Asked and AnsweredBy John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMCQ. We are a 22-attorney firm located in Pittsburgh. While we represent both individuals and businesses, our focus is on small business representation. During the past few years we have come upon hard times. We have lost several partners and a couple of business clients and we have a few partners coming up for retirement. Several of our senior partners have suggested that we might be a merger candidate for a large law firm. What are your thoughts?A. Don't count on a larger law firm coming to your rescue unless:1. You have a practice that is strategically important to the larger firm (all practice areas).2. You have an exceptional bench of superior lawyer talent with mixed age spread.3. Your firm has had exceptional financial performance and on a par with the larger firm.4. Your billing rates, methods, and practices are on a par with the larger firm.5. Your partner earnings are on a par with the larger firm.Unless the above ingredients are in place the firm may not be a suitable candidate for merger or it might find that the larger firm cherry picks some of the key partners off one by one.Click here for our blog on mergersClick here for articles on other topics

The ABA Task Force on the Future of Legal Education has released its draft report for comment. The draft cites the 53-page report and recommendations created by the Special Committee on the Impact of Law School Debt that was approved by the ISBA Assembly in June.On the issue of the impact of the law student debt crisis on career choices and the distribution of legal services throughout society, the report specifically cited the ISBA’s efforts saying: “A recent report by the Illinois State Bar Association has described this development in compelling terms and offered several recommendations the Task Force has embraced.”

Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas L. Kilbride announced Monday that Lake County will participate in the pilot project that allows attorneys, parties and appellate justices to view, access, and work electronically from the official record of cases on appeal in the Second Judicial District.The Order is effective immediately and allows the electronic transfer of the official record of cases on appeal filed after October 1, 2013 in Lake County."Lake County is the Second Judicial District's most populous county; the appeals process will be greatly streamlined with the trial record being filed electronically," Chief Justice Kilbride said. "Since the project's launch in 2011, cost savings and greater efficiencies in the Illinois court system have been demonstrated through the increased use of technology."The Court is grateful for the continued cooperation between the courts and the circuit clerks in this endeavor."Since he became Chief Justice in October 2010, Justice Kilbride has pledged to make the Illinois courts more user friendly by implementing improvements in technology. Since then, the Supreme Court has opened avenues for e-filing, creating a special E-Business Committee in June 2011; announcing statewide standards and new and amended Supreme Court rules that will allow all courts in Illinois to begin electronic filing of civil cases in October 2012; and greatly expanding the pilot project that allows the e-filing of the trial record in the Appellate courts.

Gruszeczka v. The Illinois Workers' Compensation CommissionBy Karen Kies DeGrand, Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLCAs the Illinois Supreme Court moves the state toward electronic filing, here the court implicitly acknowledged the continuing relevance of the “mailbox rule.” The issue arose in the context of obtaining circuit court review of a decision of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission. The supreme court interpreted section 19(f)(1) of the statute and held that mailing the requisite documents commences circuit court review and satisfies the strict statutory compliance needed to vest subject matter jurisdiction in the circuit court. See Workers’ Compensation Act, 820 ILCS 305/19(f)(1) (West 2008). Thus, mailing the documents within 20 days, rather than obtaining file-stamped documents by the clerk within that time frame, “commenced” the action under the statute.