volume 29, issue 7 march 2017€¦ · march 2017 the journal of the dupage county bar association...

Volume 29, Issue 7March 2017

DCBA Brief March 2017 1

Articles 8 Illinois July 1, 2017 Income Sharing Amendments and the Sea

Change in the Law Regarding Imputed Income and Child Care- By Gunnar Gitlin

14 Update: Reconstruction and Drones- By T. Patrick Rice

18 Jury Trials After Arbitration DuPage County – A Cautionary Tale- By Hon. Brian R. McKillip

22 New Laws Effective January 1, 2017- By Raleigh Kalbfl eisch

26 Illinois Law Update- Editor Jordan Sartell

Table of ContentsJames L. RyanEditor-in-Chief

Azam NizamuddinAssociate Editor

Editorial BoardAnthony AbearTerrence BenshoofAnnette K. CorriganBrian M. DoughertyDexter J. EvansPeter J. EvansLawrence J. GregoryRaleigh D. Kalbfl eischTimothy J. KleinChristopher J. MaurerJames F. McCluskeySean McCumberChristine McTigueJane E. NagleJoseph K. NicheleJohn J. Pcolinski, Jr.Jay M. ReeseArthur W. RummlerJordan M. SartellDavid N. SchafferMichael R. SitrickEric R. Waltmire

Jacki HamlerDCBA Liaison/Advertising

Ross Creative WorksGraphic Design

Kelmscott CommunicationsPrinting

Volume 29, Issue 7March 2017

The Journal of the DuPage County Bar Association

www.dcbabrief.org

News30 I nBrief

- By Terrence Benshoof

31 Judicial Profi le of Brian Jacobs- By John Pcolinski, Jr.

32 The Pros and Cons of Model Rule 8.4- By James F. McCluskey

34 DuPage Bar Foundation and the Human Race

34 Law Day 2017: Liberty Bell Award Nominees Sought

35 DCBA Update - By Robert Rupp

36 Legal Aid Update- By Cecilia Najera

38 The Celtic Lunch Returns- By Art Rummler

39 ISBA Update- By Kent A. Gaertner

41 March 31, 2017 Deadline to FilePetitions for Election of Offi cers and Directors

42 Congratulations to Judge Robert J. Anderson for LAP’s Judge of the Year Award- By Azam Nizamuddin

42 High School Mock Trial Competition Was Impressive- By Christine Olson McTigue

43 Classifi eds

44 Where to Be in March

Events3 Editor’s Message

5 President’s Message

Judge Joseph Dieden, DCBA past president Jay Laraia, Judge Bryan Chapman and Judge Brian Jacobs at the Bench/Bar Reception

AD here

Judges’ Nite: Laughs for a Not So Laughing Matter


Each March, the Bar Association gathers together to celebrate our creativity, comedy, and musical “talent” in a show known as Judges’ Nite. This year, Judges’ Nite is themed “Leader-ship in a Post-Truth World” and will take place on March 3, 2017, at the Belushi Auditorium on the College DuPage campus. Just like last year’s hilarious show, Nick Nelson is back as the Director and Lead Writer and Christina Morrison returns as Producer. Although the Judges’ Nite show is a comedy, its purpose is actually quite serious as the event also serves as the major fundraiser to support Legal Aid. Legal Aid provides vital legal services to those in DuPage County who lack the resources to hire a private attorney. Legal Aid assists in bankruptcy, divorce, parentage, and order of protection cases and also represents clients in probate cases, such as helping to establish guardianships for disabled adults who have no estate, or over minors where the guardian is indigent. Legal Aid may be appointed to act as GAL, defend against a guardianship being entered, or represent a biological parent from having his or her parental rights terminated in an adoption case. Whether you attend Judges’ Nite or not, I hope that you would consider supporting such an excellent organization.

David Schaffer served as our articles editor for this issue and presents an issue that addresses changes to the work of our legal community. Gunnar Gitlin of Woodstock, Illinois, and author of the often used book, Gitlin on Divorce, has provided us with an excellent piece summarizing the many changes coming to the calculation of child support

By James L. Ryan

obligations on July 1, 2017. Pat Rice presents an article on using drones as part of accident reconstruction and highlights the changing view of the technology from when he fi rst presented the topic to the DCBA in 1993. Hon. Brian McKillip has moved on from the arbitration call and to a new call in the law divi-sion. In his article, Judge McKillip provides us with a summary of the jury cases he presided over in arbitration and compares the jury verdicts with the arbitrators’ awards for each case. As someone who serves as an arbitrator and takes cases in the arbitration division, I found the article to be remarkably helpful. Raleigh Kalbfl eisch provides us with a sum-mary of new Illinois statutes taking effect in 2017. Jordan Sartell edited our case law up-dates and has focused them on Business Law. Thanks to David and all of the authors for their contributions to this issue.

In the news section, we introduce one of our newest judges, Hon. Brian Jacobs, with a judicial profi le. Jim McCluskey provides us with an update on the work the ISBA has done opposing a new ABA Model Rule that the Illinois Supreme Court is now seeking comment on which makes it an ethical viola-tion for a lawyer to engage in “harassment or discrimination related to the practice of law”. If you would like to contribute to this maga-zine by submitting an article or law update for publication, please do not hesitate to contact me at (630) 510-1800 or by e-mail at [email protected]. CLE credit is available for those whose articles are selected for publication.

Jim Ryan is an associate at the law fi rm of Roberts & Caruso in Wheaton. He focuses his practice primarily on contested probate, business litigation, and construction law. Jim serves as a member of the DuPage County Bar Association’s Civil Law & Practice Committee, Business Law Committee and Estate Planning Committee. He is also a member of the federal trial bar.

Judges’ Nite: Laughs for a Not So Laughing Matter

From the Editor

DCBA Brief March 2017 5DCBA Brief March 2017 5

The Importance of Civility and Concessions to the Brevity of Life

President’s Message

It’s been almost a year now since Chief Judge Kathryn Creswell invited the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism to work with a cross section of judges, court staff, and attorneys to discuss the importance of civility in the courthouse. Jayne Reardon, the Commission’s Executive Director did a re-markable job at the time, with help from the Commission’s Professionalism Counsel, Mark Palmer, and Diversity & Education Director, Michelle Silverthorn.

The program started with a simple sketch, demonstrating how a pro se litigant might be discouraged in some environments, before evolving into a series of roundtable discussions in which all of us were asked to reconsider what role we play in those same environments. Many of us echoed the same sentiment at the time. The DuPage County Judicial Center has encouraged civility among its people for a long time and we’re thus lucky not to work in an environment quite as stifling or difficult as some of those “other” courthouses. All in all, this was an uplifting session which got me thinking at the time and has certainly gotten me thinking anew in the last few weeks.

