Illinois Supreme Court Justice Anne M. Burke announced today an application process for a vacancy in the 13th Judicial Subcircuit of Cook County.
The vacancy will be created by the retirement of Cook County Circuit Judge Thomas P. Fecarotta Jr., who served as a judge since 1998. His retirement took effect September 30, 2015.
Michael J. Tardy, Director of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, announced Monday that the 22nd Judicial Circuit judges voted to select Michael E. Coppedge as an associate judge of the 22nd Judicial Circuit.
Mr. Coppedge received his undergraduate degree in 1984 from the College of St. Francis in Joliet, and his Juris Doctor in 1987 from Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. Mr. Coppedge is currently affiliated with Cowlin, Naughton, Curran & Coppedge in Crystal Lake.
Update your knowledge on recent Appellate Court decisions, AMA examinations, and the compensability of psychological injuries with this advanced-level workers’ compensation seminar! Labor and employment attorneys and workers’ compensation practitioners attending this seminar will better understand: how Social Security, Medicare, and Medicare Set Asides interact with workers’ compensation claims; recent Appellate Court decisions that have affected the workers’ compensation practice; the ethical pitfalls you need to be aware of during your next workers’ compensation case; the physician’s perspective on AMA examination guidelines; the economics of running a law practice, including 401k’s; and much more! The program takes place on Monday, October 12, 2015 in both Chicago and Fairview Heights.
The program is presented by the ISBA Workers Compensation Section and qualifies for 5.50 hours MCLE credit, including 1.0 hour Professional Responsibility MCLE credit (subject to approval).
Asked and Answered
By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Q. I am a recently elected managing partner of a 14 attorney firm in Orlando, Florida. For the last three years, our financial performance has been stagnant and my partners are asking me to cut all overhead expenses possible in order to improve profitability. Suggestions?
The Illinois State Bar Association will hold its annual election in March 2016. Campaign season begins Oct. 1 for open ISBA seats including the office of 3rd Vice President, 10 seats on the Board of Governors, 44 Cook County Assembly seats and 88 Outside Cook Assembly seats.
The ISBA Notice of Election 2016 is now available.
Find out more at www.isba.org/elections
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.
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.
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.
