Practice News

The use of and/or is universally condemned for its inherent ambiguity because and is conjunctive and or is disjunctive. Somehow I was under the impression that using and/or was a recent phenomenon. Not so. Bryan A. Garner in Garner on Language and Writing cites an Illinois Appellate Court case that condemned its use in 1932.* Irresistibly drawn in, I read the case. The court referred to and/or as a “freakish fad” and then devoted more than two pages quoting others who condemned it as well. And/or is referred to as “a bastard sired by Indolence (he by Ignorance) out of Dubiety,” a “barbarism,” “pollution of the English language,” and an “accuracy-destroying symbol” that encourages “mental laziness in the drafting of private contracts.” Wow, it’s uplifting to see this kind of passion by lawyers about language. * Tarjan v. National Surety Co., 268 Ill.App. 232, 240 (1932)

[Helen Gunnarsson prepared the following report for the forthcoming (August) issue Illinois Bar Journal.] Upholding the reasoning of the circuit court of Cook County, foreclosure proceedings under the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law (735 ILCS 5/15-1101 et seq) are not in rem, but quasi in rem actions, the Illinois Supreme Court held last June in ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. et al., v McGahan. Therefore, where a mortgagor has died, the mortgagee/lender must name (and thus notify) a personal representative of the mortgagor/borrower’s estate for the circuit court to acquire subject matter jurisdiction.

Asked and Answered By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC Q. I am a female non-equity partner in a 14-attorney firm in Central Kentucky. I have recently been considering approaching the partners in the firm about a reduced work schedule. The firm has no policy in place regarding “part-time partners”. Frankly, I am leery as I am afraid they will consider it a lack of commitment on my part and may have a negative impact upon my future with the firm. What are your thoughts? A. According to ABA studies, almost half of surveyed lawyers feel that they do not have enough time for themselves or their families. Almost three-quarters of lawyers with children report difficulty balancing professional and personal demands. The number of women who doubt the possibility of successfully combining work and family has almost tripled over the past two decades. Only a fifth of surveyed lawyers are very satisfied with the allocation of time between work and personal needs. A desire for more time to meet personal and family needs is one of the major reasons lawyers consider changing jobs, and it is a more important consideration for women than for men. Our law firm clients tell us that personal and professional life balance is their greatest challenge. Time is becoming more important to people than money. While it may be a battle for you in your particular firm – inroads are being made with regard to part-time partners in law firms – for both women and men. Here are a few ideas: No. 1: First and foremost - Develop the courage to ask and have the determination to say no. Create your life balance expectations for your clients and your superiors in the firm. When interviewing for a new job or position let your future employer know your expectations – upfront. No. 2: Create A Personal/Professional Life Plan. Establishing personal and professional priorities and making correct choices is crucial. You must begin by determining what’s important in life – make a list of what’s truly important in your life, establish boundaries and priorities, and formulate a plan. Typical elements that should be on your list include:

An ISBA-inspired change to the Home Repair and Remodeling Act, signed into law July 12, codifies a line of cases holding that a contractor's failure to give a homeowner a consumer rights brochure or to use a written contract does not bar the contractor from suing the homeowner for money owed. Instead, the new law gives homeowners a less severe but more appropriate remedy -- the right to sue under the consumer fraud act. As Adam Whiteman wrote last February in the ISBA Real Estate Law newsletter, the original act had "the laudable goal of making sure that a contractor utilizes a written contract and provides a Consumer Rights Brochure to homeowners who engage them to undertake home remodeling work valued in excess of $1,000." But the act did not make clear that "the intended remedy for a violation of the Act was to be found under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, " which led some courts "to impose wholly unintended penalties [against contractors] for even the most benign violations." The new law clears up the confusion.