A recent report by Brian Mackey of Illinois Issues discloses several surprising statistics about Illinois' criminal justice system. While many people are aware that convicted criminals can be charged fines and ordered to pay restitution to their victims, a wide range of fees are charged to criminals, Mackey reports. In some cases, even accused-yet-exonerated defendants pay these fees, which are used to help fund everything from DNA tests to drug treatment assessment.

Critics say the charges can keep financially troubled individuals in a cycle of poverty and imprisonment. Proponents say charging criminals a fee is fair play -- a part of their debt to society.

According to a 2009 report from the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law cited by Mackey, a Cook County resident convicted of class four felony drug possession faces a minimum of $1,445 in financial obligations. Although the fine for the felony conviction accounts for $500 of the total, the rest comprises fees.

The ISBA Diversity Leadership Council is happy to announce they will host a Diversity Reception on Friday, Dec. 11, during the Midyear Meeting. The reception will take place from 4:30-6:30 p.m. at the Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Tower, 301 E. North Water Street.

Register today at isba.org/diversity/reception and be a part of the Movement for Inclusion.

A review of Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the criminal cases In re Q.P., People v. Fiveash and People v. Goossens.

CRIMINAL

In re Q.P.

By Kerry J. Bryson, Office of the State Appellate Defender

An officer responded to a call of a vehicle burglary in progress. Upon arriving, he located the minor, Q.P., who matched the description of the burglar. The officer handcuffed the minor and put him in the back of the squad car. The minor gave a false name and date of birth. Upon discovery that the information was false, the minor admitted to the officer that he was attempting to prevent the police from discovering that he had an outstanding warrant.

The minor was charged with, and convicted of, obstructing justice based upon giving false information to the police with the intent to prevent his apprehension. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine the meaning of “apprehension.” The minor argued that he was already apprehended because he was in police custody at the time he provided the false information. The State argued that apprehension is specific to each criminal charge and thus, while the minor had been apprehended for the suspected vehicle burglary, he had not yet been apprehended on the outstanding warrant.

Our panel of leading appellate attorneys review Thursday's Illinois Supreme Court opinions in the civil cases Stevens v. McGuireWoods, LLP,  Lake Environmental Inc. v. Arnold, Seymour v. Collins, The Village of Vernon Hills v. Heelan and O’Toole  v. The Chicago Zoological Society.

CIVIL

Stevens v. McGuireWoods L.L.P.

By Michael T. Reagan, Law Offices of Michael T. Reagan

The court’s unanimous opinion in Stevens v. McGuireWoods, LLP, is grounded on the established points that legal malpractice plaintiffs must be able to establish actual monetary loss as damages, that such a plaintiff cannot be in a better position by bringing suit against the attorney than if the underlying action had been prosecuted successfully, and that damages obtainable in a corporate derivative action belong to the corporation, and not to plaintiff shareholders. 

The plaintiffs here are former minority shareholders in an LLC.  They had retained the defendant law firm to bring claims against managers of the LLC as well as its majority shareholder.  Those claims were brought in both individual and derivative capacities.  Substituted counsel brought additional claims against the LLC’s corporate counsel.  Those claims were dismissed for various reasons, including standing and statutes of limitations and repose.  The plaintiff shareholders settled the underlying case, and relinquished all ownership interest in the LLC.

In June, the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated an ordinance that controlled the placement of roadside signs in Gilbert, Arizona. The ordinance in Reed v. Town of Gilbert included a byzantine set of exceptions to a general prohibition on the display of outdoor signs without a permit that effectively favored certain kinds of messages over others.

What has some observers worried -- and others pleased -- is that Reed appears to greatly expand the reach of First Amendment rights. Content-based restrictions on speech have always been subject to the exacting strict scrutiny test. But Justice Thomas's opinion expands the definition of content-based speech. A law that targets "a specific subject matter is content based even if it does not discriminate among viewpoints within that subject matter," he wrote.

Since the high Court's ruling, several lower courts have invalidated laws that in the past would have been subjected to a less stringent constitutional test than strict scrutiny. The U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, recently reversed itself in an Illinois-based case, finding in Norton v. City of Springfield, Illinois, 2015 WL 4714073 (7th Cir. 2015), that Springfield's panhandling ordinance was unconstitutional under the standard set in Reed.  Find out more in the October Illinois Bar Journal.

Asked and Answered

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

Q. I am the managing partner of our six attorney firm in Fresno, California. I recently went to a management seminar that stressed the importance of creating a budget for the firm. We currently do not have one. The budgeting process looks like a lot of work. Is it really worth the effort?

Michael J. Tardy, Director of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, announced Tuesday that Jeffrey A. Goffinet, received a majority of votes cast by the circuit judges in the First Judicial Circuit and is declared to be appointed to the office of associate judge.

Goffinet received his undergraduate degrees in 1981 from Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, IL and his Juris Doctor in 1984 from Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Mr. Goffinet is currently affiliated with Brandon, Schmidt & Goffinet in Carbondale.

For the first time, the Cook County Circuit Court will actively advertise for applicants for the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, Chief Cook County Circuit Judge Timothy C. Evans announced today.

Also for the first time ever, the court will post every applicant’s submitted application form online at www.cookcountycourt.org.

“Our court’s process to recruit and screen potential candidates will be as transparent as possible,” Chief Judge Evans said. “With one spot currently open and another one expected to become vacant, now is the time for a more transparent way to select the commissioners who administer the elections in our city. And we’re seeking the media’s help to get the word out that we’re accepting applicants for these two prestigious positions in the public sector.”

The current Republican vacancy on the three-member board is due to the April 2015 death of Commissioner Richard A. Cowen. The Board of Election Commissioners has informed the Chief Judge’s Office that another vacancy will occur when Election Board Chairman Langdon D. Neal steps down after that Republican appointment is made.
Under state law, vacancies are filled by the circuit court where the election board is located. On the Chicago Board of Election, the Cook County Board has set commissioner salaries at $77,798 annually. Commissioners serve three-year terms.

The commissioners manage voter registrations; safeguard the rights of all voters to cast ballots independently in a safe and quiet atmosphere, free of interference or intimidation; and inform voters of all of their balloting options, such as Election Day voting, Early Voting and Vote By Mail.

Don’t miss this opportunity to experience a family financial trial from start to finish! Join us in Grafton on October 8-9, 2015 as judges, experts, and experienced practitioners come together for this two-day nonstop action mock financial trial regarding maintenance, child support, college support, and asset division. An entire formal trial is conducted, including opening statements, witness examinations, and closing arguments. The witnesses include a business valuation expert and vocational expert whose complete reports are included in the materials. Each witness examination is followed by an interactive discussion in which the Assistant Judges review and comment on the rulings and testimony, along with audience discussion of the witness’s impact and case theory. Breaks and lunches will be set and witness testimony will be held over until court reconvenes as in an actual trial. The Court will rule at the close of the case. Family law attorneys with all levels of practice experience will benefit from the breadth and scope of the lessons demonstrated through this mock trial, including how to analyze trial strategy and the effectiveness of witness testimony.

The program is presented by the ISBA Family Law Section and qualifies for 15.0 hours MCLE credit, including 15.0 hours Professional Responsibility MCLE credit (subject to approval).

Click here for more information and to register.