In a roundup of two recent Illinois State Bar Association CLE programs, the Illinois Bar Journal’s February cover story, “Artificial Intelligence and the Authentic Attorney,” observes that just as an attorney’s time is well spent considering the benefits and drawbacks of AI, the same can be said for keeping in mind best practices for communicating clearly and effectively with clients and colleagues. 

 In the fourth of five installments of his series on trial advocacy, former trial Judge and Appellate Justice Gino DiVito focuses on cross-examination. The cross-examining attorney’s role is to teach the jury while never giving it an opportunity to learn from an opposing witness, Judge DiVito writes. He suggests that, to avoid turning the jury against you, carefully set up the witness during cross-examination with leading and closed questions, and questions for which you know the answers. And never provide a witness you are cross-examining with an open-ended question.

 For attorneys looking to expand their client rosters and potential clients who need limited assistance—and have limited resources—limited scope representation (LSR) is a very welcome development. In its January issue, the Illinois Bar Journal (IBJ) provides an overview of a two-part CLE webinar sponsored by the ISBA and prepared for those who haven’t explored LSR and for those who’d like to hone their approaches.

 In his third of five installments on trial technique in the Illinois Bar Journal’s December issue, Gino DiVito dissects the essential tactics of a successful direct examination. “Except possibly for adverse-witness testimony, direct examination should simulate a friendly conversation,” DiVito writes. “After introductory information based on ‘who’ the witness is and ‘when’ and ‘where’ events occurred, witness questioning shifts to an open-ended question such as ‘what happened?’” One of DiVito’s main takeaways is that proper direct examinations require relevant questions resulting in answers that create reality.