Comments on Rule 1.13 from the Co-chair of the Joint Committee on Ethics 2000By Robert CreamerAdministrative Law, January 2010The October 2009 IBJ article made no specific mention of Comment [9] to new Rule 1.13 because of space limitations on what could be covered; and many other interesting and deserving topics were omitted as well.
Terms of engagementBy Darrell DiesTrusts and Estates, January 2010If using an engagement letter is a foreign concept to you, then you will benefit from reviewing this article, which summarizes a couple of the new Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the Illinois Supreme Court that became effective January 1, 2010
Supreme Court Rule 213(f)—Witness interrogatoriesBy Ross S. LeveyFamily Law, December 2009As divorce practitioners, we sometimes gloss over the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Supreme Court Rules.
Time is of the essence, or is it?By John B. KincaidCivil Practice and Procedure, October 2009Two recent Rule 23 Orders decided by separate panels of the Second District Appellate Court appear to conflict as to whether a court can limit the cross-examination of a witness or the submission of evidence which supports the litigant’s case.
Timing is everything: Jury instructions and Supreme Court Rule updateBy Hon. Barbara CrowderCivil Practice and Procedure, October 2009An examination of the changes to Jury Instruction 1.01 issued in May 2009 and the June 2009 modification of Supreme Court Rule 239 effective September 1, 2009.
When consultants’ opinions are discoverableBy Lauryn E. Parks & James F. McCluskeyTort Law, October 2009The purpose of Illinois Rule 201(b)(3), as well as other comparable rules, is focused on protecting the identity of the consultant in order to encourage the communication of expertise.
Contingency Planning: Motion to Stay—Preparing to counteract a possible negative rulingBy Susan M. BrazasGeneral Practice, Solo, and Small Firm, July 2009Where the client (or the client’s children) stand to suffer great harm in the event that the court makes a ruling adverse to their position, the attorney should consider preparing, in advance, a Motion to Stay enforcement of the court’s judgment pending appeal.
Supreme Court Rule 236 and the admissibility of medical records at trialBy Stephen C. BuserCivil Practice and Procedure, December 2008Illinois Supreme Court Rule 236 can be a useful tool for the admission of medical and hospital records into evidence at trial, eliminating the need for a party to spend hundreds or perhaps thousands of dollars to have a medical doctor, nurse or other health care professional testify in court or by evidence deposition to have the records admitted.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 315(c)(3): An appellate trap for the unwaryBy Matthew R. CarterCivil Practice and Procedure, October 2008Illinois Supreme Court Rule 315 establishes rules for preparing an appeal from the Illinois appellate court to the Illinois Supreme Court. Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 315.
What’s in a name? It depends on whether you are seeking Rule 137 sanctionsBy J. Matthew PfeifferCivil Practice and Procedure, May 2008Last year, the Second District of the Appellate Court of Illinois joined other Illinois appellate districts in deciding that while courts may sanction a person who signed a court paper, a represented party, or both pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137, no authority exists within that rule for courts to sanction a law firm.
Practice advisory: Appellate practice changesBy Timothy J. StormGeneral Practice, Solo, and Small Firm, April 2008Litigators should be aware of several amendments to Supreme Court Rules affecting appellate procedure.
Vision Point v. Haas: Breathing room For litigants on Requests to AdmitBy Steven G. PietrickFamily Law, March 2008On September 20, 2007, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Vision Point of Sale, Inc. v. Haas, ___ Ill.2d___, 2007 WL 2729322 (No. 103140 September 20, 2007),1 providing what many in the legal community perceive as a merciful relaxation of the overly strict interpretation of Rule 216’s requirements and the near-draconian effects which can result.
Is it a claim or a new action? Characterization of post-judgment petitions in family law cases affects appealabilityBy Linda S. KaganFamily Law, February 2008Given the continued dispute about whether post-judgment petitions are new claims or new actions, it might be a prudent idea to obtain a Rule 304(a) finding and file a notice of appeal as to each order one wants to appeal, alert the appellate court by way of motion that other claims or petitions are pending in the trial court and later, move to consolidate appeals filed along the way.
