Practice News

The pick-off move isn't limited to baseball, as Hon. James Fitzgerald Smith and Sonja Dimitrijevic explain in the latest issue of the ISBA's Trial Briefs newsletter.

In class action cases, defendants "pick off" a class representative by tendering him or her complete relief before the class is certified. That moots the class action and "compel[s] plaintiff’s counsel to seek another class representative, which is frequently tricky," the authors observe.

Appellate courts, not fans of the move, developed a pick-off exception that allowed the class to be certified despite the tender. But the supreme court put a stop to that this year in Barber v. American Airlines, "explicitly rejecting the 'pick off' exception" and reaffirming "the 'pick off' rule, under which a tender prior to certification automatically results in the mooting of the class action," Smith and Dimitrijevic write.

They go on to discuss Gatreaux v. DKW Enterprises, LLC, a first district case from last month that implements the Barber pick-off rule. Read their analysis.

Tim Storm reveals the dark and dirty truth in the first paragraph of his column in the latest General Practice, Solo & Small Firm newsletter.

"I remember a moment during a session of my bar review course many years ago. The instructor paused in the midst of his lecture, turned to the audience of recent law school graduates and asked: 'Don’t you hope that new doctors know more about practicing medicine than you know about practicing law?' The wave of nervous laughter sweeping the room showed that the others were thinking just what I was."

Law schools -- most of them -- teach graduates how to "think like lawyers" but not how to be lawyers. Immediately after law school comes the bar review, closely followed by the bar exam. "Most everyone else in the [review course] knew that they, too, had no business being unleashed on the public as full-fledged attorneys," Storm writes. "And yet that was exactly what was about to happen for the 80 percent or so of us who would pass the bar."

We've lived with this approach for decades. What's different now? "The proportion of new graduates who will hang out their own shingles continues to grow," Storm writes. He sympathizes with them, and with the "judges, other attorneys, and clients who may encounter those who hold the same license to practice as the rest of us, but who have never been fully socialized into the practice of the learned profession."

What is to be done? Read Storm's insights and suggestions.

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

Q. As the administrator of our 17 attorney law firm, I am charged with the responsbility of managing and controlling costs. Our management committee is always complaining about our overhead - and then looking to me for solutions - with the focus usually on cost reduction. Do you have any recommendations?

A. I am often asked to help law firms design and implement profitability improvement programs. In most of my engagements the real problem is insufficient gross income and lack of sufficient investment (spending and time) on marketing and initiatives designed to stimulate client and revenue growth. For most firms increasing revenues is the most effective way of impacting the bottom line. However, we do find that there is waste and unnecessary overhead that eats away at profits and a cost control program is also recommended and implemented. During recessionary times such as we are currently facing – drastic cost controls are often the only option. Reducing overhead can immediately and effectively improve a firm’s bottom line.

The first step in an expense control program is to identify those areas where potential savings exist. Review your profit and loss statement. Resist the temptation to arbitrarily cutting costs which could cut the muscle with the fat and result in revenue loss as well. You have to spend money to make money – so if cost cutting is the appropriate strategy – cut the right costs. Think strategically about cost reduction.

After you have identified areas where savings can be made prioritize and develop specific strategies and implement action plans to achieve the savings.

 Here are a few ideas:

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil case City of Chicago v. StubHub and criminal case People v. Taylor.

CIVIL

City of Chicago v. StubHub

By Karen Kies DeGrand, Donohue Brown Mathewson & Smyth LLC

Citing the state’s long history of protecting consumers, including the regulation of ticket resellers and “internet auctioneers,” the Illinois Supreme Court found that the City of Chicago overstepped its home rule authority in trying to collect “amusement taxes” on StubHub resales.  StubHub, a state-registered “internet auction listing service,” describes itself as “the world’s largest online ticket marketplace”; there, for a service fee, a user can buy and sell tickets to events throughout the country.  

The city notified StubHub that it might be a “reseller’s agent” subject to a local tax, and asked StubHub for information regarding its sales for Chicago events.  When StubHub refused, the city sued to obtain that information and for back taxes and penalties.  A federal district judge dismissed the case, and the city appealed.  Under Supreme Court Rule 20, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to answer a question posed by the Seventh Circuit:  “[W]hether municipalities may require electronic intermediators to collect and remit amusement taxes on resold tickets.”  The answer is no.