I’m grateful to former ABA House of Delegates Chair, Patricia Lee Refo, for handling my col-umn last month, a gesture that was particularly helpful because it came, just before Christmas,

By Ted A. Donner

when I was unexpectedly hospitalized with a heart attack. Now mind you, I’d like to think I’m still pretty young for such a thing but, when I read about what life is generally like for solo practitioners working in litigation around the country, it’s hard not to recognize that, in the end, I probably shouldn’t be all that surprised this happened when it did. What surprised me most, however, is what also made me think back to Judge Creswell’s conference this last year. In the weeks following my attack, as I suffered through one procedure or another, I rarely had to suffer professionally. Every judge was understanding, every opposing attorney was both patient and encouraging, and my friends and colleagues were there for me when I needed them.1

I needed to avoid stress, as you’d expect, and the people I work with were generally pretty darned accommodating in ensuring I could. Of course, I did have to sit through a couple meetings which I wasn’t as up to as I would have preferred, but those were more the exception than the rule. More generally, I was reminded day after day that there’s a com-mitment to civility around these parts. That’s part and parcel for why I’ve come to believe, if you’re interested in practicing law in this coun-try, there is no better place to do it than DuPage County, Illinois. (Continued on page 6)

Ted A. Donner is the President of the DuPage County Bar Association. The owner of Donner & Company Law Offices LLC in Wheaton, Illinois, his practice is concentrated in commercial litigation and transactional work for small business. Recognized as DCBA’s Lawyer of the Year in 2011, he has been AV-Rated and recognized by Super Lawyers in each of the last ten years. He is an Adjunct Professor with Loyola University Chicago School of Law and the author of two treatises for Thomson Reuters (West), including Jury Selection: Strategy & Science and Attorneys Practice Guide to Negotiations.

1. Especially my wife, Melissa Piwowar, who had to handle things both at home and the office for quite a few weeks. Her support through all of this was up-lifting, encouraging, and more taxing on her than I would have ever wished.

DCBA Brief March 20176 DCBA Brief March 20176

DCBA Brief welcomes members’ feedback. Please send any Letters to the Editor to the attention of James Ryan, at [email protected]

The DCBA Brief is the Journal of the DuPage County Bar Association (“DCBA”). Unless otherwise stated, all content herein is the property of the DCBA and may not be reprinted in whole or in part without the express permission of the DCBA. ©2017 DCBA. Opinions and positions expressed in articles appearing in the DCBA Brief are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the DCBA or any of its members. Neither the authors nor the publisher are rendering legal or other professional advice and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. Publication Guidelines: All submitted materials are subject to acceptance and editing by the Editorial Board of the DCBA Brief. Material submitted to the DCBA Brief for possible publication must conform with the DCBA Brief’s Writers Guidelines which are available at dcbabrief.org. Advertising and Promo-tions: All advertising is subject to approval. Approval and acceptance of an advertisement does not constitute an endorsement or representation of any kind by the DCBA or any of its members. Contact information: All Articles, comments, criticisms and suggestions should be directed to the editors at [email protected].

Ted A. DonnerPresident

Gerald A. CassioppiPresident-Elect

J. Matthew Pfeiffer2nd Vice President

Stacey A. McCullough3rd Vice President

James J. LaraiaImmediate Past President

Shawn S. KassermanGeneral Counsel

Richard J. VeenstraAssoc. Gen’l Counsel

Robert T. RuppExecutive Director

John A. PleviakSecretary/Treasurer

Tricia BuhrfiendAssist. Treasurer

Directors:Gregory P. AdamoTerrence BenshoofMark S. BishopAshley M. BumpPatrick L. EdgertonDavid S. FriedlandJames S. HarknessWendy M. MusielakJohn J. Pcolinski, Jr.Amalia M. RomanoArthur W. Rummler

Kent A. GaertnerISBA Liaison

John PankauLegislative Liaison

The DCBA BRIEF is a publication of the DuPage County Bar Association126 South County Farm RoadWheaton Illinois 60187(630) 653-7779

President’s Message (Continued from page 5)

When the Commission’s program ended, back in June 2016, I told Jayne Reardon that I thought it was something we should look to pursue further, perhaps through a program open to the general membership. That, of course, turned out to be an effort I haven’t pursued as vigor-ously as I now realize I should have, but there’s still time. There is still work to do, after all, and we can all use the occasional reminder of the importance of civility.

There may not be much time left to my tenure as president (and I’m still pretty limited in what I can do regardless), but I ain’t quite done yet. So watch this space. Hopefully, we’ll get something scheduled by year end that I can announce here. If not, well, I still have a whole lot of folks to thank for their kindness, their concern and their support these last couple months. I doubt I can get that done between now and June with the number of words I’m allocated here each month but heck, I can at least try...

Artic

les

David Schaffer

Articles EditorA Fellow of both the American and International Academies of Matrimonial Lawyers, David concen-trates in domestic and international matrimonial and child custody cases. His fi rm, Schaffer Law, Ltd., is located in Naperville. In addition to the DCBA Editorial Board, he is a former Chair of the ISBA Family Law Section Council and served as its newsletter editor. David currently sits on the ISBA’s International and Immigration Law Committee.

8 Illinois July 1, 2017 Income Sharing Amendments and the Sea Change in the Law Regarding Imputed Income and Child Care- By Gunnar Gitlin

14 Update: Reconstruction and Drones- By T. Patrick Rice

18 Jury Trials After Arbitration DuPage County – A Cautionary Tale- By Hon. Brian R. McKillip

22 New Laws Effective January 1, 2017- By Raleigh Kalbfl eisch

26 Illinois Law Update- Editor Jordan Sartell

DCBA Brief March 2017

ARTICLES

8

By Gunnar Gitlin

Illinois July 1, 2017

Income Sharing Amendments and the Sea Change in the Law Regarding

Imputed Income and Child Care

The first significant amendment to the Illinois child support statute became law in 1985 with the passage of the Illinois minimum child support guidelines. This year, more than three decades later, Illinois comprehensively changes from the out-dated simple percentage of the obligor’s income model to an “income shares” model. This was ultimately a result of the required quadrennial review process and as an offshoot to the work of the Family Law Study Committee. More specifically, the work was the result of the Child Support Advisory Com-mittee.1 This committee included DuPage County family law attorney Margaret Bennett, the Honorable Pamela Loza, and other individuals and groups responsible for input on this crit-ical legislation. As a result of this committee’s work with the input of the Family Law Study Committee, Illinois in 2016 (effective July 1, 2017) adopted our “income shares” model.2 Accordingly, on the heels first of the Illinois maintenance guidelines, and then the rewrite of all other aspects of Illinois family law other than child support, 2017 will bring us a rewrite of the critical provisions of our child support guidelines. Starting in 2017 Illinois family law will be radically different than it was in 2015 as regards child support and child expense calculations, and method of payment.

Although the simple percentage of the obligor’s income and income shares yields similar results for most families, for certain families (primarily families where the parents incomes are very different), the results using an “income shares” model are radically different.

This article addresses two of the more dramatic changes to how Illinois will handle child support commencing July 1, 2017 with the income sharing amendments: imputing income to the un-employed or underemployed parent and payment of child care expenses. It will not address the important issue of the per-ceived deficit with Illinois’ historical percentage of the obligor’s income model that Illinois has used does not provide guid-ance about adjustments when parents each have a significant amount of parenting time – often called “shared parenting” or under the former lexicon “joint physical custody.” Nor will this article focus on the fact that the percentage of the obligor’s income model did not generally provide for consideration of

1. See: https://www.illinois.gov/hfs/ChildSupport/About/AdvisoryCommittee/Pages/default.aspx (last visited January 2, 2017).

