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.

When a lawyer relocates to a new firm, timing and content are important when determining ethical responsibilities and what information may be shared with clients, colleagues, and the new and old firm. In their July 2020 Illinois Bar Journal article, “When Lawyers Relocate,” attorneys Michael Shakman and Diane Klotnia examine various opinions written by the Illinois State Bar Association and the American Bar Association as well as rules of professional conduct that provide guidance on avoiding conflicts of interest for the relocating lawyer and his or her old and new firms. Illinois lawyers especially face subtle differences in professional conduct rules regarding relocating, Shakman and Klotnia note. And, in certain relocation-based matters, state caselaw is not settled.

Chief Justice Anne M. Burke and the Illinois Supreme Court announced today the approval of new Rule 139 regarding practice and procedure in eviction proceedings. The new rule requires an eviction complaint to include a copy of the written eviction notice or demand and, where applicable, the relevant portions of the lease. The new rule is effective immediately.