Publications

Section Newsletter Articles on Illinois Supreme Court Rules

Summary of new practice-related Illinois Supreme Court Rule changes By Hon. Barbara Crowder Bench and Bar, March 2013 An overview of the recent changes to the Illinois Supreme Court Rules.
E-service—It is time to serve others as you would wish to be served By Carl R. Draper Legal Technology, Standing Committee on, February 2013 In late October, 2012, the Supreme Court announced revisions to the Rules of Civil Procedure relating to service of pleadings effective on January 1, 2013. The change made in Rule 11 allowed service of documents to be completed by electronic submission.
Navigating the benefits and potential pitfalls of juror questions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 243 By Anne Scrivner Kuban and Krista R. Frick Local Government Law, February 2013 The authors discuss their observations of the new rule being used during a recent trial.
Service by e-mail approved by the Illinois Supreme Court By J.A. Sebastian Administrative Law, February 2013 Effective January 1, 2013, Supreme Court Rules 11, 12, and 131 were amended.
Service by e-mail approved by the Illinois Supreme Court By J.A. Sebastian Bench and Bar, February 2013 Effective January 1, 2013, Supreme Court Rules 11, 12, and 131 were amended.
Summary of new practice-related Illinois Supreme Court Rule changes By Hon. Barbara Crowder Civil Practice and Procedure, January 2013 This summary is designed to give readers notice of changes, some minor, others fairly important.
Five years later: Child custody and visitation mediation implementation after the 2006 Supreme Court Rules By Heather Scheiwe Kulp Alternative Dispute Resolution, October 2012 While there have been major achievements for the Illinois justice system, there is still room for improvement in certain aspects of some mediation programs.
Fulfilling the promise of equal access for all Illinoisans: The Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Access to Justice By Hon. Michael B. Hyman Bench and Bar, July 2012 The Illinois Supreme Court, through its Commission on Access to Justice, has committed the legal profession to ensure that justice is never beyond anyone’s reach.
Application of discovery rules to requests to admit By Kevin Lovellette Government Lawyers, June 2012 One issue that has recently seen increased litigation is whether Requests to Admit are discovery devices subject to the requirements of discovery rules and orders of court.
Scales v. Benne: Appellate Court addresses the use of photos produced at time of trial By Bridget A. Mitchell Civil Practice and Procedure, June 2012 Disclosure of photos is governed by SCR 214, not SCR 213, and parties will be barred from using photos not produced prior to trial that were the subject of a SCR 214 request.
Recent Supreme Court Rule changes By Hon. Lloyd A. Karmeier Civil Practice and Procedure, May 2012 An overview of the significant administrative and rule changes made by The Illinois Supreme Court in the past year.
Discovery of those online: Using Supreme Court Rule 224 to ascertain the identity of anonymous online posters By Patrick M. Kinnally Bench and Bar, April 2012 Supreme Court Rule 224 provides that a person may file an independent action seeking discovery before a suit is filed to determine the identity of one who may be responsible in damages. And in the recent case of Maxon v. Ottawa Publishing Co., it was used to identify the posters of critical online commentary.
Is a custody judgment really “final” under Supreme Court Rule 304(b)? By Robin R. Miller and Elizabeth Sietsema Family Law, April 2012 Supreme Court Rule 922, which requires a final Custody Judgment within 18 months, conflicts directly with the so-called “absolute” right to voluntarily dismiss a lawsuit under 735 ILCS 5/2-1009.
Modifications and other things to know about infamous Supreme Court Rule 216 By Stephen C. Buser Civil Practice and Procedure, April 2012 Rule 216 may not be the most important Supreme Court rule a civil trial lawyer should know, but it is a Supreme Court rule that a lawyer should know to avoid devastating, and sometimes avoidable, consequences to a client’s case.  
New rule will allow jurors to submit questions to witnesses in civil trials By Joseph Tybor and Hon. Alfred M. Swanson, Jr. Bench and Bar, April 2012 New Illinois Supreme Court Rule 243 will go into effect July 1, 2012, and on that day Illinois will join more than 25 states and the Federal Courts in allowing jurors to submit questions to witnesses in civil trials.
