The Bar News

Bar News Sections

Practice News

  • July 9, 2014 | Practice News
    Ethics Question of the Week: Does client confidentiality continue after I leave firm?

    Q. Do my duties of confidentiality to former clients continue even after I leave my firm?

    A. Comment 7 to IRPC 1.9 states that a lawyer changing professional association has a continuing duty to preserve confidentiality of information about a client formerly represented. However, this duty may not preclude a lawyer from using generally known information about that client. (IRPC 1.9, comment [8]). Comment [9] to the rule also allows for the provisions of 1.9 to be waived if the client gives informed consent. For a full understanding, please see IRPC 1.9.

    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.

  • July 9, 2014 | Practice News
    Best Practice: Client origination expectations for associate on partnership track

    Asked and Answered

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

    Q. I am the sole owner of a four attorney general practice firm in Rockford, Illinois. I am 58 and realize that in the next few years I will need to begin implementing a succession and exit strategy by probably bringing in a partner. Two of the associates have no interest in partnership. However, the newest associate hired, who had his own practice for several years, does have such an interest. He is off to a good start as far as his production. However, I believe that he must be able to originate and bring in client business as well. So far his energy and focus has been totally on performing legal work. I want to get him started on the right track in order that I can make him a partner in a few years. Please provide any thoughts that you may have.

  • July 8, 2014 | Practice News
    Applications being accepted for U.S. magistrate judge position in Central Illinois

    The Judicial Conference of the United States has authorized the appointment of a full-time United States magistrate judge for the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. The official location for the position will be Urbana, Illinois. Full-time magistrate judges are appointed to eight-year terms of office by the judges of each respective United States district court. The current annual salary of the position is $183,172.00.

  • July 8, 2014 | Practice News
    New leadership team appointed for Cook County’s Pretrial Services Division

    As the next step in his efforts to give increased focus and resources to pretrial services operations, Circuit Court of Cook County Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans today announced that he has appointed an assistant chief and two deputy chiefs to lead the Pretrial Services Division of the Adult Probation Department.

    The three individuals selected by Chief Judge Evans, their titles and responsibilities are as follows:

    • Juan Hinojosa, Assistant Chief to oversee the entire Pretrial Services Division;
    • Connie Williams, Deputy Chief for Chicago pretrial services operations in Central Bond Court; and
    • Michael Callahan, Deputy Chief for suburban pretrial services operations in Skokie, Rolling Meadows, Maywood, Bridgeview and Markham.
  • July 8, 2014 | Practice News
    Liability Minute: Not Only Shareholders Get Pierced

    Omittance is no quittance. — Shakespeare

    How many lawyers assist a client in forming a corporation, but merely assist in filing the annual reports and do nothing else? Failure to advise of the risk associated with this minimal approach may now more likely result in veil-piercing to reach the client for individual liability.

    By Joseph R. Marconi1

    Illinois courts have long held that the failure to follow corporate procedure may lead to the individual liability of a shareholder, director, or officer. Now, according to a recent case in the Appellate Court for the First District, even a non-shareholder — who is not an officer, director, or employee of a corporation — may be found individually liable for a judgment against a corporation where he exercises only equitable ownership and control over a corporation, even if there were no allegations that he engaged in any wrongdoing in the underlying case.

  • July 7, 2014 | Practice News
    Illinois Bar Foundation announces over $240,000 in grants

    The Illinois Bar Foundation has approved 30 grants totaling $242,500 which will be distributed to nonprofit legal aid organizations statewide.

    Illinois Bar Foundation grant recipients for FY14 are:

  • July 7, 2014 | Practice News
    Applications being accepted for judicial vacancy in DuPage County

    Chief Judge John T. Elsner has announced that the Court is accepting applications to fill a vacancy for the Office of Associate Judge of the 18th Judicial Circuit Court, DuPage County. This vacancy is the result of the retirement of Associate Judge Thomas C. Dudgeon.

    Applications will be accepted until 5 p.m. on July 31, 2014.

  • July 3, 2014 | Practice News
    Quick takes on Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court civil opinions Madigan v. Burge and Kanerva v. Weems

    Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases People ex rel. Madigan v. Burge and Kanerva v. Weems.

    People ex rel. Madigan v. Burge

    By Michael T. Reagan, Law Offices of Michael T. Reagan, Ottawa

    People ex rel. Madigan v. Burge, which involves great  public interest because of the alleged actions of defendant while supervisor of the Violent Crimes Unit detectives of an area for the Chicago Police Department, ends, as it began in the circuit court, with the conclusion that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider this case. The reasoning and judgment of the circuit court were affirmed; the appellate court was reversed.

    In 1997 Jon Burge applied for and received pension benefits from the policemen’s benefit fund. In 2003, a federal civil rights lawsuit was filed by a plaintiff who alleged that he was tortured and abused by officers under Burge’s command. In answers to written interrogatories in that suit, Burge denied under oath having knowledge of, or participating in, the torture or abuse of persons in custody of the Chicago Police Dept. In 2010, Burge was convicted of felonies for making false answers to interrogatories.

  • July 2, 2014 | Practice News
    Best Practice: Making your marketing dollars work

    Asked and Answered

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

    Q. I am a partner in a 16 attorney firm located in Baltimore, Maryland. Our clients are primarily business firms. I am the chair of our three member marketing committee which was formed three years ago. Our firm is increasing our commitment to marketing and have increased our budget over the past three years. However, we are not sure what we should be spending our money on. Your suggestions would be appreciated.

    A. Hopefully, you have developed a marketing plan and a marketing budget tied to the specific objectives outlined in the plan. Here are a few general guidelines, tips, and best practices:

    1. Money spent on good clients is money well spent.
    2. Allocate more money to specific practice areas or niches and individual lawyers than to the firm as a whole.
    3. Tie passive initiatives to active participation.
    4. Stand out as a major contributor to a single or a few campaigns rather than making many small contributors.
    5. Constantly measure and monitor your return on marketing investment. (ROMI)

    Click here for our blog on marketing

    Click here for articles on other topics

  • June 26, 2014 | Practice News
    Still no eavesdropping law in Illinois

    When the Illinois Supreme Court in March struck down the state's eavesdropping law as overly broad and thus unconstitutional, lawmakers were under pressure to quickly draft a new law to protect the privacy interests of citizens whose conversations may now be recorded without their consent.

    Just before the General Assembly recessed in May, the Senate passed a new eavesdropping law (HB 4283), but the House adjourned before taking action on a Senate amendment.

    The definition of private conversation under the Senate's amendment of HB 4283 is any communication between two or more persons intended to be of a private nature under circumstances "reasonably justifying that expectation."

    The Senate amendment, however, contains exemptions that allow police officers, with permission from prosecutors, to record conversations as part of felony criminal investigations without a judicial warrant. Baker and representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union object to those exemptions, and they are likely to be the subject of continued debate when the General Assembly reconvenes. Find out more on the July Illinois Bar Journal. The implications of not having an eavesdropping law in place are nicely summarized by John Roska of the Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation in the Champaign News-Gazette.
     

    2 comments (Most recent June 30, 2014)