Practice News

Asked and Answered

By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Q. We are an 8-attorney firm in Fort Worth, Texas. We have two partners - myself and my partner. Our approach to compensation has been based upon our ownership interest percentages which have been adjusted over time based upon working attorney (personal) collections. We have been discussing implementing a formula using working attorney collections and also bringing client origination credit into the equation as well - weighing each equally. Our ownership percentages would be adjusted based upon the fee credit ratio between the two of us. I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

A. My first thought is whether you are trying to build a firm-first firm or a group of separate practitioners. How will you incorporate other factors such as firm management, business development, mentoring and training associates, etc? If both of you are making roughly equal contributions in these areas your approach might have merit but be careful that you do not head down the path of separate practices - and become a lone ranger firm. My other concern is with client origination - this often gets tricky. With only two partners you don't have anyone to serve in the capacity of attribution police when and if there are disagreements as to origination credit. (attribution committee) So you will have to be able to discuss this subject openly and hopefully upfront. Share origination credit when appropriate, allocate to firm when it appears that a client came to the firm based upon firm brand or name recognition, and consider a 5-year sunset provision whereby the credit reverts to firm or responsible attorneys.

Michael J. Tardy, Director of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, announced today that the Second Judicial Circuit judges voted to select Jerry E. Crisel as an associate judge of the Second Judicial Circuit.

Mr. Crisel received his undergraduate degree in 1970 from the University of Illinois and his Juris Doctor in 1973 from the University of Illinois College of Law. Mr. Crisel is currently engaged in solo practice in Albion, Illinois.

The Supreme Court of Illinois announced the filing of lawyer disciplinary orders on September 25, 2013, during the September Term of Court. Sanctions were imposed because the lawyers engaged in professional misconduct by violating state ethics law.

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the criminal cases People v. Johnson and In re Shelby R.

People v. Johnson

By Kerry J. Bryson, Office of the State Appellate Defender

At issue was whether Section 4-2002.1(a) of the Counties Code allows for imposition of a $50 State’s Attorney fee for hearing a 2-1401 petition. The statute refers only to imposition of the fee for habeas corpus proceedings.

The Court rejected the argument that “habeas corpus” was meant to refer, generically, to any collateral proceedings, noting that habeas corpus has a specific meaning. Considering the plain language of the statute as the best indication of legislative intent, the Court concluded that the reference to “habeas corpus” was meant to encompass the various types of habeas corpus proceedings (e.g., habeas corpus ad prosequendum, habeas corpus ad respondendum, habeas corpus ad testificandum), and nothing more. Inclusion of any other collateral proceedings would have to come from the
legislature.

While this decision is not particularly broad-reaching, it does demonstrate the Court’s adherence to long-standing principles of statutory construction, beginning with looking first to the plain language of the statute.  Where the plain language is clear, the Court will go no further in interpreting a statute’s meaning.