ISBA Director of Legislative Affairs Jim Covington reviews legislation in Springfield of interest to ISBA members. In this episode he covers Parenting time (House Bill 5425), Parenting time (House Bill 1452), Constitutional amendment and victims’ rights. (HJRCA 1), Workers’ Compensation Act (Senate Bill 3287) and Sale of distressed condominium units (Senate Bill 2664). More information on each bill is available below the video.
Practice News
-
March 27, 2014 |
Practice News
-
March 26, 2014 |
Practice News
Q. While acting as a mediator, I know that a lawyer appearing before me has committed acts of misrepresentation. Do I have to report that misconduct?
A. Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 8.3(a) states that “(a) lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of Rule 8.4(b) or Rule 8.4(c) shall inform the appropriate professional authority.” Rule 8.4(c) makes engaging in misrepresentation a violation of the Rules. ISBA Advisory Opinion 11-01 further explores this issue and concludes that nothing about a mediator’s role, and particularly the absence of any attorney-client privilege between the mediator and any party, extinguishes a reporting obligation.
ISBA members can browse past ISBA Ethics Opinions, access our Ethics Hotline, and other resources on the ISBA Ethics Page.
Disclaimer. These questions are representative of calls received on the ISBA’s ethics hotline. The information provided below is meant as an educational tool to highlight potentially applicable Illinois RPC or other ethics resources that might help the lawyer answer the question posed. The information provided isn’t legal advice. Because every situation is different, often complex, and the law is constantly evolving, you shouldn’t rely upon this general information without conducting your own research.
2 comments (Most recent March 28, 2014) -
March 26, 2014 |
Practice News
Asked and Answered
By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Q. I am the managing partner of a 16 attorney insurance defense law firm in Kansas City. We have two equity partners, four non-equity partners, and 10 associates. Only the two equity partners bring in client business. Since our clients are insurance companies, most of our work is new business from existing clients. Unlike other firms doing insurance defense work our billing rates are low and we have to put in a lot of billable hours and maintain a high ratio of associates and non-equity partners to equity partners.
In the past our associates stayed for a while and left after several years. By the time they reached the higher compensation levels they left and we replaced them with lower cost associates. In the last few years - with the economy and the oversupply of lawyers - they are staying much longer. We are concerned about our reducing profit margins and at what point an associate or non-equity partner's compensation is "maxed out." We would appreciate your thoughts. -
March 24, 2014 |
Practice News
The Illinois Supreme Court Rules Committee will seek comment at a public hearing Friday, April 4 in Chicago on a proposed change to address the scope of electronically stored information, limitations on its use, production, and how such information is managed.
Proposal 14-01 is presented in the form of amendments to Supreme Court Rules 201, 204, 214, 216, 218 and 219. A copy of this and other proposals are available on the Supreme Court website at: http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/SupremeCourt/Public_Hearings/Rules/default.asp
1 comment (Most recent March 28, 2014) -
March 24, 2014 |
Practice News
The Illinois Supreme Court announced Monday the appointment of Associate Judge Charles M. Feeney III of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit as a resident circuit judge of Woodford County.
Judge Feeney was appointed to fill the resident Circuit Court vacancy created by the retirement of Judge John B. Huschen. The appointment is effective April 1, 2014 and will expire December 5, 2016 when the position will be filled by the 2016 General Election.
-
March 22, 2014 |
Practice News
Chief Justice Rita B. Garman and the Illinois Supreme Court have given approval to a comprehensive analysis of the Cook County pretrial services program, statutorily established to provide guidance to judges setting bond for felony and misdemeanor defendants.
The report identifies systemic shortcomings in areas of echnology, automation, leadership, and management. It said the pretrial services operation also lacks the authenticity of verified reports on defendants. As a result, the program has fallen into disuse by judges, prosecutors, public defenders and the sheriff's office in setting bond or determining eligibility for electronic monitoring devices.
-
March 21, 2014 |
Practice News
The Illinois Supreme Court has announced changes to Supreme Court Rules 361, 381, and 383 dealing with where attorneys or parties file motions with the Court.
If a case arises out of the Second, Third, Fourth, or Fifth Judicial Districts and is a motion to be heard by the full Court, an original and eight copies shall be filed with the Clerk's office in Springfield. If the mo-tion may be heard by a single Justice, an original and one copy shall be filed with the Clerk's office in Springfield, directed to the Justice from the Judicial District where the case originated. Responses to mo-tions shall be filed within the allowed time frames in the same manner along with the requisite copies.
In cases arising out of the First Judicial District (Cook County), motions for a single Justice will continue to be filed, along with one copy, in the Clerk's satellite office in Chicago. If the motion in a case from the First District is a matter for the full Court, the changes require an original and eight copies to be filed with the Clerk's Chicago office. Responses to motions shall be filed within the allowed timeframes in the same manner along with the requisite copies.
This applies whether motions and responses are filed electronically or not.
-
March 20, 2014 |
Practice News
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the criminal cases People v. Clark, People v. Melongo, People v. Fernandez, People v. Easley, People v. Davis and People v. Cummings. In People v. Clark and People v. Melongo the Court unanimously held that the current eavesdropping statute is unconstitutional.
People v. Clark and People v. Melongo
By Jay Wiegman, Office of the State Appellate Defender
-
March 20, 2014 |
Practice News
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court civil opinions in the civil cases BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Mitchell, In re Marriage of Tiballi, Spanish Court Two Condominium Association v. Carlson and Home Star Bank and Financial Services, etc. v. Emergency Care and Health Organization, Ltd.
BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Mitchell
By Michael T. Reagan, Law Offices of Michael T. Reagan, Ottawa
In the context of a motion attacking foreclosure proceedings for lack of proper service filed after confirmation of the report of sale, BAC Home Loans Servicing v. Mitchell “reaffirms the longstanding rule that ‘a party who submits to the court’s jurisdiction does so only prospectively and the appearance does not retroactively validate orders entered prior to that date.’” The court resolved a conflict among appellate panels on the issue of whether a waiver of personal jurisdiction operated prospectively only, or whether it served to retroactively validate previous orders of the court entered without personal jurisdiction.
The source of the controversy is the amendment of section 2-301 in 2000 which both eliminated the need for a special appearance and specified the manner of objecting to a court’s jurisdiction. The court held that in context the amendment was ambiguous, and should therefore not be interpreted to contradict In re Marriage of Verdung, 126 Ill.2d 542 (1989), which applied the prospectively-only rule.
1 comment (Most recent March 21, 2014) -
March 20, 2014 |
Practice News
Q. Can I hire a suspended or disbarred lawyer to do simple client intake forms in my office under my supervision?
A. In In re Discipio, 163 Ill.Dec. 515, 645 N.E.2d 906 (1994), an Illinois lawyer was found to have violated the ethical prohibition on aiding the unauthorized practice of law for hiring a disbarred lawyer to gather information from clients and complete forms on their behalf. The applicable RPC is 5.5(a), which provides that “a lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so.”
ISBA members can browse past ISBA Ethics Opinions, access our Ethics Hotline, and other resources on the ISBA Ethics Page.
Disclaimer. These questions are representative of calls received on the ISBA’s ethics hotline. The information provided below is meant as an educational tool to highlight potentially applicable Illinois RPC or other ethics resources that might help the lawyer answer the question posed. The information provided isn’t legal advice. Because every situation is different, often complex, and the law is constantly evolving, you shouldn’t rely upon this general information without conducting your own research.
1 comment (Most recent March 21, 2014)