Bill
SB 1373
Public universities must ensure academic advisors act with a duty of care or fiduciary duty to provide guidance strictly in the student’s best interest.
Status snapshot
- Bill number: SB 1373 (2025)
- Primary sponsor: Sen. Chapin Rose
- Co-sponsor added: Sen. Mike Simmons (added 2025-05-22)
- Introduced: Filed early 2025 (Senate filing/intro activity in Jan–Feb 2025)
- Related: Companion bills HB 3435 and HB 1054
- Note: The SB 1373 number appears in documents from multiple states; this summary focuses on the Illinois version concerning public university academic advisors.
Purpose
- Require public university governing boards in Illinois to ensure that academic advisors and counselors owe and act under a duty of care or fiduciary duty to provide academic guidance and advice that is “strictly in the best interest” of the student being advised.
Key provisions
- Adds a new statutory provision to each university’s governing statute imposing the duty on advisors/counselors. The bill inserts a substantially identical new section into the governing Acts for the following institutions:
- University of Illinois
- Southern Illinois University
- Chicago State University
- Eastern Illinois University
- Governors State University
- Illinois State University
- Northeastern Illinois University
- Northern Illinois University
- Western Illinois University
- The statutory language requires each institution’s board to “ensure that an academic advisor or counselor acts with a duty of care or fiduciary duty to provide academic guidance and advice that is strictly in the best interest of the student whom he or she advises or counsels.”
- The bill is limited in scope to the advisor–student relationship; it does not itself specify enforcement mechanisms, remedies, or detailed definitions of “fiduciary duty” beyond the core directive.
Who would be affected
- Primary: Academic advisors and student counselors employed or serving at the listed public universities.
- Secondary: University governing boards (responsible for ensuring compliance), campus administrations (policy, training, oversight), and students (recipients of advising).
- Potentially affected: Legal counsel for institutions (policy drafting), collective bargaining units (if professional duties/liability change), and insurers (professional liability).
Potential impacts and considerations
- Policy changes: Universities may need to adopt or revise advising policies, codes of conduct, training, supervision, and written guidance to reflect a fiduciary-style duty.
- Legal and liability implications: Labeling advisors as owing fiduciary duty may expose individual advisors and institutions to greater legal liability and shift standards for negligence or misconduct claims. The bill does not specify remedies, so courts would likely interpret the scope over time.
- Operational effects: Institutions may invest in additional training, documentation of advising interactions, and oversight systems to demonstrate adherence to the “best interest” standard.
- Ambiguity: Terms like “fiduciary duty” and “strictly in the best interest” are legal concepts that are not defined in the bill; interpretation and litigation risk remain open.
Procedural/timeline notes
- Filed and moved through early Senate procedures in early 2025 (intro/readings and committee referrals recorded). Companion measures and legislative activity are noted; check the legislature’s official tracking site for the current status and any amendments or final disposition.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
