The Illinois Supreme Court handed down one opinion today in People v. Pepitone. At issue in this case was whether Section 11-9.4-1(b) of the Criminal Code of 2012, which prohibits sexual predators or child sex offenders to knowingly be present in any public park building or on real property comprising any public park, is facially violative of substantive due process. Jay Wiegman of the Office of the State Appellate Defender reviews the court's ruling. People v. Pepitone Section 11-9.4-1(b) of the Criminal Code of 2012 prohibits “sexual predators” and “child sex offenders” from being knowingly present in any public park building or on real property comprising any public park. 720 ILCS 5/11 9.4 1(b) (West 2016). In People v. Pepitone, 2018 IL 122034, the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether this statute was facially violative of substantive due process and determined that it was not.  The defendant in Pepitone, who had been convicted in 1999 of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and sentenced to a six-year prison term, was arrested in 2013 while walking his dog in a public park in Bolingbrook. A jury found him guilty of being a child sex offender in a public park, and he was sentenced to 24 months’ conditional discharge, 100 hours of public service, and $400 in fines and costs. 

Eric J. Anderson, partner with Info Law Group, LLP in Chicago, discusses how to keep social media advertising legal.

Asked and Answered By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC Q. Our firm is a 14-attorney firm in Chicago. There are nine partners and five associates in the firm. Our practice is limited to insurance defense. I am one of the founders and senior partners in the firm and have been practicing for 35 years. We are having problems getting our associates to produce at the levels that we need for the firm to be profitable. We have an annual 1,800 billable hour requirement and several of our associates are not even close. We have a bonus system that pays associates a bonus based upon billable hours exceeding 1,800 billable hours. What are we doing wrong?

Many speakers warn about run-of-the-mill ethical concerns with technology, but only a select few understand the cutting-edge concerns that are shifting the practice of law and causing ethical headaches for sophisticated lawyers. Join Stuart Teicher in Chicago or via live webcast on April 20, 2018 as he explains both the expanding ethical pitfalls and the evolving ethical duties that lawyers face when using new technology. Attendees will learn about: The Dangers that Don’t Get Discussed. Learn about the paradigm shift that’s being caused by Wikileaks and Snowden, as well as the pitfalls from the LinkedIn/Microsoft merger;  Using Artificial Intelligence Safely…in Plain English. Every tech guru tells you that you need to understand artificial intelligence, but not a single one of them knows how it fits into the attorney ethics rules. Gain a better understanding of the ethical issues you may face with data mining, machine learning, automated tasks, and more (Rules 8.4, 5.3, 1.1) Phish-Hooked: The Ethical Implications of Getting Scammed Online. Whether it’s ransomware, bogus escrow agent arrangements, or fake disciplinary notices, lawyers need to be aware of the hustles being used to scam lawyers. This section helps clarify an attorney’s obligation when becoming a target of online trickery. (Bar Opinions from Alaska #2016-1, Ohio #2016-8, D.C. Bar #371). Twitter Traps You Didn’t Consider. The pressure to tweet is immense, even if you want to resist…and the ethical concerns with using the medium are growing. Don’t miss this discussion on the ethical implications of retweeting (Rule 4.1), the pending terrorism criminal case that could have ethics implications for lawyers, the triggering concerns of Rule 3.6; and more.