Asked and AnsweredBy John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMCQ. I am a sole owner of a 4 attorney law firm located in Washington, D.C. Our practice concentrates on estate planning and administration. We have 6 support staff members. I just turned 60 the first of the month and am beginning to think about what I will eventually do with the practice. None of the associate attorneys are interested in partnership or in purchasing the practice - they just want jobs - they are not interested in owning a law practice. When is the best time for me to sell my practice?A. You really have to give some thought to your timeline - how long do you want to work? Do you plan on pursuing another career? Have you put enough money away so you can simply retire without concern about the need to generate additional income?If you need revenue for an additional 10 years and if you enjoy what you are doing - then it will not be in your interest to sell the practice too early. Let's say you could sell your practice for one million dollars - this might equate to two years of earnings. If you worked another 10 years - you could have earned five million dollars.To a large extent owning a law firm is in essence a job where you work for a living where you have provided employment for yourself. It might be hard to find a job that pays as well as your firm. So if you need revenue for another 10 years and your enjoy your work - you should probably plan on working another 10 years. Build you timetable to sell your practice around your future work timeline. Things change - you may find that your associates change their mind or down the road you may end up with new hires that will have an interest in partnership.

Chief Circuit Judge John T. Elsner is pleased to announce two finalists have been slected for the Office of Associate Judge of the 18th Circuit Court. The finalists are seeking to fill the vacancy created by the elevation of Robert G. Kleeman to Circuit Judge. From these names, the Circuit Judges will select two appointees by secret ballot.Sean M. McCumber, J.D., University of Illinois, College of Law, 1998; admitted to the practice of law in Illinois, 1998. Mr. McCumber currently serves as a partner with the law firm of Sullivan, Taylor & Gumina (2005-present).Jeffrey S. McKay, J.D.-Kent College of Law, Chicago, 1992; admitted to the practice of law in Illinois, 1993. Mr. McKay currently is an Associate with the law firm of Ekl, Williams and Provenzale (2001-present).

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Friday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Ferguson v. Patton, Julie Q. v. the Department of Children and Family Services and DeHart v. DeHart and the criminal cases People v. Cruz and People v. Donelson.CIVILDeHart v. DeHartBy Michael T. Reagan, Law Offices of Michael T. Reagan, Ottawa For more than 50 years plaintiff believed his decedent father’s representation that the decedent was plaintiff’s biological father. Plaintiff found to the contrary when he obtained a certified copy of his birth certificate to obtain a passport, which revealed who his biological father was. That man had abandoned the plaintiff when he was two, and had no further contact. Decedent married plaintiff’s mother, and for more than 60 years held plaintiff out to everyone as his biological son. Plaintiff’s mother died in April 2001. In 2005, decedent, then 83, married defendant, 29 years his junior. Three hundred sixty-four days later, decedent executed a new will in which he stated “I have no children.” A prior will provided bequests for plaintiff and plaintiff’s children. Legal suspense builds throughout this Opinion as the court methodically works through the six counts of the complaint which had been dismissed by the circuit court, knowing that what lies at the end will be the court’s treatment of the theories for “contract for adoption” and “equitable adoption.” The appellate court, which had reversed the circuit court’s dismissal of all counts, was affirmed in the entirety. 

The Illinois Supreme Court recently adopted an ISBA proposal to establish expedited appeals in delinquent minor cases (New Rule 660A.pdf). ISBA Past President Mark D. Hassakis presented the ISBA proposal at a Supreme Court hearing in December 2012. The proposal had its genesis with the Illinois Models for Change Initiative at Loyola University and was supported by the Juvenile Justice Initiative and the National Juvenile Defender Center.The proposal requires appeals in delinquent minor proceedings under the Juvenile Court Act to be decided within 150 days after filing a notice of appeal. The purposes of the expedited appeal procedure are to: achieve prompt appellate review; address the merits of convictions before an appeal becomes moot (thereby saddling the offender with a conviction that might have been reversed or remanded on appeal); and, establish a greater body of appellate case law in juvenile matters.