Podcasting has become serious business—and a serious means for marketing a business and developing credibility. Yet, some of the best podcasts available are produced by people who aren’t doing it for the money. Podcasting lawyers find themselves on both ends of the spectrum, including ISBA members who have dipped their toes into the still-growing medium. In its December 2020 issue, the Illinois Bar Journal asks ISBA members who podcast why they do it and what they’ve learned. The article, “Speaking Into the Mic,” also includes advice for blogging—another creative outlet that’s as popular as ever.
Practice News
-
-
November 25, 2020 |
Practice News
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Illinois is seeking experienced, highly qualified attorneys for litigation and trial advocacy, with the intellect and proven ability to handle federal criminal prosecutions as an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in their Criminal Division in the Fairview Heights Office.
-
Chief Justice Anne M. Burke and the Illinois Mental Health Task Force will host a special screening of the newly released documentary The Definition of Insanity as well as a Family Panel discussion on Tuesday, December 1, 2020, from 3-5 p.m.
-
The Illinois Supreme Court has announced the amendment of Rule 21, which grants chief circuit judges the administrative authority to direct judges into a voluntary program to address certain types of judicial conduct.
The Committee Comments to the Rule were also updated. All changes are effective January 1, 2021.
-
The Illinois Supreme Court has announced that Thirteenth Circuit Judge Eugene P. Daugherity has been assigned as an Appellate Court Justice in the Third District.
Judge Daugherity was assigned to fill the vacancy created by the appointment of Justice Robert E. Carter to the Supreme Court of Illinois effective December 8, 2020. The assignment of Judge Daugherity takes effect on December 8, 2020 and will remain in effect until December 5, 2022.
3 comments (Most recent December 10, 2020) -
Perhaps no one has been more outspoken regarding the importance of oral arguments in appellate courts than Illinois Supreme Court Justice Karmeier, who has reiterated the importance of providing appellate counsel an opportunity to “isolate and clarify the core issues in a case and to direct the court’s attention to matters that may have been overlooked or misunderstood.” As chief justice, he categorized the “interactive nature” between counsel and the justices as being “invaluable” to the court’s decision-making process and emphasized the importance of the interaction between the justices themselves during oral argument. Justice Karmeier also lauded oral argument as a key component to “providing public visibility and institutional legitimacy to our system of judicial review.” All of these statements came to fruition in an amendment of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352, known affectionately by some as “Thou shalt oral,” which into effect July 1, 2018, and has had a significant impact on appellate advocacy. In her November Illinois Bar Journal article, “Oral Arguments: More and Less Remote,” Amanda Hamilton discusses the steady increase in oral arguments in Illinois appellate courts and why Illinois appellate practitioners must be prepared to present and defend their positions on complex issues at oral argument with increasing frequency.
-
The Illinois Supreme Court today announced the amendment of Rule 113.
The changes go into effect December 1.
-
The Illinois Supreme Court handed down seven opinions on Thursday, November 19. They included opinions in two criminal cases and five civil cases.
-
November 19, 2020 |
Practice News
The U.S. Attorney's Office Central District of Illinois is accepting applications for an assistant United States attorney opening in its Criminal Division.
Applicants must be United States citizens or nationals; submit to a background investigation, credit and tax checks, and drug test; be registered for selective service, if applicable; and have a J.D. degree and active member of the bar (any U.S. jurisdiction).
-
The term “hindsight bias” is defined as “the tendency, after an event has occurred, to overestimate the extent to which the outcome could have been foreseen.” A new trend in Illinois is for litigants to attempt to introduce evidence of hindsight bias through opinion testimony by experts in human factors or psychology. These opinions have been commonly offered by defendants in negligence cases to argue that jurors should not judge their conduct with the benefit of hindsight information learned after a plaintiff’s injury; instead, they should consider only the information that a defendant possessed at the time of his alleged negligence. As Arlo Walsman notes in his November Illinois Bar Journal article, “Hindsight is 20/20,” the Illinois Appellate Court has not yet ruled on the admissibility of expert-opinion testimony regarding hindsight bias and trial courts have reached different conclusions on this issue. In his article, Walsman highlights the legal issues surrounding the use of expert-opinion testimony on hindsight bias and practical tips for lawyers to consider when confronted with such evidence.