2. As stated in the 2012 white paper regarding the income shares proposed draft legislation, “The com-mittee coordinated with the Illinois Family-Law Study Committee that was formed in 2008…and had a much broader charge.” See “Rough Draft proposal to Adopt the Illinois Income Shares Model for the Illinois Child Support Guidelines – May 16, 2012”: https://www.illinois.gov/hfs/ChildSupport/ Documents/070912incomeshares.pdf (last visited January 2, 2017)


ARTICLES

9

families where one or both parents had unusually high or un-usually low incomes, although this is ostensibly addressed in the income sharing model.

To understand Illinois’ “income shares” model generally, keep in mind that it uses a table. The table is based upon economic data that determines how much the parents who reside together spend on their children considering the combined family income and the size of the family. It is anticipated that the worksheets, etc., will be available in February 2017.

Practice TipsTo see how Illinois child support guidelines differ from the guidelines in other states see: http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/guideline-models-by-state.aspx; In 2016, Illi-nois had been one of only eight states following the percentage of obligor’s income model.; Illinois enact Pub. Act 99-0764 (eff. Jul 1, 2017). Be aware of the impact on existing cases given the effective date of July 1, 2017.3 ; Illinois most closely conforms to the Iowa income sharing model because that model follows a net income model and Illinois follows what could be called a permissive net income model. See: https://secureapp.dhs.state.ia.us/CustomerWeb/Resources/SupportGuidelines/Court%20Rules.pdf. As an aside, this author likes the Iowa model better in that it did not adopt the sharp demarcation point of 146 overnights but allowed a variable credit of starting with 128 overnights and a 15% credit.

The child support provisions provide a sea change in Illinois law and it is critical that Illinois family lawyers understand the potential impact of these changes.

Imputing Income to the Unemployed or Underemployed ParentEven following the effective date of income sharing amend-ments, §505(a)(5) of the IMDMA4 continues to provide, “If the net income [of the child support obligor] cannot be determined because of default or any other reason, the court shall order support in an amount considered reasonable in the particular case.” Pub. Act 99-0764 (eff. July 1, 2017)5 adds the following section to Section 505(a) of the IMDMA:

About the AuthorGunnar J. Gitlin, Principal, The Gitlin Law Firm, P.C., in Woodstock. The firm exclusively practices family law. Gunnar is an AAML Fellow, listed with Best Lawyers in America and as an Illinois Leading Lawyer and Super Lawyer. In 2016, Gunnar rewrote his father’s book Gitlin on Divorce: A Guide to Illinois Matrimonial Law available through Lexis.

(3.2) Unemployment or underemployment. If a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, child support shall be calculated based on a determination of potential income. A determination of potential income shall be made by determining employment potential and probable earnings level based on the obligor’s work history, occupational qualifications, prevailing job opportunities, the ownership by a parent of a substantial non-income producing asset, and earnings levels in the community. If there is in-sufficient work history to determine employment potential and probable earnings level, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the parent’s potential income is 75% of the most recent United States Department of Health and Human Services Federal Poverty Guidelines for a family of one person.6

The language of Section 505(a)(3.2) represents a paradigm shift in the law regarding child support, especially given the changes to the law regarding the 2016 re-write of the remain-der of the IMDMA. There are a series of critical clauses within Section 3.2. These include: The applicability of the law to both unemployment as well as “underemployment.” Previously, Section 505.1 had only referred to the duty of one who was “unemployed” and requiring that person to “seek employment and report periodically to the court…” As will be discussed below, it was case law that had fleshed out the ability of the court to impute income generally to an underemployed individual. While a number of cases addressed the unemployed obligors with a duty of support, the statutory law literally did not allow the court to impute income to an under-employed obligor. The result was that courts would often find that the net income in such situations could not be determined based upon the lan-guage of Section 505(a)(5) and then the court consistent with that would order support in “an amount considered reasonable in a particular case.” The other result was the expansion (and

3. Pub. Act 99-0764 (eff. July 1, 2017) (See Senate Amendment No. 1 that provided the effective date of July 1, 2017 (a delayed effective date) to allow additional time for the anticipated technical corrections amendments and further education of Illinois lawyers regarding the wholesale changes).

4. 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(5).5. Pub. Act 99-0764 (eff. July 1, 2017).6. The Federal Poverty Guidelines can be found at: https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines (last visited

June 8, 2016). See the chart for a family of one for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia.


ARTICLES

10

that be the case due to the specific statutory authority in this regard. Keep in mind that the original recommendation by the Family Law Study Committee did not include this phrase.8 The clauses “prevailing job opportunities” and “earnings levels in the community” will present both difficulties and opportunities in terms of proofs in appropriate cases.

Direct Payment Via Support Orders of Child Care ExpensesSection 505(a)2.5 through to July 1, 2017,9 has provided:

(2.5) The court, in its discretion, in addition to setting child support pursuant to the guidelines and factors, may order either or both parents owing a duty of support to a child of the marriage to contribute to the following expenses, if determined by the court to be reasonable:(a) health needs not covered by insurance;(b) child care;(c) education; and(d) extracurricular activities.10

Effective July 1, 2017, this is amended to read:(3.6) Extracurricular activities and school expenses. The court,

in its discretion, in addition to the basic child support obligation, may order either or both parents owing a duty of support to the child to contribute to the reasonable school and extracurricular activity expenses incurred which are intended to enhance the educational, athletic, social, or cultural development of the child.

(3.7) Child care expenses. The court, in its discretion, in addition to the basic child support obligation, may order either or both parents owing a duty of support to the child to

in many cases unwarranted expansion) of what could be con-sidered income when dealing with underemployed individuals.; “Potential Income” is based upon “determining employment potential and probable earnings level based on the obligor’s work history, occupational qualifications, prevailing job opportunities, the ownership by a parent of a substantial non-income producing asset, and earnings levels in the community.”7 It is suggested that the probable earnings level cannot be the actual probable level for the hypothetical probable level – under the assumption that the individual would not be underemployed. The focus on work history may lead back to a re-examination of setting child support based upon an income averaging approach and it is quite possible that what has been outlined as a virtual three-year may substantially vary in practice when considering po-tential income.; The clause regarding “ownership by a parent of a substantial non-income producing asset” also represents a sea change in the law regarding consideration of potential income. While theoretically, one could argue that a substantial non-income producing asset should result in imputing income, this was generally a difficult battle in practice. No longer will

7. Consider the language of another state’s income sharing model that with substantially similar lan-guage. See, Oregon, 137-050-0715(3). It defines potential income as, “parent’s ability to earn based on relevant work history, including hours typically worked by or available to the parent, occupational qualifications, education, physical and mental health, employment potential in light of prevailing job opportunities and earnings levels in the community, and any other relevant factors.” The commentary is interesting where it states: Commentary: Some employers will not allow an employee to work a full 40-hour week, which may not be customary to the occupation, but is customary to the employer. In these types of circum-stances, the fact-finder must determine whether to base the parent’s earning ability on a regular 40-hour workweek, the customary work schedule for the parent’s occupation, or work opportunities in the parent’s current employment situation. Example: A parent works 32 hours per week at a restaurant. Additional hours are unavail-able. Other employment opportunities in the area for which the parent is qualified offer similar hours and wages. It would be inappropriate to base the parent’s income on a 40-hour work week. Other parents may have suffered reduced earning ability. For example, it would be inappro-priate to attribute historical full-time income to a public school teacher who has been laid off and now works part-time as a substitute teacher – assuming there are limited employment opportunities in the area for a teacher of those credentials and work history. On the other hand, it might be appropriate to attribute income based on historical earnings

to a person who has left a lucrative professional career because, for example, a spouse earns sufficient income, or in order to work in a preferred field but at a lower rate of pay. Because the goal is to determine earning ability, this imputation should not simply apply the amount formerly earned. The review should include consideration of the currently available employment opportunities in that field in the parent’s area, the condition of the parent’s professional skills and/or equipment, and the time since the parent last worked in that occupation. This provision also contemplates seasonal employment. A seasonally employed parent may have significant earnings for a portion of the year and then receive unemployment compensation for a portion of the year. Under those circumstances, the parent’s earning ability might be based on an annual review of their income, divided over a twelve-month period.

