The “absurdity” of pleading mutually exclusive alternative facts has long been a target for those looking to poke fun at attorneys for being dishonest or unscrupulous, writes Jake Crabbs in his April Illinois Bar Journal article, “A Broken Kettle of Fish.” The title of Crabbs’ article alludes to an old joke about a man sued for breaking a borrowed kettle: First, the man argued that he “never borrowed the kettle; second, that it was cracked when he borrowed it; and third, that it was sound when he carried it back.” Crabbs states that a lack of personal knowledge is the touchstone of proper alternative fact pleading, and goes on to explain why alternative fact pleading is a useful, and sometimes necessary, legal tactic.

Some scholars have predicted that the fall of the American experiment is inevitable and will expire like countless empires before it. However, using they mythical metaphor of Theseus’s ship may offer attorneys some hope, writes Christian Ketter in his March Illinois Bar Journal article, “A Constitutional Ship of Theseus.” 

It was 1972 and Jeffrey Hicken was a newly minted lawyer who landed a state government job reviewing cases of convicted and incarcerated felons and, where possible, write up their appeals. At $150 a week, it wasn’t much money, but he was thrilled. As to his win-loss ratio? That’s easy—he almost never won. One day a hefty parcel labeled People v. J.T. Darling appeared on his desk. It contained a trial transcript, documents, and reports about the burglary conviction of Mr. Darling, or “JT”, who had just begun a six to 12-year sentence at the Menard Correctional Center. JT was from Goofy Ridge, Illinois, where the crime took place. JT’s case would lead Hicken to learn one of his most formative lessons as an attorney.

In their February Illinois Bar Journal article, “Restorative Justice Privilege,” Hon. Stuart Katz (ret.) and Patrick Keenan-Devlin examine Public Act 102-100, which provides that any statement made during a restorative justice practice is privileged, meaning that it is inadmissible in any court or administrative proceeding. Additionally, the authors note that since restorative justice practices often involve pre- and postconference meetings, anything said in preparation for, or as a follow-up to, a practice is also privileged.