Asked and AnsweredBy John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMCQ. Our litigation firm is located in Grand Rapids, Mich. and consists of 12 attorneys - eight partners and four associates. We started the firm six years ago as a result of several of us leaving larger law firms and wanting to start something new and different. We have been discussing our current approach to law practice and want to consider alternative business models. We would appreciate your thoughts.

Get the practical information you need to run your own law firm! Are you running your own law firm? Have you considered hanging out your shingle? Then don’t miss this comprehensive overview in Chicago on February 27th that covers the golden rules of running your own practice! Topics include: how to network and marketing yourself and your practice; understanding the financial aspects of running your law firm; recognizing the often overlooked issues when hanging out your shingle, including start-up costs, day-to-day expenses, and real estate concerns; how to properly collect money from clients and what to do with it after you have it; understanding the complexity of the client relationship, as well as the financial record-keeping process; how to use social media ethically to build your practice; and much more! For those unable to attend in Chicago, the program will also broadcast as a live webcast.The seminar is presented by the ISBA Young Lawyers Division and qualifies for 2.0 hours MCLE credit, including 2.0 hours Professional Responsibility MCLE credit (subject to approval).Click here for more information and to register for the CHICAGO program.Click here for more information and to register for the LIVE WEBCAST.

The Illinois State Bar Association’s Lawyer Finder Service provides referrals to local lawyers Mondays through Fridays. The Service makes referrals in a number of areas of law. For the month of January 2014, ISBA helped people in need of legal services find lawyers in the following areas:Here are the results for January 2014:

People v. BaileyBy Kerry J. Bryson, Office of the State Appellate DefenderIn a unanimous decision, the Court reviewed the revestment doctrine. Since its first application in a criminal case in 1983 (in People v. Kaeding, 98 Ill. 2d 237), the revestment doctrine has always provided that a circuit court may be revested with jurisdiction over an untimely post-judgment motion where there is (1) active participation by the parties, (2) without objection, (3) in proceedings inconsistent with the merits of the earlier judgment. At issue was the meaning of the last element, "proceedings inconsistent with the merits of the earlier judgment." The Court clarified that the last element is met only in those circumstances where both parties assert positions that support setting aside at least part of the judgment. A failure to object on the basis of timeliness is not sufficient to revest the court with jurisdiction, rejecting the position asserted by the defendant.The Court also clarified that the appropriate result in the case of improper revestment is not for the appellate court to dismiss the appeal. Rather, the appellate court should vacate the trial court's order addressing the merits of an untimely motion and should order that the untimely motion be dismissed.This opinion confirms that the revestment doctrine is very narrow and will only apply in situations where both parties agree that there should be some modification to the final judgment. Thus, no party should rely on its ability to invoke the revestment doctrine and revest court with jurisdiction over an untimely pleading.