Practice News

Asked and Answered 

By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Q. I am a partner in a three-partner, five-attorney estate planning firm in Seattle. While we have a very active marketing program, we would like to do more. We try to do two presentations at seminars or workshops every month. We have a first-class website and a proactive SEO program, as well as an aggressive social media campaign. The firm is listed in all of the key directories. Our attorneys are active in the legal and local communities, have served in leadership positions for bar association committees, and have written extensively. While many of our clients come to the firm through referrals and past clients, we are noticing that we are receiving much more business from the internet. Recently, we have been discussing whether we should consider using a public relations firm. We would be grateful for any thoughts you may have.

Asked and Answered 

By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Q.  I am a solo practitioner in central Illinois. I have been in practice for more than 30 years and I just turned 60. I have two staff members and no other attorneys in the firm other than myself. I plan on working another five years and then I would like to gradually exit from my practice and then retire. I want to have a home for my clients and employees, and I would prefer to be able to sell my interest to an associate attorney working for the firm. I think we have the work to justify hiring an associate and this is the route I would like to go. I have never had an associate, so I am not sure what I should look for. Your thoughts would be most appreciated.

The Illinois Supreme Court handed down nine opinions on Thursday, Nov. 29. The court determined that amendments to Supreme Court Rule 604(d) do not apply retroactively in People v. Easton, confronted whether a defendant who is able to retain counsel to prepare and file his post-conviction petition is entitled to any guaranteed level of assistance from that counsel in People v. Johnson, and articulated the contours of “waiver by conduct” in regard to appointed counsel for post-conviction petitions in People v. Lesley. The supreme court also determined that two corporate defendants were both liable in tort and their relative culpability was equal in Sperl v. Henry, opined that “transactional test” for res judicata should also be applied to the separate doctrine of the single refiling rule to determine whether two or more lawsuits assert the same cause of action in First Midwest Bank v. Cobo, and held that an injured worker was barred from intervening in her employer’s subrogation action brought against third-party tortfeasors in A&R Janitorial v. Pepper Construction Co. The supreme court also weighed in on statutory changes to the Illinois Pension Code and their impacts upon affected employees in Carmichael v. Laborers & Retirement Board Employees’ Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, discussed the court’s jurisdiction, supervisory authority, and the framework for a circuit court to address the constitutionality of an Illinois statute in Gonzalez v. Union Health Service, Inc., and addressed judicial review of executive power in Gregg v. Rauner.

A growing number of attorneys and judges who have struggled with mental illness and substance abuse are speaking out about their battles. In doing so, they are challenging misconceptions while promoting services such as the Illinois Lawyers' Assistance Program (LAP). The 2016 American Bar Association Hazelden Betty Ford Study on lawyer impairment mapped out the extent of the problem. The survey of 12,825 attorneys showed that 20.6 percent screened positive for alcoholism, 28 percent for depression, 19 percent for anxiety, and 23 percent for stress—all at higher rates than other professions.

For its December cover story, the Illinois Bar Journal spoke with several attorneys and judges who have wrestled with drug abuse and mental illness, but also sought assistance and treatment. While recovery is not easy, all say they are glad for taking that first step: Asking for help.