When law firms all over the U.S. began teleworking due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many did not have methods in place to share confidential information electronically. Many law firms continue to worry about storing client information in the cloud. We know that lawyers may ethically use the cloud and that technology will continue to advance. Therefore, says Victor M. Zamora in his January Illinois Bar Journal article, “Cloud Cover,” it is time for lawyers to get familiar with and learn how cloud computing works and understand the benefits and risks before choosing a cloud computing service to store data. Zamora relies on the Illinois State Bar Association’s Professional Conduct Advisory Opinion No. 16-06, which states that lawyers may use cloud-based services provided that “the lawyer takes reasonable measures to ensure that the client information remains confidential and is protected from breaches,” and other best practices for guidance on starting out in the cloud.

The U.S. and Illinois constitutions guarantee the accused the right to a speedy trial. A defendant not tried within the appropriate period is entitled to release from custody and dismissal of the charges. But can the right to a speedy trial be extended by the judiciary as an exercise in public health and welfare? The question is pursued by attorney Donald J. Ramsell in his December 2020 Illinois Bar Journal article, “Bad Timing.”

In their December 2020 Illinois Bar Journal article, attorneys Andrew R. Schwartz and John Cerney present the following scenario: Without first consulting its lawyers, your firm’s major client, Hapless Client, LLC, entered into a horrible one-sided contract with Sketchy Business, Inc. To make matters worse, Sketchy just filed a contract claim against Hapless to enforce that contract, and Sketchy’s complaint seeks massive damages that could put Hapless out of business permanently. An interview with Hapless confirms the truth of the essential allegations of the complaint. Since the complaint states a viable claim, a motion to dismiss will fail. Litigation might buy Hapless some time, but Sketchy will likely win on summary judgment. Settlement appears doubtful: Sketchy knows the strength of its case, and its settlement demand exceeds Hapless’ ability to pay. You know this desperate situation will require creative thinking and, lo and behold, your research about Sketchy shows that it has a long and colorful history in the courts, including an unsatisfied adverse judgment in favor of J. Creditor, LLC. Here, a rather unusual strategy presents itself: Purchase J. Creditor’s judgment against Sketchy. With that judgment, Hapless can then seize Sketchy’s claim, i.e. its “chose in action” against Hapless. Schwartz and Cerney outline precisely how this maneuver works (and is one based on the authors’ real-life experience).

Perhaps no one has been more outspoken regarding the importance of oral arguments in appellate courts than Illinois Supreme Court Justice Karmeier, who has reiterated the importance of providing appellate counsel an opportunity to “isolate and clarify the core issues in a case and to direct the court’s attention to matters that may have been overlooked or misunderstood.” As chief justice, he categorized the “interactive nature” between counsel and the justices as being “invaluable” to the court’s decision-making process and emphasized the importance of the interaction between the justices themselves during oral argument. Justice Karmeier also lauded oral argument as a key component to “providing public visibility and institutional legitimacy to our system of judicial review.” All of these statements came to fruition in an amendment of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352, known affectionately by some as “Thou shalt oral,” which into effect July 1, 2018, and has had a significant impact on appellate advocacy. In her November Illinois Bar Journal article, “Oral Arguments: More and Less Remote,” Amanda Hamilton discusses the steady increase in oral arguments in Illinois appellate courts and why Illinois appellate practitioners must be prepared to present and defend their positions on complex issues at oral argument with increasing frequency.