Practice News

The Supreme Court of Illinois has announced amendments to existing lawyer trust account guidelines. The new amendments to Rule 1.15 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct help clarify the obligations that all lawyers have to manage and protect client funds. Click here to view a copy of the recent rule changes. A lawyer has always been required to hold the money or property of clients or third persons that come into a lawyer’s possession separate from the lawyer’s own property. This is because a lawyer is a professional fiduciary who must safeguard client funds. Beginning September 1, 2011, new trust account rules provide for three essential changes from current practice. The changes serve to benefit both the public and the profession. First, lawyers will have to continue to segregate client funds, but the rule clarifies that they will have only two banking options as to where they hold client money. Beginning September 1st, client funds can only be deposited into either:

• An IOLTA (Interest on Lawyers Trust Account) account. An IOLTA account is a pooled interest or dividend-bearing client trust account established with an eligible financial institution used for the deposit of nominal or short term client funds. The interest on an IOLTA account is paid to the Lawyers Trust Fund of Illinois (LTF). LTF is a tax-exempt, not-for-profit organization that uses the interest generated by IOLTA accounts to make charitable contributions to not-for-profit agencies that provide legal aid to the poor; or

• A separate, interest-bearing non-IOLTA client trust account established to hold the funds of a specific client or third person with that specific client designated as the income beneficiary.

By Robert A. Loeb The Blago nightmare is almost over. The federal jury returned a verdict of guilty on 17 of 20 counts against the former governor. Regardless of one’s personal opinion of his criminal culpability, and for that matter, regardless of the jury’s verdict -- he’s been a national embarrassment. Let’s not rehash the coverage in the news media here. We’ve already been inundated with that, and it was three whole news cycles ago. And even though he invoked Elvis once again as he waited for the verdict (“my hands are shaking and my knees are weak”), I’ll try hard to refrain from further cheap Elvis references at his expense. Even though other song titles from Elvis include “That’s what you get for lovin’me,” “Jailhouse Rock,” and “Please release me.” Rather, let’s take a look at the case and the verdict from a lawyer’s perspective. The media is asking, “how was the second trial different from the first, and did that difference help produce a different result?”  I’m not so sure they were very different. Sure, the difference between a hung jury and a conviction is great, but is the difference between an 11-1 vote and and a 12-0 vote so significant when evaluating trial tactics?  It has been reported that the government streamlined the case against Blagojevich, eliminating some counts and some evidence in an attempt to make the case clearer to the jury. Both juries seem to have been thorough and meticulous, but it still took this jury two weeks to deliberate, and an indictment with 20 remaining counts is not exactly simplified. I’m suggesting that the government did not really need to alter its case after the first trial. From the defense point of view, the fact that different lawyers represented Blagojevich in the second trial may have lessened the entertainment value, but the cross-examinations of witnesses parroted the successful moments from the first trial.

I had a doctor's appointment this morning and brought along an old friend for companionship, Plain English for Lawyers (5th ed. 2005) by Richard C. Wydick. It's about 104 pages of advice that is as helpful today as the first time I read it. I would analogize it as the Strunk and White for lawyers. It's now on my list to re-read once a year. I had forgotten how good this book was.