We know from our own experience here at ISBA that online CLE is exploding. And why not? What could be more convenient or efficient, especially now that the tools for delivering and consuming electronic programming are so much better than they were? That's why we're committed to bringing you even more.
That said, sometimes there's no substitute for driving an hour or two, sprinting up to the conference center, easing your posterior onto a chair just as the show is starting, and watching and listening to an old-school live CLE presentation. You can schmooze at the break. You can ask questions you'd be afraid to ask your senior partner. Debra Liss Thomas has more in the latest YLD newsletter.
Practice News
-
October 13, 2010 |
Practice News
-
October 13, 2010 |
Practice News
Asked and Answered By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC Q. Our firm has been discussing how to handle one of our partners. We are are 25-attorney firm. One of our mid-level partners who is one of our highest fee producers and best business getters simply won't follow firm policy or play by the rules. He won't turn in time-sheets in a timely manner, he is argumentative with others in the office, and not a team player. He is "me first" while the rest of the partners in the firm are mostly "firm first". We are trying to build a team-based practice and this one partner is holding up our progress. Do you have any thoughts or suggestions on how we should handle this? A. Dealing with "maverick partners" is always a challenge. Of course, they seem to always be the heavy hitters and this makes it that much more difficult as often there are major clients and large sums of money at stake - at least in the short term. This can also be major issues and large sums of money at stake in the long term if you don't deal with the maverick partner as well. In addition you won't be able to achieve the vision and goals the firm is trying to achieve.
- For starters - if you have not already - create a well understood set of firm core values or code of conduct that governs behavior in the firm.
-
October 11, 2010 |
Practice News
And thanks to Gina Matthiesen, who alerts us to this helpful resource in the latest issue of The Counselor, newsletter of the ISBA Section on Business Advice and Financial Planning. It's easier to be a do-gooder when someone assembles the resources you need and places them conveniently at your disposal, just waiting for you to do that pro-bono thing you do. A website created by the Illinois Attorney General, called “Building Better Charities,” does just that by pulling together the forms and instructions required to register a charitable organization in Illinois. Gina describes what's there and helps you figure out more generally what you should and shouldn't try to do for your favorite charity.
-
October 7, 2010 |
Practice News
CIVIL
Vancura v. Katris
By Jean M. Prendergast, Schuyler, Roche & Crisham, P.C Today, in Vancura v. Katris, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously reversed a trial court’s ruling that Kinko’s, Inc. (“Kinko’s”) bore liability for an employee’s decision to notarize plaintiff’s signature, which caused the loss of plaintiff’s interest in a mortgage note. It was undisputed that plaintiff never signed the document at issue. Plaintiff posited three theories: (1) violation of Section 7-102 of the Illinois Notary Public Act (“Act”) (5 ILCS 312/7-102 (West 1996)); (2) negligent training; and (3) negligent supervision. Interestingly, the Court disagreed with the appellate court’s determination that Kinko’s forfeited review of the common law claims by failing to provide adequate legal support. Instead, while the Court found certain of Kinko’s cited cases unpersuasive, it nevertheless found the citations and argument sufficient to satisfy Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7). In contrast, the Court ruled that plaintiff violated Rule 341(h)(7), and thus, forfeited his right to review of the appellate court’s judgment against him on his claim for violation of the Act. The Court next examined the common law claims and held that Section 7-102 of the Act was intended to modify the common law. Thus, the common law duty of employers of notaries extends only as far as the Act; the employer has a duty not to consent to the official misconduct of its employees. Plaintiff never argued that Kinko’s had any knowledge of its employee’s misconduct. -
October 7, 2010 |
Practice News
By Shamla Naidoo Social networking provides a proven means to reach consumers worldwide, 24/7. The methods are simple to execute and provide cost-effective marketing with increased visibility and industry recognition at minimal cost. While many in solo practice lack opportunities for collaboration afforded to large firm lawyers, social networking creates greater access to peers for learning and collaboration than any firm could. After all, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, blogs, chat rooms, new-groups, message boards, and other social networking sites that specialize in legal topics/practice, are not limited by time zone or geography. Support, information and interaction are always accessible. This is the best of free-speech on the Internet. While this sounds great, what is the price we pay to reach clients conveniently, and to connect with potential clients and peers online? The benefits are so high that you cannot afford to not participate in these forums, however, discretion and thoughtful interaction is essential. Consider the following impact to your law practice as you calculate the cost of your right to free speech on the Internet. Every word you post creates a permanent record. That in itself is not an emerging issue in the practice of law–lawyers create permanent records of most everything we do. The difference is that our permanent record is usually created based on our client’s position and is mostly protected by privilege. In social networking we are generally representing ourselves and personal positions to those we know and/or trust. Web crawlers are specialized programs (popular amongst search engines) which traverse the Internet looking for all available content.
-
October 6, 2010 |
Practice News
The Illinois Supreme Court has appointed Maureen Leahy Delehanty to Circuit Judge of Cook County, Third Subcircuit. This vacancy was created by the retirement of the Honorable Patrick E. McGann. This appointment is effective Oct. 6, 2010, and terminates on Dec. 3, 2012.
-
October 6, 2010 |
Practice News
By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC For the past six weeks I have been discussing the characteristics of successful law firms and introduced the following basic building blocks that successful firms typically have in place:
- Partner Relations
- Leadership
- Firm Management
- Partner Compensation
- Planning
- Client Service
- Marketing
-
October 5, 2010 |
Practice News
Limited scope or "discrete task" legal representation -- aka "unbundling" -- is a client- and lawyer-friendly idea whose time has come, proponents say. So what is it, and how can it help your practice? Read Helen Gunnarsson's article in the October Illinois Bar Journal.
-
October 5, 2010 |
Practice News
Chief Judge Stephen J. Culliton is accepting applications for two anticipated vacancies resulting from the upcoming Nov. 2 election. The vacancies are anticipated to occur upon the elections of Associate Judges Dortohy F. French and Ronald D. Sutter, who are running unopposed in the general election for Circuit Judge. These vacancies are contingent upon certification by the Illinois Board of Elections of general election results declaring French and Sutter the winners. Applications will be accepted until 5 p.m. on Nov. 3, 2010. Applicants must be a U.S. citizen, licensed to practice law in this state and a resident of DuPage County. Two original applications, submitted on prescribed application form, must be filed with:
- Cynthia Y. Cobbs, Director
- Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts
- 3101 Old Jacksonville Road
- Springfield, IL, 62704-6488
-
October 4, 2010 |
Practice News
And boy did billionaire George Steinbrenner pick the right time. To die, that is. "If he had died last year, the executors of George’s estate could have faced federal estate taxes of almost $500 million, depending on how the estate was structured," writes Robert J. Kolasa in the latest issue of ISBA's Trusts and Estates newsletter. But he died this year, which means his estate owed nada. Bupkes. How did this happen, you ask? Robert explains.