On May 2, 2019, Illinois lawyer Charles A. Connor was held in minor indirect criminal contempt of court by the Circuit Court of Cook County for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. Mr. Connor, a disbarred lawyer, was prosecuted by the ARDC for appearing in court on several occasions on two separate matters after his disbarment in 2011. In those matters he held himself out as a lawyer and being able to practice law. Mr. Connor had also been convicted of the unauthorized practice of law in 2014. Among other relief, the Circuit Court permanently enjoined Mr. Connor from engaging in any further acts of the unauthorized practice of law and sentenced him to one year of probation but with the first 90 days to be served in the Cook County Department of Corrections. The case is ARDC v. Charles A. Connor, Cook County No. 16 MC1-600091 (May 2, 2019)
Practice News
-
May 2, 2019 |
Practice News
-
May 2, 2019 |
Practice News
PILI seeks a managing attorney, who will serve as a member of PILI’s Programs Team, with primary responsibility for overseeing PILI’s statewide efforts to expand and enhance pro bono outside of the Chicago metropolitan area. This is a dynamic position that requires both the ability to organize and manage at a high level, while also being actively engaged in administration and implementation. The ability to do regular and significant statewide travel, and limited national travel, is required.
-
May 1, 2019 |
Practice News
The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC), the administrative agency that regulates licensed Illinois lawyers, has filed its year 2018 Annual Report with the Supreme Court of Illinois. The report was released to the public this morning when a copy was posted on the ARDC website.
A summary of the annual report is available at Highlights of the 2018 Annual Report.
The ARDC annually evaluates the effectiveness of the disciplinary system. Complete and comprehensive statistics concerning the disciplinary caseload are submitted to the Illinois Supreme Court and are published in the Annual Report. Few professions account for their regulatory activity in such detail.
-
April 29, 2019 |
Practice News
The typical settlement occurs at the end of a long day of mediation. The exhausted parties pen the basic terms in a memorandum of agreement. But unless the attorneys are careful to create an enforceable settlement agreement, a case that appears to be settled can unexpectedly spring back to life. Can a “settled” case come alive again? Sadly, yes. Failing to pound the last nail into a case’s coffin can leave enough of an opening to allow an apparently settled case to rise from the dead. Read Hon. Geraldine Soat Brown’s (ret.) and Lorence H. Slutzky’s article, “Zombie Settlements,” in May’s Illinois Bar Journal.
-
April 24, 2019 |
Practice News
Asked and Answered
By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Q. I am the sole owner of a six-attorney personal injury firm in San Francisco with five support staff. My father started the firm 25 years ago and has since retired from practice. I took over the practice five years ago. At the time I took over the practice, we had just my dad, myself, a couple legal assistants, and no technology. Since then I have done a lot to grow the practice, including adding attorneys and staff as well as implementing technology. My biggest problem is training new attorneys and staff. We have no written documentation as to how we do things, so training has to be done orally by myself or others every time a new attorney or staff member joins the firm. Can you offer any suggestions?
1 comment (Most recent April 25, 2019) -
April 24, 2019 |
Practice News
ISBA Director of Legislative Affairs Jim Covington reviews legislation in Springfield of interest to ISBA members. This week he covers condos and associations, special interrogatory, the Home Repair and Remodeling Act, the Condominium Property Act, consumer debt and collections, DUI, and student interrogation.
-
April 23, 2019 |
Practice News
Attorneys Kelli Gordon and Ashley Davis discuss the new maintenance statute in Illinois.
-
April 23, 2019 |
Practice News
If it’s been a few years since a personal jurisdiction issue has come across your desk, you may want to take note of a recent decision by the first district involving General Electric Co. (GE). The case of Campbell v. Acme Insulations, Inc. powerfully illustrates how Illinois courts are continuing a clear legal trend in limiting the availability of general or “all-purpose” personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants who are sued in Illinois courts. In Eric Muñoz’s April Illinois Bar Journal article, “GE May Bring Good Things to Life, but It Does Not Bring Personal Jurisdiction in Illinois, ” Muñoz, a partner at Scandaglia Ryan, shows, in light of Campbell, how non-Illinois-based companies, with significant and longstanding business and financial contacts in Illinois, like GE, may be unamenable to general jurisdiction in the state. Counsel on both sides of potential litigation would be well-served to appreciate the implications of this important legal trend in personal jurisdiction caselaw and to be prepared to aggressively incorporate these developments into their litigation and defense practices.
-
April 18, 2019 |
Practice News
The Illinois Supreme Court issued three opinions on Thursday, April 18. The ISBA's panel of leading appellate and civil attorneys reviewed the opinions and provided summaries. In People v. Buffer, the court upheld the appellate court’s decision to vacate a defendant’s 50-year prison sentence imposed for a crime he committed when he was 16 years old and remanded the case for resentencing. In People v. Kimble, the court denied a man’s motion to bar his reprosecution on double jeopardy grounds where the trial judge declared a mistrial after the jury was deadlocked. Fillmore v. Taylor addresses whether an inmate can seek relief against the Department of Corrections pursuant to mandamus or a common-law writ of certiorari based on allegations that the Department failed to follow relevant regulations.
-
April 17, 2019 |
Practice News
The Illinois Supreme Court has assigned Circuit Judge Mark M. Boie of the First Judicial Circuit as an appellate court justice in the Fifth District.
Judge Boie was assigned to fill the vacancy created by the election of Justice David K. Overstreet to the Fifth District Appellate Court. The assignment of Judge Boie takes effect on May 1, and will remain in effect until further order of the court.