Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Brunton v. Kruger, Cowper v. Nyberg, Skaperdas v. Country Casualty Ins. Co. and Harris v. One Hope United, Inc and provide short summaries for In People ex rel. Madigan v. J. T. Einoder, Inc., McCormick v. Robertson and In re Parentage of Scarlett Z.-D.
By Alyssa M. Reiter, Williams, Montgomery & John Ltd.
The Supreme Court of Illinois announced the filing of lawyer disciplinary orders on March 12, 2015, during the March Term of Court. Sanctions were imposed because the lawyers engaged in professional misconduct by violating state ethics law.
Chief Justice Rita B. Garman and the Illinois Supreme Court have scheduled a special evening session of oral argument on Tuesday, March 17, and have invited Gov. Bruce Rauner and the entire Illinois legislature to observe the Court in session. It is uncertain when an evening session was last held in the Illinois Supreme Court Building, but it is believed to have been more than a century ago.
The Court will hear oral arguments in a case involving an amendment passed by the legislature to the Illinois Juvenile Court Act. A portion of the amendment was ruled unconstitutional by a Circuit Court and the case is on direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Garman explained that the special evening session is an opportunity for members of the General Assembly to observe first-hand the interaction of the functions of the three branches of government and the operation of the checks and balances essential to our system.
"The case involves an amendment that was debated and passed by the legislature, signed by the Governor, applied by the State in an individual case, challenged by a defendant, and declared unconstitutional by the Circuit Court," said Chief Justice Garman. "It affords a window into how our constitutional system operates and the balance among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches."
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Friday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the criminal cases People v. Almond, People v. Mosley, People v. Boyce and In re the Interest of Jordan G.
By Jay Wiegman, Office of the State Appellate Defender
Many people mocked Barney Fife for carrying a single bullet in his shirt pocket, but today's decision in People v. Almond, 2015 IL 113817, shows that to have been a wise policy.
Based on an anonymous tip that drugs were being dealt out of a store, police officers approached Almond (who had prior felony convictions), asked him what he was doing there and whether he was in possession of any narcotics or weapons. The officer testified that the defendant said “I just got to let you know I got a gun on me.” The defendant was frisked, and the gun was recovered. The defendant filed a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. At a hearing on the motion, Almond denied that he was even asked whether he had contraband and denied he ever told officers that he possessed a firearm, claiming that he would not tell a police officer that information because he knew “it’s wrong to have a gun.” The motion was denied. Following a bench trial, the defendant was convicted on all counts.
The Illinois Supreme Court has announced dates for oral arguments for the March Term of Court, including the case of In re Pension Reform Litigation (Doris Heaton, et al. appellees v. Pat Quinn, Governor of Illinois, et al., appellants).
The Supreme Court will hear arguments for that case beginning at 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 in the Supreme Court Courtroom in Springfield. Advanced Digital Media/Blueroomstream will live internet stream and serve as the pool camera for the oral argument.
Michael J. Tardy, Director of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, announced Tuesday that the Twelfth Judicial Circuit judges voted to select Arkadiusz Z. Smigielski as an associate judge of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit.
Mr. Smigielski received his undergraduate degree in 1985 from DePaul University in Chicago, and his Juris Doctor in 1988 from IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law in Chicago. Mr. Smigielski is currently affiliated with the Law Offices of Smigielski & Wrobel in Homer Glen.
As part of its continuing effort to promote public confidence in the administration of justice, the Illinois Supreme Court has announced that a client whose case is not completed due to the death or disability of his or her attorney, and who has made reasonable efforts to pursue civil remedies, is now eligible to apply for reimbursement of unearned fees paid to the attorney.
When adopted in 1994, Supreme Court Rule 780 created a Client Protection Program (CPP) Trust Fund to reimburse certain losses incurred by clients of Illinois lawyers. The rule was created to provide a mechanism for a client to obtain reimbursement if the attorney engaged in dishonest conduct causing the client financial loss. The fund is administered by the Illinois Attorney and Registration Commission (ARDC).
According to Supreme Court Chief Justice Rita B. Garman, “The Court recognizes that a client may also incur such a loss when the attorney dies or becomes disabled during the representation. By amending this rule, we signal to the public that we are equally concerned about the client who suffers a financial loss due to events outside the attorney’s control, such as death or disability.”
The amendment is effective immediately. Claimants may apply for reimbursement through the CPP. More information on submitting a claim is available at: https://www.iardc.org/clientprotection.html.
A review of Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court criminal opinion in the case People v. Smith.
Learn about the new Supreme Court policy regarding the certification of interpreters with this informative two hour seminar! Interpreters play an important role in the judicial process by helping non-native English speakers overcome any language barriers that may exist. Any attorney or judge who uses interpreters should attend this seminar to better understand: the difference between an interpreter and a translator; how the Illinois Supreme Court’s Language Access Policy establishes statewide standards for language access in the courts and how it will affect court procedure and your trial practice; how the new policy creates a framework for the certification of foreign language interpreters and establishes a registry for both sign language and foreign language interpreters; how the recently adopted Illinois Code of Interpreter Ethics defines the proper role of an interpreter and their scope of practice; the difference between consecutive and simultaneous interpretation and why this matters in court; how to use an interpreter more effectively during trials and depositions; how to find a good interpreter; how to prepare your client for using an interpreter; and much more!
The program takes place in Chicago on February 19, 2015; however, for those unable to attend the onsite, this program will also broadcast via live webcast.
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Friday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Ferris, Thompson & Zweig, Ltd. v. Esposito, Williams v. BNSF Railway Company, Lutkauskas v. Ricker and Grand Chapter, Order of the Eastern Star of the State of Illinois v. Topinka and the criminal cases People v. Simpson, People v. Chenoweth and People v. Taylor.
By Alyssa M. Reiter, Williams, Montgomery & John Ltd.
This case involves the question of subject matter jurisdiction as between the Workers’ Compensation Commission and the circuit court. The Court held that an attorney fee dispute based upon referral agreements wherein the plaintiff referred workers’ compensation claims to the defendant fell within the circuit court’s jurisdiction.
Plaintiff sued defendant in circuit court, asserting that, pursuant to written agreements, plaintiff agreed to act as co-counsel in representing two women who had workers’ compensation claims. After the cases settled, defendant refused to pay plaintiff its share of fees.