General principles of trial witness disclosure under Supreme Court Rule 213By Daniel P. WurlTort Law, January 2008This article will focus on general principles of Rule 213 trial witness disclosure, testimony at trial, and appellate review as set forth in appellate court cases that have been decided in the last five years since the Supreme Court made major modifications to Rule 213 in 2002.
Recent amendments to the Illinois Supreme Court rulesBy Michele M. JochnerCivil Practice and Procedure, January 2008Since the beginning of this calendar year, the Supreme Court of Illinois has made several amendments to its Rules. Outlined below are highlights of some of the most significant amendments.
Supreme Court provides clarification on Supreme Court Rule 216 and its relationship with Supreme Court Rule 183By Jeffrey D. FrederickTort Law, January 2008On September 20, 2007, the Illinois Supreme Court rendered a lengthy decision in Vision Point of Sale, Inc. v. Haas, that had the effect of reversing several Appellate Court decisions and clarifying earlier Supreme Court decisions and sending a strong message to the Appellate Courts and Circuit Courts in Illinois that the Supreme Court, pursuant to the Illinois Constitution, has general administrative and supervisory authority over all courts.
Recent amendments to the Illinois Supreme Court RulesBy Michele M. JochnerGeneral Practice, Solo, and Small Firm, November 2007Since the beginning of this calendar year, the Supreme Court of Illinois has made several amendments to its Rules. Outlined below are highlights of some of the most significant amendments.
Recent amendments to the Illinois Supreme Court rulesBy Michele M. JochnerBench and Bar, August 2007Since the beginning of this calendar year, the Supreme Court of Illinois has made several amendments to its Rules.
Production of financial records by a Supreme Court Rule 213(f)(3) Expert WitnessesBy Albert E. DurkinTort Law, July 2007The Illinois Appellate Courts have not created a bright line rule as to whether production of extrinsic evidence to support financial claims made by expert witnesses should be required, although this issue has been hotly litigated elsewhere.
Child custody overview of Supreme Court rulesBy Nicole OnoratoChild Law, June 2007The new child custody rules, which took effect on July 1, 2006, are divided into three parts – A, B, and C – which apply to certain Acts. This article will give a brief overview of the new rules and will highlight key provisions in each rule.
A New Year’s resolution: Read new Rule 213By Hon. George S. MillerBench and Bar, February 2007An amended 213 (IL ST S.Ct. Rule 213), covering written interrogatories to parties, is effective January 1, 2007. Paragraph (f) provides that for each lay or independent witness, the party answering the interrogatory must identify the subjects and opinions from the witness to the extent of the party’s knowledge.
Can an unlicensed law firm recover in a suit for attorney fees?By Hon. Daniel T. GillespieCivil Practice and Procedure, January 2007One interesting aspect of contract law is that, if a contracting party is not properly licensed, the party may not be able to recover in a contract action for nonpayment of fees earned.
Requests to Admit: Vision Point of Sale v. HaasBy Michael J. MarovichCivil Practice and Procedure, December 2006On November 29, 2006 the Illinois Supreme Court granted a petition for leave to appeal in the case of Vision Point of Sale, Inc. v. Haas, 366 Ill.App.3d 692, 852 N.E.2d 331 (1st Dist. 2006).
Playing by the rules has its advantagesBy Jamie L. BasYoung Lawyers Division, October 2006If you go through your mail and find a document called a Request to Admit Facts, make sure you carefully read Illinois Supreme Court Rule 216, which governs this document.
Ruminations on Rule 216 and considerations of substantial justiceBy Hon. Daniel T. GillespieCivil Practice and Procedure, October 2006This rule is to be liberally construed to do substantial justice between or among the parties. —Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213(k) on written interrogatories.
