Hyman’s Holdings: Knowing When To Stand FirmBy Justice Michael B. HymanCommercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy, November 2025In his new column, Hyman's Holdings, featured in the Civil Practice & Procedure Newsletter, Justice Hyman explores various topics related to the legal profession.
Hyman’s Holdings: Knowing When To Stand FirmBy Justice Michael B. HymanCivil Practice and Procedure, October 2025In his new column, Hyman's Holdings, featured in the Civil Practice & Procedure Newsletter, Justice Hyman explores various topics related to the legal profession.
New Trial, New Judge?By Jeffrey A. ParnessCivil Practice and Procedure, October 2025A case summary of People v. Class, 2025 IL 129695, and the Illinois Supreme Court's ruling regarding an appellate court's sua sponte order in a postconviction proceeding to remand the matter to a new trial judge.
A Cautionary Tale in the Use of AI in PleadingsBy John HolevasTrusts and Estates, July 2025At the 2025 Allerton Conference focusing on the impact of generative AI in legal practice, Judge Jeffrey A. Goffinet recounted a case where he sanctioned an attorney for citing a fictitious, AI-generated legal case—Hauter v. DeWitt. The case did not exist, and despite multiple opportunities, the attorney failed to acknowledge the mistake until compelled by the court. He later admitted the error stemmed from using an AI tool called "Archie," which mistakenly inserted the false citation. The court fined the attorney $2,000, and Judge Goffinet reported him to the ARDC. The incident underscores the need for lawyers to verify AI-generated content and to take responsibility for errors.
A Cautionary Tale in the Use of AI in PleadingsBy John HolevasCommercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy, July 2025At the 2025 Allerton Conference focusing on the impact of generative AI in legal practice, Judge Jeffrey A. Goffinet recounted a case where he sanctioned an attorney for citing a fictitious, AI-generated legal case—Hauter v. DeWitt. The case did not exist, and despite multiple opportunities, the attorney failed to acknowledge the mistake until compelled by the court. He later admitted the error stemmed from using an AI tool called "Archie," which mistakenly inserted the false citation. The court fined the attorney $2,000, and Judge Goffinet reported him to the ARDC. The incident underscores the need for lawyers to verify AI-generated content and to take responsibility for errors.
A Cautionary Tale in the Use of AI in PleadingsBy John HolevasCivil Practice and Procedure, June 2025At the 2025 Allerton Conference focusing on the impact of generative AI in legal practice, Judge Jeffrey A. Goffinet recounted a case where he sanctioned an attorney for citing a fictitious, AI-generated legal case—Hauter v. DeWitt. The case did not exist, and despite multiple opportunities, the attorney failed to acknowledge the mistake until compelled by the court. He later admitted the error stemmed from using an AI tool called "Archie," which mistakenly inserted the false citation. The court fined the attorney $2,000, and Judge Goffinet reported him to the ARDC. The incident underscores the need for lawyers to verify AI-generated content and to take responsibility for errors.
Highlights from the 2025 Allerton ConferenceCivil Practice and Procedure, June 2025The ISBA Allerton Conference: Generative Artificial Intelligence—Fact or Fiction: Transforming the Legal Practice was held April 2-5, 2025, at the I Hotel & Illinois Conference Center in Champaign, Illinois.
The Respondent in Discovery Statute Is a Valuable Tool for Plaintiffs in a Variety of ContextsBy Adam Sherman & Marc ShermanCivil Practice and Procedure, June 2025Illinois attorneys can use Section 2-402 to name individuals or entities as respondents in discovery to gather information before deciding if they should be sued. A recent court ruling, Williams v. McAllister, broadened the statute’s use, allowing respondents to be named even without intent to sue, as long as they may have useful information. This helps lawyers identify proper defendants, especially in complex cases like medical malpractice or nursing home care.
Allerton Conference 2025: Exploring the Future of Law with Artificial IntelligenceBy Mallory P. SanzeriCivil Practice and Procedure, March 2025The Illinois State Bar Association’s biennial Allerton Conference is just around the corner, and this year’s theme is one that every legal professional should have on their radar: "Generative Artificial Intelligence – Fact or Fiction: Transforming the Legal Practice." Held from April 2-4, 2025, at the I Hotel & Conference Center in Champaign, IL. Co-hosted by the ISBA Civil Practice and Procedure Section and the ISBA Standing Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Practice of Law, and sponsored by ISBA Mutual Insurance Company, the conference will feature leading legal scholars, judges, and technology experts discussing the opportunities and challenges AI presents for attorneys.
