In their March 2020 Illinois Bar Journal article, “Talk Shows,” Allen Wall and Caitlyn Culbertson consider the phenomenon of the deponent who has undergone careful preparations to answer deposition questions truthfully and in the most simple and direct manner possible, but then ends up providing answers that go far beyond what is necessary. In so doing, the deponent often unwittingly promotes the interests of one litigant at the expense of another. Why do deponents often provide far more information than is needed and what can attorneys do to help deponents avoid talking too much during deposition questioning? As many attorneys have never been witnesses answering questions in a deposition, Wall and Culbertson suggest that exploring a talkative deponent’s mindset will allow them to better prepare such clients and witnesses for depositions.

Defaulted defendants frequently seek relief from default orders and judgments in the form of motions to vacate brought under 735 ILCS 5/2-1301 or 2-1401. As they say, timing is everything. The availability of relief from an order or judgment to which a defaulted party may be entitled and the standard the court must apply in determining whether a party is entitled to the relief he or she seeks depend almost exclusively on the timing of the request. Moreover, because of the procedural uniqueness of the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law (IMFL), found in Article XV of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, an understanding of the interplay between the IMFL and the Article II civil practice statutes is critical for a successful litigant. In her February 2020 Illinois Bar Journal article, “Mortgage Foreclosure Relief,” Cook County Circuit Court Judge Cecilia Horan examines possible relief from default orders and judgments available in mortgage foreclosure cases and the limitations on those remedies.

Conflicting federal and state laws pose many interesting legal questions for Illinois and other states that have legalized recreational cannabis. In his February 2020 Illinois Bar Journal article, “Major Buzzkill,” Joe Schomberg examines one often-overlooked issue: the availability of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to businesses engaged in, or adjacent to, the bourgeoning legalized cannabis industry. Schomberg’s article received first place in the Illinois Bar Journal’s 2020 Lincoln Award Legal Writing Contest.

Although Illinois caselaw appears to suggest there is no duty to defend an insured (including an additional insured) before a suit, an insurer has a good-faith duty to its insured to respond to a demand made before suit and will often rely on two “black letter” rules to determine their responsibility. One rule is that they have no obligation to pay defense costs incurred before the insured tenders the claim to the insurer; the other rule is that the insurer owes no duties to the insured until the insured is sued. In his January 2020 Illinois Bar Journal article, “Tender-Hearted Insurers,” Scott O. Reed explains that while both rules are a rough approximation of the limits Illinois courts have placed on a liability insurer’s early-stage duties in a claim, caselaw contains exceptions and qualifications to those rules. Reed suggests that knowing the contours of these guides to an insurer’s early-stage duties will allow counsel for insureds and insurers to make informed recommendations to their respective clients about how to resolve conflicts over early-stage costs and settlements.