Despite the finality of the new federal Title IX regulations, uncertainty remains. The American Civil Liberties Union and others have challenged the Final Rule in court. Presidential candidate Joe Biden has vowed to overturn it if elected. State laws—including in Illinois—and even other federal laws require more stringent standards when addressing similar complaints. And the Final Rule has yet to be interpreted by U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights and the courts. In her September Illinois Bar Journal article, “It’s Time for Title IX: New Rule, New Regime,” Jackie Gharapour Wernz provides a deep dive into the controversial new Rule.

Zoom has become the prevalent videoconferencing platform of the pandemic era. But there are other high-quality options, says Affinity Consulting’s Jeffrey R. Schoenberger in his Practice HQ column in the August Illinois Bar Journal. In the column, “Weaving a Virtual Presence: Web Meetings,” Schoenberger highlights the differences between Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, and GoToMeeting. He also points out their respective features and benefits. Maybe you like what you’re using. But perhaps you’ve been too busy to try anything else. Heading into autumn, now is the time to explore other options and see what works best.

It is no secret that some defendants will go to great lengths to avoid being served. Some defendants are even willing to lie about having been served. As a result, the law on this issue has developed firmly in favor of plaintiffs. In the context of personal service, return of service is prima facie proof of proper service and courts are required to indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the return. But what happens when an officer has actually, and unrepentantly, served the wrong person? In his August Illinois Bar Journal article, “You Got the Wrong Guy,” Jake Crabbs prepares attorneys for the uphill battle ahead when they set out to prove a case of mistaken identity when the courts are disinclined to believe your client is telling the truth.

The term “independent contractor” has historically been defined as “one who renders service in the course of an occupation representing the will of the person for whom the work is done only as to the result of the work and not as to the means by which it is accomplished, and is one who undertakes to produce a given result without being in any way controlled as to the method by which he attains that result.” But the label “independent contractor” does not absolve a hiring entity from tort liability for the latter’s own negligence when retaining some requisite degree of control over an independent contractor; nor is the label dispositive for determining whether an agency relationship existed between the two parties. As Gregory Jones shows in his July Illinois Bar Journal article, “Will the Real Independent Contractor Please Stand Up?”, causes of action against employers of independent contractors remain viable in certain instances. Jones also examines claims against independent contractors and various tests for vicarious liability.