The newsletter of the ISBA’s Standing Committee on Racial and Ethnic Minorities and the Law
October 2011, vol. 22, no. 1
It’s Back! ISBA’s Supreme Court Rule 213(f) & (g) – Quick Reference Guide This SCR applies to all civil litigation in Illinois. It governs the procedure for identifying trial witnesses and disclosing their proposed testimony. ISBA is excited to offer this update of our popular guide, last published in 2002. Written by Paul O. Watkiss, the Guide is published in a uniquely useful format and makes clear the pitfalls of ignoring its nuances. Buy it at www.isba.org/store/books/supremecourtrule213.
Back to School Savings! Sign up for the Unlimited Law Ed Passport Live or the Unlimited Law Ed Passport Online and earn unlimited MCLE credit through June 30, 2012! Go to www.isba.org/CLE/Passport to learn more.
In This Issue…
- Chair’s column
An introduction from Committee Chair Ebony Huddleston.
- Attorney mentoring—Pass it on
In October of last year the Illinois Supreme Court adopted Supreme Court Rule 795(d)(12), which provides that lawyers completing a year-long structured mentoring program, as either mentors or mentees, may satisfy their entire professional responsibility CLE requirement.
- Adjusting to the practice of law: Reflections on five years of practice
As a new attorney in a small firm, the author has discovered three important things for which law school could not have prepared her.
- Breach Notification Laws—What every business owner needs to know
For any multi-state or nationwide business, preventing information security breaches is most likely the easiest and cheapest way to comply with breach notification laws.
Related Court Cases
Diggs v. Ghosh
Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendants-prison doctors’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-prisoner’s section 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his full tear in anterior cruciate ligament in his knee, under circumstances where said tear had been diagnosed in 2009, and where plaintiff was still waiting for surgery on said knee in 2014, when he filed instant lawsuit. While Dist. Ct. found that defendants’ prescribed treatment calling for pain medication, some physical therapy and various permits to alleviate stress to knee was adequate, Dist. Ct. ignored key evidence that would allow jury to find that defendants: (1) failed to follow outside medical advice on treatment for plaintiff’s knee and did nothing to assist plaintiff after noting that his knee condition had regressed; (2) ignored plaintiff’s claims that he had been approved for surgery; and (3) either failed to recommend any treatment for plaintiff or ignored plaintiff’s condition for long periods of time. Dist. Ct. also erred in granting defendant-warden’s summary judgment motion where plaintiff claimed that warden repeatedly took no action on plaintiff’s complaints concerning his knee.
Disclaimer: This newsletter is for subscribers’ personal use only; redistribution is prohibited. Copyright Illinois State Bar Association. Statements or expressions of opinion appearing herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Association or Editors, and likewise the publication of any advertisement is not to be construed as an endorsement of the product or service offered unless it is specifically stated in the ad that there is such approval or endorsement.