In a profession that requires people to argue all day, in an era when arguing easily turns to shouting, it’s time for some self-reflection. April’s Illinois Bar Journal asks judges throughout the state and at all levels whether we’re all doing enough to keep calm. It turns out things aren’t all that bad, even if we can always do better.

The Illinois Supreme Court handed down opinions in six cases on Thursday, March 21. In People v. Webb, the court held that the unlawful use of weapons statute that provides that it is unlawful to possess or carry a stun gun in public is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, and in People v. Drake, remanded a defendant’s appealed aggravated battery conviction to the circuit court for a retrial. In City of Chicago v. City of Kankakee, the court held that the Illinois Department of Revenue has the exclusive authority to audit disputed sales transactions and to distribute or redistribute resulting tax revenues due to any error. In 1550 MP Road LLC v. Teamsters Local Union No. 700, the court held that a union’s lease and purchase agreement that was in violation of the Property of Unincorporated Associations Act and the union’s bylaws was unenforceable. The court issued three opinions in Wingert v. Hradisky. In Van Dyke v. White, the court addressed whether the Illinois Secretary of State Securities Department has the authority to bring an administrative action against someone also subject to regulation by the Department of Insurance.

The Illinois Supreme Court has issued Supreme Court Rule 296, which requires that trial courts not use restraints on individuals involved in Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code proceedings unless the court conducts a separate hearing on the record as to the necessity for restraints. The new rule is effective immediately.  Rule 296, proposed by the 24-member Special Supreme Court Advisory Committee for Justice and Mental Health Planning, was adopted to ensure that a dignified judicial process is maintained for the respectful treatment of persons in mental health cases who are subjects of the court proceedings. 

Asked and Answered  By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC Q. I am the owner of a seven-lawyer insurance defense firm in downtown Chicago. Two of the lawyers are non-equity partners and four are associates. Currently I pay the associates a set salary and a performance bonus based upon annual billable hours over 1,800. Until last year, non-equity partners were paid in the same fashion, however non-equity partners received a few additional perks such as a firm credit card and a country club membership. Last year I changed the non-equity partner compensation system to focus on collected receipts rather than billable hours. Non-equity partners receive a salary and a performance bonus based upon working-attorney-collected-received above an established threshold and a delegation bonus.