Member Groups

Bench & Bar
The newsletter of the ISBA’s Bench & Bar Section Council

Browse articles by year: 2018 (6) 2017 (81) 2016 (49) 2015 (41) 2014 (37) 2013 (53) 2012 (46) 2011 (34) 2010 (51) 2009 (52) 2008 (42) 2007 (25) 2006 (33) 2005 (34) 2004 (43) 2003 (41) 2002 (29) 2001 (23) 2000 (35) 1999 (37)

Newsletter Articles From 2018

ABA considers modifying model rules on attorney advertising By Edward Casmere January 2018 The rules controlling how lawyers communicate with the public may be in for an overhaul.
Dealing with pro se litigants: A judge’s dilemma By Raymond J. McKoski January 2018 Canon 3(A)(4) of the Illinois judicial code permits judges to “make reasonable efforts, consistent with the law and court rules, to facilitate the ability of self-represented litigants to be fairly heard.” Does this provision help Illinois judges decide whether to intervene in a proceeding in which only one party has an attorney?
Mandatory e-filing is just around the corner—A good cause exemption exists for those who need it By Hon. Mary Kay Rochford January 2018 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 9(c) (eff. Dec. 13, 2017), exempts certain documents from e-filing and includes a good cause exemption in subsection (4). On December 13, 2017, the Illinois Supreme Court amended Rule 9(c)(4), to define the nature of “good cause” and detail the procedures for obtaining such an exemption.
Personal injury plaintiff cannot rely solely on expert opinion to create a question of fact on proximate causation By Stephanie Jones January 2018 Allen v. Cam Girls, LLC d/b/a Jazzercise Glenview, et al. is consistent with the long line of Illinois jurisprudence holding that a personal injury plaintiff bears the burden of proof on proximate causation, and speculation, conjecture, and guesswork are not sufficient to raise genuine issues of material fact on that element.
Recent appointments and retirements January 2018 Recent changes to Illinois' Judiciary.
Returning to the fray after discharge By Michael G. Cortina January 2018 The “return to the fray” doctrine is a little-known theory that could result in harsh consequences for debtors that receive a discharge in bankruptcy, but choose to continue litigating post-discharge against creditors or other entities.