The Illinois Supreme Court handed down four opinions on Thursday, March 19. In People v. McLaurin, the court reinstated a man’s conviction of being an armed habitual criminal. In People v. Hill, the court declined to overrule its prior decision in People v. Stout, which holds that the odor of burnt cannabis, alone, is enough to provide probable cause to search a vehicle. In People v. Jackson, the court upheld a murder conviction despite the defendant’s claims of error. In Whitaker v. Wedbush Securities, Inc., the court construed article 4A of the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code to determine whether the term “bank” applied to the defendant futures commission merchant.

In response to the COVID-19 public health crisis, the ISBA has created a community devoted to the pandemic on ISBA Central.

ISBA Central allows members to connect with their colleagues via our online community platform. Attorneys can pose questions, share information, and seek out lawyers for case referrals.

The COVID-19 community is open to all ISBA members and is designed to help attorneys share information with their colleagues throughout Illinois.

By Matthew Hulstein

On March 17, the Cook County Circuit Court largely shut down to help stem the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Many other county and federal courts have also closed their doors. Law firms and legal aid organizations have also shuttered their offices, sending scores of attorneys to work from home. On March 21, Gov. Pritzker ordered all “non-essential” economic activity to cease and for Illinois residents to shelter in place. Hundreds of companies have gone dark, laying off thousands of vulnerable workers. Unemployment applications have surged, and bills will go unpaid.

ISBA members:

The health and safety of our members and staff is of the utmost importance to the ISBA. While developments related to COVID-19 continue to unfold, the ISBA is closely monitoring a variety of public health sources. In light of Friday's Executive Order, the ISBA's offices will be closed through April 7, but staff will continue to telecommute and member services will remain uninterrupted. We will not be having any in-person events, in-person CLE, or in-person business meetings through April 30.

For decades, Illinois has been a popular legal destination for plaintiffs’ counsel looking to litigate their respective toxic tort cases and take advantage of what they believe are plaintiff-friendly exposure laws and sympathetic juries in certain venues. Many asbestos claims are filed on behalf of plaintiffs without any connection to Illinois. Most of these plaintiffs live, work, and claim to have been exposed in Indiana, Michigan, or Wisconsin; some plaintiffs come from farther away. Despite Illinois’ forum-non-conveniens stance having been settled by the Illinois Supreme Court since 2012, plaintiff firms continue to file case after case in Illinois courts. In addition to the out-of-state plaintiff filings, plaintiff firms have also brought many out-of-state defendants into Illinois asbestos litigation—“the name first ask questions later” approach, which, argues Craig Liljestrand in his March 2020 Illinois Bar Journal article, “Can Asbestos Ever Be Mitigated From Illinois Courts?” raises more than a few eyebrows from the defense bar familiar with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137(a).

Join us  via live webcast from 11 a.m. until noon on Wednesday, April 1 to learn how having control over your time and understanding where to focus your efforts will help you grow a thriving law firm. You will market more profitably, train your staff more effectively, and get more time to spend with the people you love. In this webinar led by Mark Powers, Atticus founder and Certified Practice Advisor, you will learn easy-to-implement strategies to help you take back control over your time and focus so you can better manage your practice.

The profession is facing unprecedented challenges concerning the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many firms have implemented work-from-home policies that encourage professionals to practice social distancing in an effort to quell the spread of the disease. Connecting with other attorneys and legal professionals is essential to staying up-to-speed with the latest legal updates, as well as judicial announcements and orders.

Effective for anything filed on March 16 through March 31, 2020, the Illinois Supreme Court has approved relaxing the requirement in Paragraph 8a of the Supreme Court’s Electronic Filing Procedures and User Manual to give parties 14 days instead of the usual five days to provide the Court the 13 copies of certain e-filing documents.

Something was amiss in the Village of Barrington Hills—or so it seemed to a recent panel of the First District Illinois Appellate Court when it decided Drury v. The Village of Barrington Hills. The facts of the case prompted the court to weigh in on the constitutionality of a repealed zoning ordinance that regulated equine activity and put a new twist on the application of the LaSalle/Sinclair factors, which have been traditionally used to evaluate legislative zoning decisions. In his March 2020 Illinois Bar Journal article, "Horsing Around," Adam Kingsley examines how the Illinois Supreme Court has rejected other standards Illinois courts have used to evaluate facial challenges to zoning ordinances and also discusses the First District Appellate Court's suggestion that when a zoning ordinance is challenged, courts may now consider the reasoning and motives that lay behind the ordinance.

The Illinois Supreme Court announced the filing of lawyer disciplinary orders on March 13, 2020. Sanctions were imposed because the lawyers engaged in professional misconduct by violating state ethics law.