(b) The court shall, without application, reduce the total amount of
assessments imposed on a defendant who is sentenced to a
term of imprisonment in that case, as follows:
(1) 20% for a prison term of at least one year but less than
two years;
(2) 40% for a prison term of at least two years but less than
three years;
(3) 60% for a prison term of at least three years but less than
four years;
Appendix I 65
(4) 80% for a prison term of at least four years but less than
five years; and
(5) 100% for a prison term of five or more years.
(c) The State’s Attorney may file a motion to eliminate any
reduction in assessments, pursuant to subsection (b), in the
sentence of a defendant whom the State’s Attorney believes is
reasonably capable of paying the full amount of the
assessments. The decision whether to deny the motion or to
require the defendant to provide information bearing on their
ability to pay the assessments is committed to the sound
discretion of the court. If the court requires the defendant to
provide such information:
(1) Unless the defendant has already done so, the court shall
order the defendant to complete the “Application for
Waiver of Criminal Court Assessments” approved by the
Illinois Supreme Court;
(2) The motion shall be denied if the defendant provides a
current benefits statement or other documentary proof
of their receipt of assistance under one or more of the
means-based governmental public benefits programs
listed in 725 ILCS 5/124A-20(c)(1). Such a defendant shall
not be required to provide any additional information
about their income, assets, debts, or expenses.
(3) A defendant who is not receiving a means-based
governmental public benefit shall provide financial
information and supporting documentation relating to
the factors listed in 725 ILCS 5/124A-20(c)(1)(2-6),
including their most recent pay stubs from all employers,
1099s, and W-2s.
(4) The court may decline to reduce, pursuant to
subsection (b), the amount of assessments imposed on
the defendant if the court enters a written finding that
there is clear and convincing evidence that the
defendant can afford to pay the full amount of the
Appendix I 66
assessments, after considering the defendant’s current
income, anticipated income while incarcerated (if any),
current assets and liabilities, and the anticipated cost,
while the defendant is incarcerated, of supporting
persons who will remain dependent on the defendant for
support.
Section 5-9-1 of the Unified Code of Corrections, 730 ILCS 5/5-9-1, is revised
to read as follows:
(730 ILCS 5/5-9-1)
Sec. 5-9-1. Authorized Fines.
(a) An offender may be sentenced to pay a fine as provided in Article 4.5 of Chapter
V, subject to subsection (f) of this section.
* * *
(f) The court shall, without application, reduce the total amount of fines
imposed on an offender who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment as follows:
(1) 20% for a prison term of at least one year but less than two
years;
(2) 40% for a prison term of at least two years but less than three
years;
(3) 60% for a prison term of at least three years but less than four
years;
(4) 80% for a prison term of at least four years but less than five
years; and
(5) 100% for a prison term of five or more years.
(g) For purposes of paragraph (f), “prison term” means the longest term of
imprisonment to which an offender is sentenced in a case, either for a single
offense or in the aggregate for multiple offenses that run consecutively, and
without regard to any credit for time served in custody, home detention, or for any
other reason.
Appendix I 67
(h) The State’s Attorney may file a motion to eliminate any reduction in fines,
pursuant to subsection (f), in the sentence of an offender whom the State’s
Attorney believes is reasonably capable of paying the full amount of the fines. The
decision whether to deny the motion or to require the offender to provide
information bearing on their ability to pay the fines is committed to the sound
discretion of the court. If the court requires the offender to provide such
information:
(1) Unless the offender has already done so, the court shall order
the offender to complete the “Application for Waiver of Criminal Court
Assessments” approved by the Illinois Supreme Court;
(2) The motion shall be denied if the offender provides a current
benefits statement or other documentary proof of their receipt of assistance
under one or more of the means-based governmental public benefits
programs listed in 725 ILCS 5/124A-20(c)(1). Such an offender shall not be
required to provide any additional information about their income, assets,
debts, or expenses.
(3) An offender who is not receiving a means-based governmental
public benefit shall provide financial information and supporting
documentation relating to the factors listed in 725 ILCS 5/124A-20(c)(1)(2-6),
including their most recent pay stubs from all employers, 1099s, and W-2s.
(4) The court may decline to reduce, pursuant to subsection (f), the
total amount of fines imposed on the offender if the court enters a written
finding determining that there is clear and convincing evidence that the
offender can afford to pay the full amount of the fines, after considering the
offender’s current income, anticipated income while incarcerated (if any),
current assets and liabilities, and the anticipated cost, while the offender is
incarcerated, of supporting persons who will remain dependent on the
offender for support.
