Practice News

Asked and Answered 

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

Q. Our firm is an eight-attorney firm in Cincinnati, Ohio. We have been together for 14 years. There are four partners and four associates in the firm. Over the years we have traditionally had a year-end attorney planning retreat with limited success. This year we have decided that we want to dedicate the entire time to developing a strategic plan for the firm. What can we do to ensure that our strategic plan leads to actual implementation?

A state’s legal standard for determining fault is a key factor in determining whether to file a motion to apply foreign law or a motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. In December’s Illinois Bar Journal, Cameron Turner and Sean Phillips examine such choices regarding asbestos cases in Illinois. Illinois is a well-known epicenter of asbestos litigation, having earned a reputation for allowing cases unconnected to the state to proceed through its system. Onlookers and clients, particularly those new to asbestos litigation and unaware of its broader scope, often express disbelief and frustration at the legitimacy of such a system. Such reactions are fair, and related questions certainly are valid. Illinois does, after all, have statutes in place that allow for the transfer of cases to appropriate forums when any particular forum is improper or inconvenient. It also seems logical, on its face, to lessen the impact of sometimes-harsh Illinois law by looking to the law of a state with a stronger connection to the case when that state's law is more favorable. This rings true even if a defendant chooses to forgo pursuing a forum non conveniens argument.

The Illinois Supreme Court handed down two opinions on Thursday, Dec. 13. The court weighed in on whether section 13-217 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to voluntarily withdrawn postconviction petitions in People v. Simms, and in Palm v. Holocker, demonstrated the principle that a party seeking review of a statutory construction ruling must bring to the court a case with facts that implicate the statute being construed.

The mend-the-hold doctrine derives its name from “a nineteenth-century wrestling term, meaning to get a better grip (hold) on your opponent.” In a series of early decisions, the Illinois Supreme Court established the mend-the-hold doctrine, which provides that a party’s stated grounds for refusing to perform a contract bars grounds left unstated. The Illinois Appellate Court later narrowed the doctrine by limiting parties to grounds identified at the start of litigation and only when switching positions prejudices an opponent. In December’s Illinois Bar Journal, Stanley C. Nardoni, who practices in the Insurance Recovery Group of Reed Smith LLP’s Chicago office, assesses whether the appellate court’s narrowing of the doctrine contradicts precedent established by the supreme court.