8. See “Rough Draft proposal to Adopt the Illinois Income Shares Model for the Illinois Child Support Guide-lines – May 16, 2012”: https://www.illinois.gov/hfs/ChildSupport/Documents/070912incomeshares.pdf (last visited January 2, 2017).

9. Pub. Act 99-0764 (eff. July 1, 2017).10. 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(2.5), effective January 2, 2013. This was part of P.A. 97-941 that had included a

number of other smaller changes to Section 505 including but not limited to adding mental needs of the child to those list of statutory factors in Section 505(a)(2) and providing greater emphasis to the educa-tional expenses for a child by the additional of the word “educational” to the previous list of needs to be considered in setting child support which had included, “physical, mental and emotional health needs.”

The focus on work history may

lead back to a re-examination

of setting support based upon

an income averaging approach“


ARTICLES

11

contribute to the reasonable child care expenses of the child. The child care expenses shall be made payable directly to a party or directly to the child care provider at the time of services.

(A) As used in this paragraph (3.7), “child care expenses” means actual annualized monthly child care expenses reasonably necessary to enable a parent or non-parent custodian to be employed, attend education and training activities, or job search, and includes after-school care and all work-related child care expenses incurred while receiving education or training to improve employment opportunities. “Child care expenses” includes deposits for the retention of securing placement in child care programs. “Child care expenses” may include camps when school is not in session. Parties may agree on additional day camps. Child care expenses due to a child’s special needs shall be a consideration in determining reasonable child care expenses for a child with special needs.

(B) Child care expenses shall be calculated as set forth in this paragraph. Child care expenses shall be prorated in proportion to each parent’s percentage share of combined parental net income, and added to the basic child sup-port obligation. The obligor’s portion of actual child care expenses shall appear in the support order. The obligee’s share of child care expenses shall be paid by the obligee directly to the child care provider.

(C) The amount of child care expenses shall be adequate to obtain reasonable and necessary child care. The family’s actual child care expenses shall be used to calculate the

child care expense contributions, if available. When actual child care expenses vary, the actual child care expenses shall be averaged over the most recent 12-month period. When the parent is temporarily unemployed or temporarily not attending school, then child care expenses shall be based upon prospective expenses to be incurred upon return to employment.

(D) An order for child care expenses may be modified upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances. Persons incurring child care expenses shall notify the obli-gor within 14 days of any change in the amount of child care expenses that would affect the annualized child care amount as determined in the support order.11

Child Care ExpensesThe overall philosophy behind the child care expense amendments as part of the income sharing model was that, notwithstanding an agreement between the parents or the court’s discretion, child care expenses must now be included in the child support order. They must also be paid by the same method as payment of child support. The critical language provides, “The obligor’s portion of actual child care expenses shall appear in the support order. The obligee’s share of child care expenses shall be paid by the obligee directly to the child care provider.” The obligor directly pays the recipient as part of the support order and the recipient directly pays the provider. Therefore, child care provisions would be subject to the same support enforcement remedies as provided in the IMDMA and elsewhere.12

11. Pub. Act 99-0764 (eff. July 1, 2017).12. See: https://www.illinois.gov/hfs/ChildSupport/Documents/070912incomeshares.pdf (last visited

January 2, 2017), p. 8. Rough Draft proposal to Adopt the Illinois Income Shares Model for the Illinois Child Support Guidelines – May 16, 2012”.

AD here


ARTICLES

13

13. See: https://www.illinois.gov/hfs/ChildSupport/Documents/070912incomeshares.pdf (last visited January 2, 2017), p. 10. Rough Draft proposal to Adopt the Illinois Income Shares Model for the Illinois Child Support Guidelines – May 16, 2012”.

14. See: https://www.illinois.gov/hfs/ChildSupport/Documents/070912incomeshares.pdf (last visited January 2, 2017), p. 8. Rough Draft proposal to Adopt the Illinois Income Shares Model for the Illinois Child Support Guidelines – May 16, 2012”.

not include: amounts paid by subsidies received through a private plan provided by an employer or insurance policy, re-imbursements, any credit (including the federal child care tax credit), or payments [required] to retain a space for the child.14

ConclusionAs of July 1, 2017, Illinois family law will be radically changed as compared to the history of Illinois law under our earlier child support guidelines. Two of these most important changes involve the underemployed and unemployed parent as well as how Illinois will handle child care expenses. Illinois family lawyers need to understand that the changes to the statute themselves wil l not represent a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to modify earlier support awards. But understanding this last critical piece of the changes to the fam-ily law puzzle are critical to the Illinois lawyer practicing in the area of family law.

The way the child care provisions work in practice is that the child care expenses are averaged over the course of a year to determine a monthly amount, and prorated in proportion to each parent’s percentage share of combined parental adjusted gross income, and added to the basic child support obligation as a line item adjustment. The obligor’s net portion of actual child care expenses shall appear in the support order as a child care support obligation to be paid. The obligee’s share of child care expenses is directly contributed as expenses have occurred.

Practice TipsThe problem with the income sharing model as adopted in Illinois is that, in practice, it may prove to be unrealistic in a number of cases given the highly variable nature of these expenses. Child care will vary from year to year based upon number of factors. Projecting this amount over the course of a year and then averaging it serves to promote a finite number but does so as at the expense of creating an amount that is equitable in the sense of being based upon the actual expenses then being incurred. The caveat to this is the last sentence that reads, “Persons incurring child care expenses shall notify the obligor within 14 days of any change in the amount of child care expenses that would affect the annualized child care amount as determined in the support order.” Good drafting of a settlement agreement or the like would tie in the obligation to notify the obligor within that 14-day period with the right to seek a retroactive reduction in an appropriate case.

