Practice News

The Illinois Supreme Court recently expanded its electronic filing standards to include e-filing in criminal and traffic cases. Before the amendments, which took effect September 16 but have not yet been implemented by the county courts, electronic filing was only available in civil cases. Ideally, expanding e-filing to criminal matters will increase efficiency in the courts while lowering costs.

Three changes to the electronic filing standards are particularly noteworthy. First, amended paragraph 9(f) provides that documents filed by pro se litigants will be reviewed for acceptance by the court before being rejected by the clerk's office for failure to comply with formatting requirements. Paragraph 9(f) does not specifically limit this requirement to criminal filings, and thus could benefit pro se litigants in civil matters.

Also, multiple traffic (or other) citations can be filed in one transaction under the amended rules. This batch file can be sent directly from the law enforcement agency that issued the citations. Coupled with the provision that exempts partner agencies (state's attorney, public defender, attorney general, and law enforcement) from paying filing or vendor fees, this change could result in significant cost savings. It also allows paper citations not to be filed with the clerk's office.

For the first time in nearly 60 years, filing fees for reviewing courts in Illinois will increase effective January 1, 2015.

On August 12, 2013, Governor Pat Quinn signed into law Public Act 98-0324. Under the new law, fees collected by the Clerks of the Supreme and Appellate Courts will be set by Supreme Court Rule, rather than by statute.

In addition, rather than transferring the funds collected into the General Revenue Fund, these fees will be deposited into the newly-created “Supreme Court Special Purposes Fund.” The new fund will be used to support the Supreme Court’s commitment to e-business initiatives, including the streamlining and upgrading of the case management system in the courts of review.

As authorized by the new law, the Supreme Court has amended Rule 313 to provide that, unless excused by law, petitioners and appellants filing cases in the Supreme and Appellate Courts will pay a filing fee of $50 instead of $25. Respondents and appellees will see filing fees increase from $15 to $30.

The Supreme Court Clerk also collects fees for producing official certificates with seals, issuing new law licenses, and performing registration and renewal of registrations for businesses formed for the practice of law. Both the Supreme Court Clerk and the Appellate Court Clerks charge fees for copying of documents, opinions, and orders, although the availability of many such documents at www.illinoiscourts.gov has eliminated much of the demand for copying services. These fees have not been increased.

Chief Justice Rita B. Garman of the Supreme Court of Illinois has begun an application process for an at-large Circuit Court vacancy in the Seventh Judicial Circuit.

The vacancy is created by the retirement of Judge Patrick J. Londrigan on December 8, 2014. Judge Londrigan has been a Circuit Judge in the Seventh Circuit since 2004.

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil case Michael v. Precision Alliance Group, LLC and the criminal cases People v. Jolly and People v. Simth.

CIVIL

Michael v. Precision Alliance Group, LLC

By Karen Kies DeGrand, Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLC

Reversing an appellate decision entering judgment for plaintiffs in a retaliatory discharge case, the Illinois Supreme Court reinstated a judgment entered for an employer after a bench trial. The case turned on the legal standard that governs an employee’s burden of proving causation in a retaliatory discharge lawsuit. Illinois recognizes such a claim as a narrow exception to the general rule that an employer may terminate an “at-will” employee at any time, for any reason. The plaintiff in such cases must prove that the employer discharged the employee in retaliation for the employee’s activities and that the discharge violates public policy, such as when an employer fires an employee for asserting a workers’ compensation claim or for “whistleblowing,” reporting illegal or proper conduct. 

In this case, the employees contended that they were fired for whistle blowing  concerning weight labeling violations investigated by the Department of Agriculture. The employer, an agricultural supply company selling soybean seeds, convinced the trier of fact that the company fired the plaintiffs for nonpretextual reasons; one was discharged for engaging in horseplay with a forklift and two others were terminated in connection with a reduction in force.