ISBA Director of Legislation Jim Covington looks at bill in Springfield of interest to ISBA members. This week he looks at: Public Act 97-148 access to a principal's medical records by his or her agent under a power of attorney for health care; House Bill 1589 may pass in veto session changing law on custody and visitation orders  for deployed service members; House Bill 1712's amendatory veto that affects limited powers of attorney for property by financial institutions for limited business purposes.

Asked and AnsweredBy John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMCQ. Our firm is a three partner general practice firm in a small community. Our ages are 72, 68, and 64 respectively.  Our firm has not adequately prepared for succession/exit of the partners. We have over the years hired associates but have been unable to keep them - they have all left for greener pastures. We are now contemplating merger with a much larger firm that has 40 plus attorneys. We have had several meetings at the office and we have provided them with our financials. They have not provided us with detailed information. We are getting frustrated. It has been over four months since we began talking with this firm and we seem to be "stuck" and not maintaining momentum. We have other options that we have just begun exploring. How can we get "unstuck" and move this process along?A. Right off the bat - admit that this is not a merger of equals - it is more of an acquisition.  Hopefully, you have discussed firm name, whether your existing office will be retained or closed, and the future roles of each you as well as your staff. These are often deal breakers and many firm merger talks never get past this point.

As Congress negotiates the FY 2012 budget during the next few weeks, funding for legal aid may be drastically reduced. This couldn’t come at a worse time for those Americans who need the help that LSC provides. The Census Bureau’s recently released statistics cite that one in five Americans qualify for civil legal assistance at LSC programs. This includes 1.8 Illinois residents. These difficult times makes legal aid more important than ever. We need your help to make sure that the Illinois Congressional delegation understands the importance of LSC funding.The Legal Services Corporation is the federal government’s principal means of funding legal aid for low-income Americans. LSC funding enables legal aid organizations to provide essential legal assistance to thousands of people in Illinois, including military families and veterans, domestic violence victims, the growing number of people facing foreclosure and many others who depend on legal aid for their safety and independence.Please take a moment to act. Please call Senators Durbin and Kirk and your Representative and urge them to support funding for LSC at no less than $396 million for FY 2012. You may find your representative here. This amount is roughly proportionate to the overall discretionary spending levels approved in the recent debt-ceiling agreement and approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Peterson v. Peterson, Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co. and In re Mulroe and criminal cases People v. Masterson and People v. White.CIVILPetersen v. PetersenBy Alyssa M. Reiter, Williams Montgomery & John Ltd.This family law case resolved the appropriate means by which to apportion postdissolution decree college expenses where the judgment of dissolution reserved the issue for future consideration.The Petersens’ 1999 divorce decree provided that the court “expressly reserves the issue of each party’s obligation to contribute to the college…expenses of the parties’ children pursuant to Section 513 of the Illinois Marriage and Marriage Dissolution Act.”  The decree also ordered the husband (Kevin) to pay monthly child support.In 2007, the wife (Janet) filed a petition to allocate past and future college expenses for their children.  The circuit court ordered Kevin to pay 75% of the total college expenses for all three children.  The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that the 2007 petition constituted a modification to the 1999 decree.  It held that the circuit court could not order Kevin to pay for those expenses that predated the filing of the petition.