Practice News

The Illinois Supreme Court handed down four opinions on Thursday, March 19. In People v. McLaurin, the court reinstated a man’s conviction of being an armed habitual criminal. In People v. Hill, the court declined to overrule its prior decision in People v. Stout, which holds that the odor of burnt cannabis, alone, is enough to provide probable cause to search a vehicle. In People v. Jackson, the court upheld a murder conviction despite the defendant’s claims of error. In Whitaker v. Wedbush Securities, Inc., the court construed article 4A of the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code to determine whether the term “bank” applied to the defendant futures commission merchant.

For decades, Illinois has been a popular legal destination for plaintiffs’ counsel looking to litigate their respective toxic tort cases and take advantage of what they believe are plaintiff-friendly exposure laws and sympathetic juries in certain venues. Many asbestos claims are filed on behalf of plaintiffs without any connection to Illinois. Most of these plaintiffs live, work, and claim to have been exposed in Indiana, Michigan, or Wisconsin; some plaintiffs come from farther away. Despite Illinois’ forum-non-conveniens stance having been settled by the Illinois Supreme Court since 2012, plaintiff firms continue to file case after case in Illinois courts. In addition to the out-of-state plaintiff filings, plaintiff firms have also brought many out-of-state defendants into Illinois asbestos litigation—“the name first ask questions later” approach, which, argues Craig Liljestrand in his March 2020 Illinois Bar Journal article, “Can Asbestos Ever Be Mitigated From Illinois Courts?” raises more than a few eyebrows from the defense bar familiar with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137(a).

Something was amiss in the Village of Barrington Hills—or so it seemed to a recent panel of the First District Illinois Appellate Court when it decided Drury v. The Village of Barrington Hills. The facts of the case prompted the court to weigh in on the constitutionality of a repealed zoning ordinance that regulated equine activity and put a new twist on the application of the LaSalle/Sinclair factors, which have been traditionally used to evaluate legislative zoning decisions. In his March 2020 Illinois Bar Journal article, "Horsing Around," Adam Kingsley examines how the Illinois Supreme Court has rejected other standards Illinois courts have used to evaluate facial challenges to zoning ordinances and also discusses the First District Appellate Court's suggestion that when a zoning ordinance is challenged, courts may now consider the reasoning and motives that lay behind the ordinance.

The U.S. Attorney's Office Northern District of Illinois is accepting applications for an assistant United States attorney opening in its Asset Forfeiture Unit within the Criminal Division.

The applicant selected will investigate and litigate criminal and civil asset forfeiture matters arising under a broad range of federal offenses, including, among others, health care fraud, drug trafficking, and money laundering, with the aim of taking the profit out of crime and returning property back to crime victims.  Day-to-day responsibilities may include representation of the United States in federal court in hearings and trial, working with other AUSAs and law enforcement agents, research and writing on legal issues, negotiating case resolutions, and other litigation related duties.

Applicants must possess a J.D. degree, be an active member of the bar (any jurisdiction), and have at least two years of post-J.D. legal experience. U.S. citizenship is required.

Preferred qualifications include excellent academics, significant litigation experience, criminal law experience (for the Criminal Division), strong legal writing skills, and a demonstrated commitment to public service.