Another mainstream concern when determining child care expenses is the highly variable nature of summer camps because they often substitute for child care expenses. This is a reason for the language, “’Child care expenses’ may include camps when school is not in session. Parties may agree on additional day camps.” But considering such camps as part of explicit support order that is supposed to be annualized will present difficulties. Again, language should be adopted in the settlement agreement or agreed order in appropriate cases to address the day camp issue its impact in practice. Note that, “Overnight camps, summer school, or tutoring programs” were deliberately not included in this regard.13

The commentary regarding the 2012 draft legislation of what was ultimately approved had stated, “Child care expenses to


ARTICLES

14

By T. Patrick Rice

In the spring of 1993, Judge Ted Duncan, Joe Laraia, and I gave a presentation to the DuPage County Bar Association regarding accident reconstruction. The essence of the presen-tation was the necessity of laying the proper foundation for reconstruction testimony in various areas of law. At that time, it was a rather novel concept to provide a computer simulation of a collision or other significant event. Simulations have now become the norm in major civil trials.

I set forth the necessary elements to lay a foundation for re-construction. Although the technology has changed, the basics of laying a foundation have not. However, when we discuss utilization of technology in simulations, “unmanned aircraft systems,” i.e., drones, are now relevant to areas of litigation that were unforeseen. For example, drones may now be utilized in matters involving invasion of privacy, surveillance, dissolution proceedings, trespass, neuroscience, fire origin, automobile collisions, and other areas unthought of in the past. As a trial attorney, one must be prepared for presentation of such evidence.

In the fall of 1992, Mr. Laraia and I were fortunate enough to have the cooperation of an accident reconstructionist who was in the forefront of computer re-enhancement. At that time, as far as potential litigation, we discussed the basics of founda-tion for computer simulation. Various matters were provided, including the following:

• Discretion relative to the points selected for a field leading to contours in the occurrence

• Topography and aerial observation creating an accurate scene; this includes inputting information into the computer that are identical to the grid for the occurrence

• Potential biases for the program that is being utilized

• The thought process that the computer is being told to connect dots or lines, called vectors; this included discretion by the programmer as to what vectors were created, i.e., what bias was utilized for input

• The fact that the program lays a skin on a grid in colors. This was a camera view at a point of time at 1/30 x a second. This was static, not moving. The program automatically gave it color and shading.

• The input provided could determine the light source, i.e., daylight, night, and weather

• Objects surrounding the occurrence• Movements surrounding the event• The crushability of the vehicles involved• The view selected for the simulation. These were the signif-

icant considerations for the broad spectrum of cases, with each case varying as to each criteria

At that time, considering that a party may introduce this type of evidence, the question became how that presentation would be attacked via cross-examination. First, there is the issue of qualifications. Is the individual who presented the simulation qualified not only as to the simulation, but also as to back-ground in the area involved, be it reconstructionist, engineer, etc. Second, and most importantly, what input was discretion-ary? In other words, were the materials inputted for creation of the simulation credible or biased?

In light of technology, computer enhancement and simulation have become normal and customary. However, with the advent of unmanned aircraft systems, i.e., drones, there are new factors and considerations. In preparation for this article, I met with the experts at Professional Analysis and Consulting located in Naperville, Illinois. The individuals who met with me included Roch J. Shipley, Ph.D., FASM, P.E., Michael

Update: Reconstruction and Drones


ARTICLES

15

About the AuthorT. Patrick Rice received his JD from John Marshall Law School and is a past president of the DuPage County Bar Association. Pat concentrates his practice in claims involving personal injury, wrongful death, medical malpractice and other incidents that cause harm. He has conducted over one hundred jury trials concerning civil law matters.

G. Koehler, Ph.D., Timothy M. Hicks, P.E., and John W. Kidd, Director of Field Services. Hours were spent watching drones conducting a demonstration. This included flyovers, potential monitoring, reconstruction, and general surveillance. The detail of the film footage was much more definitive and distinct. In addition, what previously took hours, now takes minutes. Subsequently, I came to the conclusion that the bases for admission into evidence for trial is, in essence, the same as it was in 1993. Also, at the time of writing this article, I did not find an Illinois statute regarding restrictions on unmanned air-craft in Illinois as it pertained to civil matters. However, there is a slight limitation as to criminal matters, as stated in 725 ILCS 167/1, et seq., (2014). There are questions as to whether the local, county, state, and federal governments must permit or sanction a drone before its use. There is no clear answer to this question in Illinois. Accordingly, I refer you to the basic cases in accident reconstruction, those being:

• Miller v. Pillsbury, 33 Ill.2d 514 (1965)• Plank v. Holman, 46 Ill.2d 465 (1970)• McGrath v. Rohde, 53 Ill.2d 56 (1972)• Olson v. Bell Helmets, 195 Ill.App.3d 20 (1st Dist. 1990)• Rios v. Navistar, 200 Ill.App.3d 526 (1st Dist. 1990)• Colonial Trust v. Kasman, 190 Ill.App.3d 967 (3rd Dist. 1989)• Strickland v. Chapman, 197 Ill.App.3d 385 (5th Dist. 1990)• Augenstein v. Pulley, 191 Ill.App.3d 664 N.E. (5th Dist. 1989)• Ketchum v. DuraBond Concrete, 179 Ill.App.3d 820 (2nd

Dist. 1989)

The summary of these cases states the rule that is a two-part test for admissibility of the evidence as to an expert who may testify: (1) is the expert qualified in the field; (2) will the expert’s testimony aid the fact finder in the resolution of the dispute?

This test was commonplace until computer simulations became involved, then the main case relied upon was that of Wat- kins v. Schmitt.1 To summarize, Watkins basically held that only reliable computer simulations could be utilized at trial. Those that were shown to be “garbage in, garbage out” were inadmis-sible. In other words, if an individual provided unreliable data into the program, the results of the computer simulation would be inadmissible. This, however, was substantially changed by the case of Turner v. Williams.2 This case involved that of an automobile collision where the defendant proffered the testi-mony of a reconstruction expert whose testimony was barred due to unreliability. The Second District reversed, stating that the opinion testimony of an expert is admissible if an expert is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, and has “at least a modicum of reliability,” and the testimony would assist the jury. Although the expert’s opinion is only as valid as the reasons for the opinion, if the information provided to the expert is reliable, the expert’s opinion will be admissible. However, there must be sufficient data about the accident in evidence to provide the reasonable basis for the opinion. This is within the sound discretion of the trial court. If, however, the expert opinion is pursuant to Frye v. United States3, which allows for the admission of evidence when the scientific principle that forms the basis of the opinion has achieved general acceptance in the evidence’s particular field, then the court should admit the evidence. In other words, basically everything will be admitted.

The above raises the question as to the admissibility of drone simulation. The operator of the drone still inputs the informa-tion to the drone as to what the drone is to observe and where

1. 172 Ill.2d 193, 665 N.E.2d 1379 (1996).2. 326 Ill.App.3d 541 (2nd Dist. 2001).3. 293 F.1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)

After the drone obtains the

information input by the

operator, the information

is then transferred to a

reconstruction expert

“

AD here


ARTICLES

17

it is to go. In other words, the operator controls the focus of the drone. After the drone obtains the information input by the operator, the information is then transferred to a reconstruction expert, if necessary. Otherwise, in cases such as invasion of privacy, surveillance, and those mentioned in the initial paragraph of this article, it may stand alone. However, if a simulation is necessary, there will, in all likelihood, be two experts required. Both must testify as to their input and opinions, and their testimony must be based upon the factual evidence that is to be presented at trial through witness testi-mony. There must be an accurate chain of evidence trail presented. If not, there may be an attack upon which cross-examination can proceed, or a motion in limine.