Appendix I 68
CIRCUIT COURT CLERK ASSESSMENT REPORTS FOR CRIMINAL
CASES
(705 ILCS 135/1-10)
(Section scheduled to be repealed on January 1, 2024)
Sec. 1-10. Assessment reports.
(a) Not later than February 29, 2020,March 1 of each year, the clerk of the
circuit court shall file with the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, in the
form and manner directed by the Supreme Court, a report for the previous
calendar year containing, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s General
Administrative Order on Recordkeeping in the Circuit Courts:
(1) a report for the period July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019
containing the total number of cases filed in the following categories: total
felony cases; felony driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a
combination thereof; cases that contain at least one count of driving under
the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination thereof; felony cases that
contain at least one count of a drug offense; felony cases that contain at
least one count of a sex offense; total misdemeanor cases; misdemeanor
driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination thereof
cases; misdemeanor cases that contain at least one count of a drug
offense; misdemeanor cases that contain at least one count of a sex
offense; total traffic offense counts; traffic offense counts of a
misdemeanor offense under the Illinois Vehicle Code; traffic offense counts
of an overweight offense under the Illinois Vehicle Code; traffic offense
counts that are satisfied under Supreme Court Rule 529; conservation
cases; and ordinance cases that do not contain an offense under the Illinois
Vehicle Code;
Appendix J 69
(2) a report for the period July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019
containing the following for each schedule referenced in Sections 15-5
through 15-70 of this Act: the number of offenses for which assessments
were imposed; the amount of any fines imposed in addition to
assessments; the number and amount of conditional assessments ordered
pursuant to Section 15-70; the total number of assessment waiver
applications filed under Section 124A-20 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure; and the number of applications for 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%
waivers, respectively, that were approved, the number of offenses for
which waivers were granted, and the associated amount of assessments
that were waived; and
(3) a report for the period July 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019
containing, with respect to each schedule referenced in Sections 15-5
through 15-70 of this Act,: the number of offenses for which assessments
were collected; the number of offenses for which fines were collected and
the amount collected; and how much was disbursed to each fund under
the disbursement requirements for each schedule defined in Section 15-5.
(b) The Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts shall publish the reports
submitted under this Section on its website.
(c) A list of offenses that qualify as drug offenses for Schedules 3 and 7 and
a list of offenses that qualify as sex offenses for Schedules 4 and 8 shall be
distributed to clerks of the circuit court by the Administrative Office of the Illinois
Courts.
Appendix J 70
CIRCUIT COURT CLERK ASSESSMENT REPORTS FOR CIVIL CASES
(705 ILCS 105/27.1c)
Sec. 27.1c. Assessment reports.
(a) Not later than March 1, 2022, and March 1 of every each year thereafter, the
clerk of the circuit court shall submit to the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts an
annual report, in the form and manner directed by the Supreme Court, for the period
January 1 through December 31 of the previous year. The report shall contain, with
respect to each of the 4 categories of civil cases established by the Supreme Court
pursuant to Section 27.1b of this Act, and in accordance with the Supreme Court’s
General Administrative Order on Recordkeeping in the Circuit Courts:
(1) the total number of cases that were filed;
(2) the amount of filing fees that were collected pursuant to subsection (a) of
Section 27.1b;
(3) the amount of appearance fees that were collected pursuant to
subsection (b) of Section 27.1b;
(4) the amount of fees collected pursuant to subsection (b-5) of Section
27.1b;
(5) the amount of filing fees collected for counterclaims or third party
complaints pursuant to subsection (c) of Section 27.1b;
(6) the nature and amount of any fees collected pursuant to subsection (y) of
Section 27.1b; and
(7) the total number of applications, pursuant to Section 5-105 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, for waiver of court fees, costs, and charges; and
(78) the number of cases for which applications, pursuant to Section 5-105
of the Code of Civil Procedure, there were waivers for waiver of fees, costs, and
charges of 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100%, respectively, that were approved, and the
associated amount of fees, costs, and charges that were waived.
(b) The Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts shall publish the reports
submitted under this Section on its website.
(c) (Blank).
Appendix K 71
Related forms
Same category, often filed together
Legal disclaimer: This form is the original, unmodified document published by Illinois Courts — Forms. AttorneyQnA provides it for informational purposes only — its presence here does not constitute legal advice or an endorsement. Filing requirements, deadlines, and procedural rules vary by court and jurisdiction. Always verify the form is current with the issuing authority and consult a licensed attorney for guidance on your specific case.
Need help filing this form?
Get matched with a licensed attorney in your state for personalized guidance on filling out and submitting your petition.