In Feb. 22, 2021, Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed into law HB 3653. Among the many provisions contained within HB 3653 (now Public Act 101-0652) is the Pretrial Fairness Act (PFA), a massive overhaul of Illinois’ cash bail system. The PFA makes Illinois the first state to eliminate monetary bail, creating a system in which defendants will be released or detained pending trial based on their risk of nonappearance and/or their perceived dangerousness. If the individual does not fit a certain set of predetermined criteria, they must be released. In his June Illinois Bar Journal article, “Illinois, Out on Bail,” Thomas A. Drysdale compares Illinois’ new law to the federal criminal system, which has operated without cash bail for more than 35 years.

In Suburban Real Estate Services, Inc. v. Carlson, the Illinois Supreme Court tried to reconcile two lines of caselaw governing when a legal malpractice claim involving a transaction accrues under Illinois’ two-year statute of limitations. However, as Mark Bernstein and Joel Bertocchi note in their June Illinois Bar Journal article, "From the Start," as much clarity as the Court delivered in Carlson, it left some questions unexamined.

When writing or editing on behalf of your boss, you need to keep two things in mind, writes Patrick Barry in his May Illinois Bar Journal article, “Anticipatory Edits.” Barry, a writing professor at the University of Chicago Law School, says always consider “the actual people who are going to review your writing; and the likely changes they’ll make to it. By implementing those changes yourself—before the document ever hits your boss’s desk or inbox—you can save them a lot of time and cognitive effort. I doubt they’ll hold that against you. One way to think about anticipating the edits of your boss is to view the process as a form of targeted foresight. You need to make informed predictions about a particular person’s future revisions and then adjust your current draft accordingly.”

Every litigant in a civil action in Illinois has a statutory right to seek a change of judge without cause. But a judicially created constraint commonly known as the “test the waters doctrine” often limited a party’s ability to invoke the right to change judges. Recently, the Illinois Supreme Court abolished the test the waters doctrine expanding a litigant’s statutory right to change judges without cause, writes Daniel J. Karrison in his May Illinois Bar Journal article, “Test the Waters Doctrine Sinks.”