A recent court order (http://bit.ly/2rkz8A6), which amends the court's January 22, 2016 mandatory e-filing order, requires circuits with existing e-filing programs to switch to the statewide eFileIL system by July 1, 2018. The original order had not set a specific date, but said that one would be announced in the future.

Another change wrought by the amendment is that all courts must make their case documents and information available to a new statewide remote access system known as re:SearchIL. However, this does not mean that attorneys and the public will have immediate access to the new system. The high court has stated that implementation and access will progress at a pace that it sets.

Initial access will only be provided to judges, clerks, and court officials. The amended order says that attorneys and the public will ultimately gain access -- re:SearchIL "is designed to serve as an online remote access system similar to Pacer in the federal courts."

Before that can happen, "a remote access policy needs to be fully vetted and approved by the supreme court," Madison County Chief Circuit Judge David Hylla says. The high court's e-Business Policy Advisory Board, of which Hylla is chair, is working to recommend a policy, he says. He expects that re:SearchIL will be "available to the bar and the public soon after all or nearly all courts are integrated with the central [Electronic Filing Manager.]"

There will be a predetermined document access fee (much like Pacer). The amended order says that the fee will be paid in full to the circuit court owning the case documents-so long as the court has migrated to eFileIL.

Democrats and Republicans. Cubs fans and Cards (or White Sox) fans. Oxford comma devotees and detractors. Is that how it is in your workplace?

Well, score one for the Oxford comma contingent. As Rex Gradeless put it in the May issue of The Public Servant, newsletter of the ISBA Government Lawyers Committee, a "recent federal appellate court decision may put the cost of a single missing comma at $10 million." Gradeless reminds us that the Oxford comma is "placed immediately before the coordinating conjunction (usually 'and' or 'or') in a series of three or more terms. For example, a list of three Illinois counties might be punctuated either as 'Hardin, Pope, and Calhoun' (with the Oxford comma), or as 'Hardin, Pope and Calhoun' (without the Oxford comma)."

In the case in question, Maine truck farmers argued that they were included in a statute requiring overtime payments, while the Oakhurst Dairy argued they were excluded. The overtime statute excluded employees involved in "[t]he canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of [food products]."

When patients get a life-changing medical diagnosis, they often seek a second opinion. When clients have questions about the direction that their legal counsel takes, they may think they have nowhere to turn.

In fact, attorneys can provide clients with second opinions, although most do not advertise them as a service. Valorem Law Group in Chicago is one of the first law firms to feature second opinions as part of its practice. Valorem, also known for its alternative fee agreements (see the October 2014 IBJ cover story), has been providing legal second opinions to individuals and companies for the past two years.

Nicole Auerbach, one of Valorem's founding partners, says that clients can "save a lot of money and angst" by seeking second opinions. Clients seeking second opinions can ask a wide range of questions. Some want to know if a proposed settlement is acceptable. Others want to get a second opinion about the direction their counsel is taking in a specific matter. Some want a reality check on what they're being billed and what they're told it will cost to complete a representation. Auerbach says that "there is really no topic that doesn't lend itself well to a second opinion."

Find out more in the July Illinois Bar Journal.

On July 1, 2017, a major change for calculating child support obligations takes effect. Last year, Public Act 99-764 was enacted. The legislation amended the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act to replace the percentage guideline formula with the income shares model for calculating child support. This is a significant change that brings Illinois in line with 39 other states and the District of Columbia, which already use the income shares model.

Since 1984, Illinois has used the percentage guideline formula to determine child support. It arrives at the child support obligation by multiplying the payor's net income by a statutorily set percentage, which increases based on the number of children. This model is now considered outdated "because it does not reflect actual child rearing costs or allocate those costs between the parents." (Find out more more in the December 2016 IBJ at http://bit.ly/2qYq8Rr). Rather, the old formula required payors to simply pay a percentage of their net income regardless of the actual child rearing costs. Oak Brook attorney Margaret A. Bennett believes the old model often caused acrimony between divorcing parents because it is not always perceived as equitable and accurate.