To summarize, I believe the basic principles of reconstruction and foundation apply to the uti-lization of drones. Nonetheless, this is evolving. I anticipate a great deal of legislation as time proceeds, and frankly, I think the courts will be ahead of the legislative process. It is, therefore, essential that in whatever area you practice, you understand the great effect drones may have upon your case, both beneficial and detrimental, and how to utilize said information.4 4. Once again, I wish to thank the individuals from Professional Analysis and Con-

sulting for their assistance as to preparation of this article. They provided their time voluntarily and without limitation.


ARTICLES

18

By Hon. Brian R. McKillip

At its inception, my idea in preparing this article was merely to provide information to the practicing attorney concerning jury trials following an arbitration hearing. However, because of the numerous changes that have taken place with respect to the Arbitration Program, I have expanded the scope of the article, even though brief, to alert the bar to other matters involved in the Arbitration Program.

Since 1989, the 18th Judicial Circuit has participated in the mandatory arbitration program established under Supreme Court Rules 86 through 95. This program establishes a manda-tory – but not binding – arbitration procedure for certain cases. In DuPage County, it has been for civil cases seeking money damages exclusively between $10,000 and $50,000.

All such cases are given an AR number and are assigned to courtroom 2018. The judge presiding in 2018 manages the pre-arbitration practice in those cases: supervising discovery, hearing motions relating to discovery, hearing any dispositive motions and any §2-1301 or §2-1401 motions to vacate judg-ments. The case is then assigned to be presented to an arbitra-tion panel.

The arbitration panel consists of three attorneys who have received arbitrator training. One of the arbitrators serves as chair of the panel and is responsible for presiding over the hearing and for evidentiary rulings during the course of hearing. Su-preme Court rules provide for some mandatory discovery (Rule 222) and simplified rules for the admission of documents and certain evidence at the arbitration hearing (Rule 90(c)). 2

The arbitration hearing is conducted at the Arbitration Center and is allocated two hours. If necessary, the attorneys may request a longer period of time if the complexity of the case warrants. The arbitrators must make an award immediately following the arbitration.

Thereafter, any party to the case who participated in the ar-bitration hearing in good faith may, within 30 days, reject the arbitration award and proceed to trial. As with any civil case,

1. Also see Article 13 of the Local Rules.2. Note that a Rule 90(c) package does away with foundational requirements for certain evidence at the

arbitration hearing, but is not applicable at trial.

Jury Trials After ArbitrationDuPage County

– A Cautionary Tale


ARTICLES

19

any party may request a jury trial. However, a party’s jury demand must be made at the time of filing the suit or appear-ance,3 not following rejection of the award. The case returns to courtroom 2018 for trial, if a rejection has been filed, or for entry of judgment on the arbitration award, if no rejection has been filed.

When the arbitration program was initially adopted by the 18th Judicial Circuit, there was insufficient room in the courthouse to accommodate all of the hearings anticipated. Even after the new courthouse opened, the States Attorney’s office, the probation department as well as the Public Defender’s office were all located in the building. As a result, space was leased from the DuPage County Bar Association on the second-floor of the Bar Center. Initially, the south half of the second floor became the Arbitration Center (Harold Field’s office occupied the north half). Sometime later, the entire second floor became the Arbitration Center.

With the construction of the courthouse annex building, space within the courthouse became available. The Arbitration Center was moved to the third floor near the end of October 2016. The first arbitration hearings held in the courthouse took place on November 2, 2016. The Arbitration Center has been designated Room 354 and is directly across from the escalators leading up to the third floor.

Additional changes in the arbitration program during the past year include the retirement of Loretta Glenny, who had served as the arbitration administrator for 15 years. Suzanne Armstrong was hired as the administrator effective Septem-ber 26, Ms. Armstrong was given additional duties in assisting the Chief Judge’s office in certain areas. Carol Taylor, however, remains the administrative assistant to the arbitration admin-istrator. She has artfully filled that position since October 2001 and represents the primary source of institutional memory.

Most recently, Judge Ann Celine Walsh was assigned to Court-room 2018 as the Supervising Judge of Arbitration. She has presided there since November 28, 2016.

About the AuthorBrian R. McKillip has been an Associate Judge for the 18th Judicial Circuit since 1999. He is currently assigned to the Law Division. Previously, he spent 4 years in the Traffic/Misdemeanor division and 11 years in the Domestic Relations division. He served as the Supervising Judge of Arbitration for 2 years. He received his JD Cum Laude from Loyola University School of Law in 1972

When I was trained as an arbitrator many years ago, one of the issues discussed was the role of the arbitrator in the arbi-tration process. Specifically, should an arbitrator’s decision be his or her independent assessment and evaluation of the case or should it reflect the community’s assessment of the case as may be expressed in a jury verdict. This article is not intended to answer that question, if an answer even exists. This article is merely a recitation of historical fact.

In the 23 months I have served as the presiding judge in court 2018, I have presided over 18 jury trials and kept records of those jury trials since my assignment. In this article, without comment or evaluation, I simply describe the correlation between arbitration awards and jury verdicts.

For 17 of the jury trials,4 I have provided the case name, num-ber, date of trial, a painfully brief factual description, the arbitration award and the jury’s verdict. It is for the individual practitioner to review this, using this information as best he or she can in representing his or her client.

Review of this information should, however, provide some guid-ance to the individual practitioner in evaluating his or her case. While no hard and fast rules emerge, tendencies are apparent.

May 4-5, 2015 – Martin v. Jakupi; 13 L 128Sexual harassment in employment and wrongful termination. Waitress at restaurant in Aurora against the employer and the “manager” (brother of the owner).

Arbitrators’ Award – 0

3. See 735 ILCS 5/2-1005.4. The first jury trial over which I presided in Ct Rm 2018 was a suit by a homeowner to recover damages to

a room rented to a young woman. There was little, if any, to be learned from that trial.


ARTICLES

20

Verdict for Plaintiff – $6,500 lost wages$18,000 for emotional pain & suffering$7,500 punitive damages against the corporate employer$22,500 punitive damage against the manager

May 18-19, 2015 – Lysne v. Star Motor Sales; 13 L 314Common law fraud in sale of used auto (2012 BMW). Significant prior damage not disclosed.Arbitrators’ Award – $20,000 plus $5,000 in Attorney FeesVerdict for Plaintiff – $20,800 compensatory damages

$7,500 in punitive damages

July 20-21, 2015 – Higgingbotham v. Alvarado; 14 AR 573Plaintiff eastbound on St. Charles Road; Defendant facing westbound on St. Charles, waiting to turn left at intersection controlled by stop light. Both cars had a green light. Cars collided at intersection. Defendant claimed she had never moved from left turn lane. Arbitrators’ Award – $9,007Verdict for Defendant

August 25, 2015 – State Farm v. Zike; 13 AR 1224 (Subrogation action)Plaintiff west bound on Bloomingdale Road; Defendant turning

left on Windy Lane. Plaintiff sought $14,250.Arbitrators’ Award – $10,669Verdict for Plaintiff – $14,250 reduced by 15% comparative

to $12,112

October 19, 2015 – Indurante v. Rozkiewicz; 13 AR 1929Plaintiff rear ended by Defendant in drive through lane at McDonalds. Defendant admitted liability. Plaintiff claimed $6,500 in specials in chiropractic treatment. Police officer unable to find damages to Plaintiff’s vehicle.Arbitrators’ Award – 0Verdict for Defendant