Recent Supreme Court Rule changes By Hon. Lloyd A. Karmeier Bench and Bar, April 2012 An overview of the significant administrative and rule changes made by The Illinois Supreme Court in the past year.
The supervisory authority of the Supreme Court of Illinois: A powerful tool for the court and practitioner alike By Matthew R. Carter Civil Practice and Procedure, April 2012 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 383 provides the requirements for a motion for supervisory order. These motions are rarely granted, yet they have been used successfully at every stage of litigation in Illinois.
Supreme Court allows juror questioning of witnesses: New Supreme Court Rule 243 By Mark Rouleau Civil Practice and Procedure, April 2012 The Illinois Supreme Court has adopted a new rule, S.C.R. 243, which takes effect July 1, 2012.
Partial use of depositions: Illinois Supreme Court Rule 212(c) By John M. Stalmack Civil Practice and Procedure, March 2012 In essence, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 212(c) is a codification of the common law rule of completeness as it applies to depositions
The ARDC can now investigate and prosecute the unauthorized practice of law—Good news for immigrants By Scott D. Pollock International and Immigration Law, January 2012 Last month the Illinois Supreme Court amended its rules, thereby enhancing the ARDC's authority and benefiting immigrants to the U.S. and their family members, who have a particularly critical need for competent legal advice and representation. 
Illinois Supreme Court Rule adds unauthorized practice of law to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission’s responsibilities By William A. Price Administrative Law, January 2012 The Illinois Supreme Court has adopted amendments to its rules of practice (751 and 752(a) and 779, effective December 7, 2011. The new rules allow investigation and prosecution by the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of instances of unauthorized practice of law by disbarred or unregistered lawyers, and by other persons and organizations.
Rule 23 unpublished opinions: To cite, or not to cite By Stacey Lynch Insurance Law, January 2012 Despite the recent availability of Rule 23 orders in cyber space, the prohibition to citation of a Rule 23 order, with the exceptions being the limited circumstances enumerated in (e)(1) of the rule, remains intact.
Discovery of those online: Using Supreme Court Rule 224 to ascertain the identity of anonymous online posters By Patrick M. Kinnally Civil Practice and Procedure, December 2011 Supreme Court Rule 224 provides that a person may file an independent action seeking discovery before a suit is filed to determine the identity of one who may be responsible in damages. And in the recent case of Maxon v. Ottawa Publishing Co., it was used to identify the posters of critical online commentary.
A primer on deposing a Rule 215 medical examiner By John L. Nisivaco Tort Law, October 2011 Preparation tips for deposing an expert witness.
Changes to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 216 By Maxine Weiss Kunz Young Lawyers Division, April 2011 An explanation of the recent changes, which took effect on January 1, 2011.
Voluntarily dismissing a lawsuit and later refiling is not an escape hatch through which to disclose new witnesses if witness disclosure deadlines already passed in the original lawsuit By Alyx J. Parker Young Lawyers Division, April 2011 An attorney must take great care when dealing with Rule 213 witness disclosure deadlines, as a voluntary dismissal will not remedy omissions by simply re-filing the lawsuit and disclosing the omitted witness(es).
Admitting a party’s discovery deposition By Jeffrey A. Parness Civil Practice and Procedure, March 2011 A recent amendment to the Illinois Supreme Court Rules allows into evidence an unavailable party’s discovery deposition pursuant to the “sound discretion” of the court when it “will do substantial justice between or among the parties.”
Brookbank v. Olson: Can a Judge excuse a party from signing requests to admit? By Hon. Daniel T. Gillespie Civil Practice and Procedure, March 2011 The Third District Appellate Court recently ruled that a party’s attorney may not sign and verify a response to a Supreme Court Rule 216 request to admit facts when the attorney cannot locate his client.
Letter from the Chair By Amina Saeed Racial and Ethnic Minorities and the Law, February 2011 A letter to colleagues from Committee Chair Amina Saeed.
The Affirmative Damage Rule By Kevin Lovellette and Cody Cocanig Government Lawyers, September 2010 The Affirmative Damage Rule gives us the ability to impeach witnesses that we call, thereby limiting the damage done to our case by our own witnesses.