Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests are giving consumers unprecedented, inexpensive access to their genetic predispositions. As a result, state and federal governments have had to grapple with consumer-protection laws and private companies with airtight contracts and clear, conspicuous disclosures. Governments have an interest in robust privacy protections for consumers, yet companies that offer DTC genetic-testing services want to protect their brand and the integrity of their products. The general public stands to benefit significantly from the scientific advancements based on the study of genetic material. But in light of this rapidly growing landscape, what do our client patients, providers, and companies need to know? In her June Illinois Bar Journal article, “Inconclusive Results,” Haley J. Guion provides a history of DTC genetic testing, identifies key stakeholders in the genetic testing market, and outlines corresponding legal principles at issue for these players.

Despite how simple celebrities like Henry Winkler and Tom Selleck make reverse mortgages out to be on their television commercials targeting seniors, loss mitigation for reverse mortgages confounds homeowners, advocates, and judges alike. In his June 2020 Illinois Bar Journal article, “Reverse Mortgages Gone Bad,” Matthew Hulstein explains what families can do to bring a reverse mortgage out of default and keep their home.

An underdiscussed but vitally important aspect of today’s criminal justice system is the ever-expanding role of assessments charged to convicted defendants in criminal cases. These fines and fees charged by states and municipalities aim to minimize the cost of criminal prosecutions on the taxpayers and deter future criminal activity. Nationally, convicted persons are charged an average of $13,607 for conviction-related costs, including restitution and attorney fees. As Benjamin Sardinas notes in his May Illinois Bar Journal artilcle, “The Ball Is in Your Court,” nearly half of convicted persons’ families who helped cover those costs say they could not afford such fees and 38 percent of those families found court fees and fines the most difficult among the costs of conviction. Since the passage of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 472, correcting errors in the calculation and imposition of court assessments have become part of the responsibilities of trial prosecutors and defense attorneys. Sardinas reviews the history of correcting errors in sentencing, the changing legal landscape in the wake of Rule 472, and suggests how criminal trial attorneys may challenge assessments and sentencing errors to prevent their incidence and prevalence.

The legal profession is, out of necessity, practicality, or sometimes sheer stubbornness, notoriously backward looking. It shouldn’t come as a surprise, therefore, to realize that lawyers, judges, and the American legal system were largely unprepared for the coronavirus pandemic. We’re not unique in that, as most Americans seem taken aback by the virus. In many jurisdictions, court dockets have slowed or halted. But that hasn’t stopped the remainder of an attorney’s work from moving forward. Deadlines must be met, motions must be drafted, discovery must be served, and rulings must be issued. In his May Illinois Bar Journal article, “Law in the Time of COVID-19: Looking Backward While Moving Forward,” Brad Taylor asks how does a practitioner fulfill his or her myriad professional responsibilities while self-quarantining, practicing social distancing, and occasionally grappling with masses of frenzied, toilet-paper-obsessed shoppers? Not easily, Taylor says, and not without changing the way we perceive, at least in the short term, how legal professionals perform their roles.