ISBA President John G. Locallo (right) presents Kane County Sheriff Patrick Perez, of Aurora, with the ISBA’s annual Law Enforcement Award. The award we presented at the Kane County Bar Association’s annual Judges Night on Tuesday, April 24, at Fox Valley Country Club in North Aurora.
ISBA Director of Legislative Affairs Jim Covington reviews bills in Springfield of interest to ISBA members. This week he covers HJRCA 29 (victims' rights), Senate Bill 2894 (Public guardians), Senate Bill 3792 (Mechanics Lien Act) and Senate Bill 3823 (Sanctions for visitation violations). More information on each bill is available below the video.
The Illinois Bar Foundation will host a Rock Island County Fellows Chapter Reception honoring Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas L. Kilbride. Chief Justice Kilbride will be presented with the Rock Island County Beacon of the Profession Award.
This event will be held on Thursday, May 3, from 5:30-7:30 p.m. at Abbey Station, 3031 Fifth Avenue, Rock Island, Illinois. For more information, please call the IBF at 312.726.6072.
Discover how you can address the issues most commonly faced in the criminal courts today!
Has the new Illinois Evidence Code changed today’s criminal practice? Join us in Springfield on May 4th for this seminar that discusses case law and legislation updates that Illinois attorneys need to know to be effective in the courtroom. Both new attorneys and experienced practitioners will benefit from the following program topics: Fourth and Fifth Amendment cases; pre-trial and trial issues involving the Sixth Amendment; the ethical challenges involving the use of social media (such as Facebook and Twitter); branding your practice and establishing a niche in the market; and recent amendments relating to the use of breath interlock devices and monitored device driving permits.
The program is presented by the ISBA Criminal Justice Section and qualifies for 5.5 MCLE credit hours, including 1.0 PMCLE credit (subject to approval).
VOTE “NO” on HJRCA 29
Well-Intentioned but Flawed
HJRCA 29 is a constitutional amendment that creates standing for victims to participate in criminal proceedings as a party before the defendant’s guilt is established.
The Illinois State’s Attorneys’ Association and the Illinois State Bar Association oppose HJRCA 29. In its current form this proposal is unwise, unworkable, and unnecessary. We are concerned about its unintended consequences, such as court delays, longer incarceration awaiting trials, and wrongful convictions. HJRCA 29’s practical effect is that it will delay justice for victims by pitting prosecutors against victims instead of allowing them to be advocates for victims. That result isn’t helpful for victims or the public.
It is unwise. A criminal proceeding is a truth-seeking process that promotes public safety by adjudicating guilt and punishing the guilty. The awesome power to prosecute and imprison is vested with the government—not private parties. This means that victims and defendants are not contestants who require equal standing; the victim’s liberty and property are not at risk. But authorizing a victim to participate as a party with all of the standing of a prosecutor and defendant but none of their responsibilities, roles, and risks is a recipe for disaster. It is a return to the days of private, not public, justice.
It is unworkable. Illinois circuit courts annually process a staggering number of cases:
Three bills drafted in large part by members of the ISBA Trusts and Estates Section Council would amend Illinois trust laws to make them more responsive to modern practices and easier to comply with for everyone involved in the estate-planning process. Among other changes, the legislation would make nonjudicial trust modifications easier and limit the risk of liability for fiduciaries who handle specific trust-related tasks. Find out more in the May Illinois Bar Journal.
Illinois State Bar Association President John G. Locallo (left) presents Mark Pleasant, a special investigator with the Lake County State’s Attorney’s office in Waukegan, with the ISBA’s annual Law Enforcement Award. This award was presented at a luncheon of the Lake County Bar Association on April 24 at the Green Belt Cultural Center in North Chicago.
Asked and Answered
By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Q. I am a partner in a 16 attorney firm in Memphis. Our firm has had the same partner compensation system for 20 years and we are generally happy with it. It is an eat-what-you-kill system. Since we are generally happy why should we consider changing it?
A. You can start with the following firm self-test. Has the firm experienced or is it experiencing:
If your firm is experiencing or has experienced the above symptoms, it is time to really examine where the firm is headed and what messages your compensation is sending to your partners. Is the firm trying to be a firm or merely a group of lone rangers? Even though your partners are content, your compensation system may be holding the firm back from becoming all that it desires to be. Contentment may not be the best measure of success.
"Medical Negligence and The Law" and "Negligence and The Law" will air on Chicago Access Network Television, Channel 21 in Chicago, at 10 p.m. in April and May.
"Medical Negligence and The Law" will air on on Tuesdays, April 24 and May 8. Appearing on the show are (from left) Ronald Kalish, of Steinberg, Goodman & Kalish in Chicago; Karen McNulty Enright, of Winters Enright Salzetta & O’Brien, LLC, in Chicago; Hon. Elizabeth M. Budzinski, a judge in the Circuit Court of Cook County; and program moderator Samuel A. Kavathas, of Kavathas & Castanes in Chicago.
"Negligence and The Law" will air at 10 p.m. on Tuesdays, May 1 and 15. Appearing on the show are program moderator Samuel A. Kavathas, of Kavathas & Castanes in Chicago; Ronald Kalish, of Steinberg, Goodman & Kalish in Chicago; Karen McNulty Enright, of Winters Enright Salzetta & O’Brien, LLC, in Chicago; and Hon. Thomas V. Lyons, a judge in the Circuit Court of Cook County.
Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the criminal cases People v. Clemons, People v. Hunt, People v. Dominguez and People v. Edwards.
By Jay Wiegman, Office of the State Appellate Defender
At first blush, it seems a simple axiom: the punishment should fit the crime. Figuring out when a penalty is disproportionate to the offense, however, has long been a thorny issue, particularly because the Legislature has adopted several overlapping provisions that enhance the length of sentences based on the involvement of firearms in offenses. As a result, criminal defendants frequently argue that their punishment violates the proportionate penalties clause of the Constitution where they receive a sentence that exceeds the range of sentences applied to other cases that are identical to the offense of which they were convicted. In 2007, the Illinois Supreme Court held that "common sense and sound logic dictate that the penalties for identical offenses should be identical." People v. Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d 63. Thus, In Hauschild, the Supreme Court held that "the sentence for armed robbery while armed with a firearm violates the proportionate penalties clause because the penalty for that offense is more severe than the penalty for the identical offense of armed violence predicated on robbery with a category I or category II weapon.” Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d at 87.