December 7, 2015 – Rivera v. Tselios; 13 AR 939Plaintiff rear ended by defendant at stop light. Told officer no injury. Went to the ER next day, $9,276 in specials, alleging soft tissue injuries.Arbitrators’ Award – $16,776Verdict for Defendant

Jan 19-20, 2016 – Dudick v. Jackson; 14 L 223Defendant entered Rt. 59 from a private drive on the east side of Rt. 59, intending to go southbound on Rt. 59. Defendant crossed the northbound lanes and collided with southbound vehicle in which the Plaintiff was a passenger. Plaintiff went to ER 5 hour later, and one visit to family physician and $2,200 in chiropractic treatment.Arbitrators’ Award – $7,575Verdict for Defendant

January 25-26, 2016 – Lukosius v. Mauer; 14 AR 1706Plaintiff on bicycle eastbound on the sidewalk on the south side of 63rd St. Defendant eastbound on 63rd St. approaching intersection of 63rd St. and Ridge Road. Intersection con-trolled by stop/go light. As Plaintiff about to cross Ridge Road, Defendant turned right onto Ridge Road. Plaintiff’s bicycle stuck right rear quarter panel of Defendant’s car.Arbitrators’ Award – $15,599Verdict for Defendant

February 29, 2016 – Archer v. Sanchez; 13 AR 320Plaintiff was a passenger in car westbound on North Ave., just west of Route 53. Plaintiff’s car rear ended by Defendant while turning right into a strip center. Plaintiff drove her own car home to Kankakee that night and sought chiropractic treat-

The arbitration hearing is

conducted at the Arbitration

Center and is allocated 2 hours.

If necessary, the attorneys

may request a longer period

of time if the complexity of

the case warrants

“


ARTICLES

21

ment two days later. $5,648 in chiropractic and x-ray expenses.Arbitrators’ Award – $6,000Verdict for Plaintiff – $4,710

March 14, 2016 – Country Ins v. Faroun; 14 AR 1173 (Subrogation action)Plaintiff’s insured rear ended on Rt. 83 on a Sunday afternoon. Had a CAT scan and chiropractic treatment. Repair estimate $5,800 with prior damage. Plaintiff deemed structural damage to car made it unsafe to fix and drive and “totaled” the car. Plaintiff paid $17,567 on claim and sought same from jury.Arbitrators’ Award – $17,567Verdict for Plaintiff – $2,403

March 28, 2016 – State Farm v. Omari; 15 AR 209 (Subrogation action)Plaintiff’s insured westbound on Chicago Ave. in Hinsdale, and stopped at a four way stop. Proceeded to turn left to go west and was struck in left rear quarter paned by defendant going eastbound on Chicago Ave.Arbitrators’ Award – $11,395Verdict for Plaintiff – $10,895.36 reduced by 15% compara-tive to a net of $9,261.06

April 11, 2016 – State Farm v. Bell; 15 AR 142 (Subrogation action)Plaintiff’s insured southbound on York Road just north of But-terfield, turning left into a parking lot. Defendant exiting a shopping area eastbound, turning left to proceed northbound on York. Struck Plaintiff’s insured in right rear quarter panel. Defendant testified that a driver southbound on York had waived her across.Arbitrators’ Award – $16,171.40Verdict for Plaintiff – $16,171.40

April 18-19, 2016 – Degregorio v. Tavira; 14 L 1006Plaintiff stopped at light at 59th St. and Fairview in Downers Grove. Defendant stuck plaintiff in rear. Defendant claimed ice on street. $16,155 in chiropractic treatment.Arbitrators’ Award – $21,155Verdict for Plaintiff – $23,155

June 20-21, 2016 – Allmerica Financial v. Woldegiogies; 14 AR 1545 (Subrogation action)Plaintiff’s insured stopped on Roosevelt Road in Wheaton,

waiting to take a left turn. Defendant struck plaintiff’s insured in rear.Arbitrators’ Award – $16,074.56Verdict for Plaintiff – $15,874.56

July 19, 2016 – State Farm v. Vohra; 15 SR 1442 (Subrogation action)Plaintiff’s insured was westbound on Ogden just west of Williams in Downers Grove. Plaintiff’s insured claimed he was stopped in traffic, was rear ended by Defendant and pushed into the motorcycle stopped in front of him. Defen-dant claimed a sudden stop by insured. Auto “totaled” by State Farm and it sought $3,206 for property damage, and $3,965 for the ER bill.Arbitrators’ Award – $7,271Verdict for Defendant

August 15-16, 2016 – Scaletta v. Chesney; 15 AR 248Plaintiff stopped in median on Algonquin Rd. waiting to merge into westbound Algonquin road. Defendant pulled behind Plaintiff with same intention. Plaintiff pulled forward and stopped waiting for an opening in traffic. Defendant pulled forward and stuck rear of Plaintiff ’s car. Plaintiff incurred $4,362 in chiropractic treatment. Arbitrators’ Award – $9,478Verdict for Defendant

November 7, 2016 – Leone v. Lopez; 15 AR 666Plaintiff eastbound on 55th St. in Clarendon Hills. Rear ended by defendant at stop light in am on way to work. Spent most of day at work. Plaintiff went to ER 10:30pm that night. Incurred $5,250 in acupuncture treatment and sought $6,000 in lost income.Arbitrators’ Award – $4,857.21Verdict for Defendant

While the jury verdicts may be a little intimidating to a plain-tiff’s lawyer, they should also be educational. Plan accordingly. I would note that relatively few cases go to a jury verdict. The overwhelming majority are resolved prior to trial. Since 2005, 32,106 cases have been filed in Arbitration, 4,110 have been assigned to arbitration. Of that number, 2,248 awards have been made, the balance being settled. Of the awards, approx-imately 1,231 have been rejected, and of those, 613 have gone to trial.


ARTICLES

22

New Laws Effective January 1, 2017 Despite no budget, Illinois legislators passed more than two hundred new laws that took effect on January 1, 2017. Below are brief synopses of new laws and changes to old ones. Please note that the list does not contain all of the new laws and they are in no particular number order but are sorted by category. In addition, the only change expanded upon was the change to REAL ID which affects everyone.

Criminal LawsHB 2569 – Provides that if the defendant pleads guilty, the plea shall not be accepted until the court explains maximum and minimum penalty provided by law, any possible increased sentence for prior conviction or future conviction and any pos-sibility of consecutive sentences, any registration requirement that accompanies the plea and the restrictions associated with the registration, and the consequences of the plea on a defendant’s ability to apply for housing/obtain a job/obtain a driver’s license/possess a firearm.

HB 5771 – Certain mandatory natural life sentencing provi-sions for criminal sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual assault, and predatory criminal sexual assault of a child apply only to a person who has attained the age of 18 years at the time of the commission of the offense.

HB 6328 – Allows people with past convictions to petition for the expungement of arrest records and charges that didn’t result in conviction.

SB 2370 – Requires minors under the age of 15 charged with murder or sexual assault must be represented by counsel throughout interrogation.