Employers Beware: GIPA Is Coming for You!By Hon. Joel ChupackCivil Practice and Procedure, March 2025Just as soon as you were getting a handle on BIPA, along comes GIPA. The Genetic Information Privacy Act became law on January 1, 1998. This was 10 years before the passage of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. Now, 25 years later, GIPA is having its day in the sun. So, why the fuss on GIPA now? There is not one state court appellate decision interpreting GIPA and only a handful of federal court decisions. However, in the past year, at least 20 GIPA lawsuits have been filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County. This article will focus on GIPA in the hiring of employees, as that is where the violations are being asserted.
Deepfakes in the Courtroom: Problems and SolutionsBy George BellasCivil Practice and Procedure, January 2025“Deepfakes” are altered or completely fabricated AI-generated images, audio, or video, that are also extremely realistic, making them difficult to discern from reality. In a sense, they’re AI’s version of photoshopping. Lawyers need to educate themselves and their firms on what deepfakes are and how to spot them, develop a healthy skepticism of content they encounter, and question its source. Take nothing at face value, and closely scrutinize details of that content to look for anything inconsistent with reality, such as people with more or less than five fingers.
The Use of a Police Report at Trial to Refresh the Recollection of an Investigating Officer and the Application of the Hearsay Rule and the Exceptions: Capsel v. BurwellBy Richard L. Turner, Jr.Civil Practice and Procedure, January 2025In analysis of Capsel v. Burwell, 2024 IL App (3d) 230170. In this case, the truth and accuracy of the officer’s report could not be established in that he did not witness the collision and could not identify who provided the statements. The officer’s testimony lacked the necessary foundation and was inadmissible under the past recollection recorded exception, or any other exception, to the hearsay rule. The appellate court then found that the trial court’s act of admitting the statements in the report into evidence constituted reversible error meriting a new trial.
Pre-suit Information Preservation Duties in Multistate CasesBy Jeffrey A. ParnessCivil Practice and Procedure, December 2024Hard issues may still confront lawyers even when the future forum is known. The Illinois court may need to decide to apply non-Illinois law, including the law of another state or of the United States. Further, the choice of which government’s preservation duty law may vary depending on the form of the preservation duty.
Doe v. Catholic Bishop: How to Scrutinize Attorney-Client PrivilegeBy Mohammad Ahmed & Bobby MontesanoCivil Practice and Procedure, October 2024Attorney-client privilege is an anchor of the legal profession, fostering open communication between attorneys and their clients. This privilege encourages clients “to engage in full and frank discussions with their attorneys without fear of compelled disclosure of information.” As such, the attorney-client privilege is an essential component of effective legal representation.
Everything Old Is New Again: Litigating 2-1401 PetitionsBy Hon. Eugene G. DohertyCivil Practice and Procedure, October 2024If, after judgment, a party files a motion pursuant to Section 2-1401 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, all bets are off. Pleadings start to fly with all the accuracy of a tee-shirt cannon at a ball game. How do we maintain our litigation discipline in the post-judgment setting?
Choosing Parentage LawsBy Jeffrey A. ParnessCivil Practice and Procedure, May 2024Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services ex rel. Hull v. Robinson highlights the challenges facing lawyers and judges when parentage issues arise in two or more states.
The Death of the Best Evidence RuleBy Ronald D. Menna, Jr.Civil Practice and Procedure, May 2024In People v. Smith, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the Illinois Rules of Evidence codified and abrogated the common law best evidence rule.
Which Expired First: The Defendant or the Statute of Limitation? Plaintiffs Need to KnowBy Harry DubnickCivil Practice and Procedure, April 2024Jamie Lichter v. Kimberly Porter Carroll, Special Administrator for the Estate of Donald Christopher, Dec’d presents a question of the application of the statute of limitation to a defendant whose passing between the date the claim arose and the date of the filing of the lawsuit is unknown to the plaintiff.
‘… and Nothing But the Truth.’By Nigel S. SmithCivil Practice and Procedure, April 2024A summary of a recently tried small claims case involving a dispute between a landlord and tenant.
