You receive a 14-day letter from the ARDC. What do you do? Be calm. Accurately lay out the facts. Question anything you don't understand. Ask for an extension—if you need one. The good news? Most ARDC claims are dismissed upfront. Charges that lead to a hearing still need to be proved with “clear and convincing evidence,” says Jeff Corso of Cooney, Corso & Moynihan in Downers Grove and a member of the ISBA’s Standing Committee on the ARDC. In November 2018’s Illinois Bar Journal, writer Ed Finkel unpacks and demystifies the ARDC’s complaint process and provides tips from experts on how to properly interact with the agency if a 14-day letter lands in your mailbox. 

The United States Trustee Program is accepting applications for an Assistant United States Trustee position.

Internal candidates who wish to be considered must have at least five years post-J.D. professional legal experience in interpreting, applying, and advocating on behalf of clients the provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and related laws, rules, and regulations that arise in bankruptcy cases.

The Illinois State Bar Association and the Illinois Judges Association are pleased to invite you to celebrate the profession and consider issues of mutual interest to the bench and bar during our annual Midyear Meeting, which will be held Dec. 6-8, 2018, at the Palmer House Hilton Hotel in Chicago. 

Hotel reservations may be made through Saturday, Nov. 3. To make reservations, please contact the Palmer House Hilton directly at 877.865.5321 and identify yourself as an ISBA convention attendee.

The online registration deadline is Friday, Nov. 30.

Asked and Answered 

By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Q. We have a 24-attorney litigation firm in Pittsburgh. We represent insurance companies and business firms. We recently conducted a client satisfaction survey of our top-tier clients via telephone and face-to-face interviews. We have discovered that we have numerous issues regarding client satisfaction. Where do we go from here?

Don’t miss this full-day seminar in Chicago or via live webcast on Nov. 9 that reviews a range of general practice topics – from motion practice and mediation to trends in attorney discipline. Attorneys involved in general practice and civil litigation with intermediate practice experience who attend this seminar will better understand: drafting considerations for proper pleadings; motions to dismiss and summary judgment motions; the art of discovery; how to prepare cases for mediation and settlement; how trial counsel impacts an appellate case; risks and benefits of using technology in the practice of law; and trends in lawyer discipline.

Appellate and trial courts are issuing inconsistent decisions concerning proper standing and jurisdiction following the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. The uncertainty created by these decisions means judges and attorneys must juggle many variables when considering choice of venue in Illinois and other states. The difference is in how each court defines concrete injury and whether the threat of future harm is sufficiently concrete. An illustration of these inconsistencies is in cases brought by consumers affected by data breaches. In those cases, consumers’ personal information became exposed to parties not authorized to see or possess it. Claims based on data breaches typically include, if not solely rely on, allegations that consumers were injured because the mere exposure of their personal information created a threat of future harm. Read Mark Bernstein’s article, “Standing Here or There?,” in October’s Illinois Bar Journal for a detailed analysis of venue and jurisdiction implications when trying or defending cases involving concrete-injury and future-harm claims.

The Illinois Supreme Court handed down seven opinions on Thursday, October 18. The court affirmed that the warrantless use of a drug-detection dog at a man’s apartment door violated his Fourth Amendment rights in People v. Bonilla, reversed the appellate court’s judgment vacating a man’s sentences and remanding for resentencing for a murder conviction in People v. Harris, upheld a circuit court’s decision to seal two motions filed by a defendant facing murder charges in People v. Zimmerman, and affirmed a defendant’s conviction for unlawful delivery of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a church in People v. Newton. The supreme court also reversed a circuit court’s decision to dismiss eminent domain complaints against landowners in Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois v. Hutchings, considered the meaning of the phrase “unable to satisfy any judgment” in Cassidy v. China Vitamins, LLC, and affirmed a circuit court’s order dismissing claims against an insurance company in American Family Mutual Insurance Company v. Krop.

Join us online Nov. 7 for an informative presentation that explores the requirements of probate court and their impact on the personal injury plaintiff and defense bar.

Asked and Answered 

By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Q. I am part of a three-member management committee. We have a 25-attorney firm located in the greater Washington D.C. area. We specialize in governmental law. We are feeling that our committee and the firm spend a lot of time in meetings discussing management problems and strategies to no avail. Not much changes or gets implemented. I welcome your comments.