HB 6331 – Provides that the State Police shall notify local law enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction of a revocation of a FOID card due to an existing order of protection.

SB 2875 – A court may grant law enforcement’s request for location surveillance information through testimony made through electronic means between requestor and judge if there is clear and present danger from imminent use of force, kidnapping, or occupation of any premises or hijacking of a vehicle. Police may seek location info in case of an escapee.

HB 5017 – Allows people with juvenile records to petition for their expungement at any time and requires the court to grant the request automatically if the person was never charged, if the charges were dismissed, if the person was found not delinquent, if the person was given supervision and completed

By Raleigh Kalbfleisch

it successfully or if the offense (if committed by an adult) would have been a Class B or C misdemeanor or a petty or business offense.

HB 6190 – Adds traffic offense and class 4 felony violation of the Controlled Substances act to the Accelerated Resolution Program (Rocket Docket) and extends the repeal of the pro-gram to June 30, 2019.

SB 3106 – Expands the definition of people with intellectual disabilities in the criminal code when hearsay exceptions are provided.

HB 4683 – Creates procedures on how pending criminal conviction appeals are handled if the defendant passes away.

SB 2876 – Adds criminal offense of money laundering to list of offenses that can be joined into one count of an indictment, rather than prosecuted separately.

SB 2880 – Allows for remote CCTV testimony for minors, persons with disabilities in criminal sex assault cases.

SB 2907 – Increases the threshold amount for property damage for a misdemeanor or felony from $300 to $500.

SB 2343 – Limits police use of stingray devices to track cell phones; use only to track location of or identify communi-cations devices, not listen in; need detailed court order and non-target data must be deleted within 24 hours.

HB 5538 – Law enforcement agencies shall develop arrest procedure policies for domestic violence situations, with train-ing for new recruits and every five years.

SB 2252 – Requires police to accept currency for cash bail or bail deposits.

SB 0210 – Bans the sale of “bath salts” and allows local gov’ts to revoke a retailer’s license if a violation occurs.

Civil LawsSB 0637 – Makes changes to Illinois law to comply with federal REAL ID regulations. The REAL ID Act enacted the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation that the Federal Government “set standards for the issuance of sources of identification, such as driver’s licenses.” The Act established minimum security standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identifi-cation cards and prohibits Federal agencies from accepting for official purposes licenses and identification cards from states that do not meet these standards. The changes to the law are as follows: Amends the Illinois Identification Card Act. Pro-vides that beginning July 1, 2017, the Secretary of State shall


ARTICLES

23

refuse to issue any identification card to any person who has been issued a driver’s license under the Illinois Vehicle Code. Provides that any person may surrender his or her driver’s license in order to become eligible to obtain an identification card. Provides that beginning July 1, 2017, all applicants for standard Illinois Identification Cards and Illinois Person with a Disability Identification Cards shall provide proof of lawful status in the United States. Provides that applicants who are unable to provide the Secretary with proof of lawful status are ineligible for identification cards. Provides further criteria for the expiration of Illinois Identification Cards and Illinois Person with a Disability Identification Cards. Amends the Illi-nois Vehicle Code to make similar changes concerning Illinois driver’s licenses, except that driver’s license applicants who are unable to provide proof of lawful status in the United States may apply for a temporary visitor’s driver’s license.

HB 4999 – Prohibits an employer or prospective employer to request or require an employee or applicant to authenticate or access a personal online account in the presence of the employer.

SB 2156 – Overtime, living allowances and other types of extra payments to employees of colleges or universities do not count as part of base compensation for purpose of calculating pension.

HB 1288 – Creates a Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights.HB 4259 – Prohibits members of certain organizations from being considered an employee for purposes of collecting a pension benefit through IMRF, SURS or TRS

HB 4036 – Mandates employers provide unpaid work weeks of leave to any employee who is a victim of domestic or sexual violence or has a family member who is a victim; amount of allowed time off is determined based on the size of the business.

HB 4264 – Imposes domestic violence education requirements on those seeking barber/hair stylist/cosmetologist licensure.

HB 5924 – Amends Probate Act. Unless court order to the contrary, guardian shall use reasonable efforts to notify the ward’s known adult children, who have requested notification and provided contact information, of the ward’s admission to a hospital or hospice program, the ward’s death, and the arrangements for the disposition of the ward’s remains.

HB 6162 – Allows employees to use personal sick leave bene-fits for absences due to an illness, injury, or medical appoint-ment of an employee’s direct family members.

HB 4715 – Allows courts to fine public bodies between $2,500 and $10,000 if they willfully and intentionally failed to comply with FOIA and also allows for a $1,000 daily fine if the pub-lic body fails to comply with the court’s order after 30 days;

if public body fails to act within 30 days to address FOIA, presumed to have willfully failed to comply.

HB 6083 – Changes the statute of limitations for wrongful death claims.

SB 2157 – Requires community college trustees to take professional development training.

SB 2158 – Prevents community college boards from making personnel decisions within a 45 day “lame duck” period; allows for emergencies.

SB 2159 – Limits contract lengths for college and university presidents and chancellors to four years and limits severance packages to one year salary plus benefits.

Laws relating to childrenHB 3898 – The bill provides that the intended parent is the legal parent of any resulting child and may seek a court order confirming the existence of a parent-child relationship. Currently, without these clarifying provisions, children who are born of assisted reproductive may be the subject of legal disputes over who has parental rights and obligations.

HB 4590 – Adds to list of adoption disclosures: reasons the birth parents stated for placing the child for adoption; how and why the adoptive parents were selected and who selected them; and whether the birth parents requested or agreed to post-adoption contact with the child at the time of placement, and, if so, the frequency and type of contact.

HB 4641 – Makes it easier for birth parents surrendering children for adoption to voluntarily provide medical informa-tion and other background information for the benefit of the adoptee and his or her adoptive parents; requires adoptive parents to be given a statement of their rights and responsibil-ities, including the right to voluntarily connect and exchange information with birth parents; creates background check and other requirements for private adoptions.

About the AuthorRaleigh D. Kalbfleisch is a sole practitioner concentrating in family law. She is a graduate of Purdue University and the Quinnipac University School Law and was a visiting student at Chicago Kent College of Law. She is an active member of the ISBA, DCBA and Family Law Section. She is President of D.A.W.L and on the Board of the DuPage County Bar Foundation, and is a member of the Family Violence Coordinating Counsel Judi-cial and Law Enforcement subcommittee.

AD here


ARTICLES

25

HB 5656 – Requires DCFS to make reasonable efforts and accommodations to grant visitation privileges to a non-custodial grandparent or great-grandparent of a child who is in the care and custody of the Department.

SB 1582 – A K-12 student with an Individualized Education Plan with staff: student of 1:5 attending specific academies named in bill may be bussed for any curriculum-related activity.

HB 4447 – States the Voluntary Acknowledgment of Paternity and other forms must include full tax ID or Social Security number of the parents and may only be challenged upon showing of fraud or material mistake, and must be brought within two years of completion of the form. Court order for genetic testing must specify how results may be used for purposes of protecting child’s best interests. Trailer bill for HB 1531.

HB 5551 – Expands definition of “fictive kin” to include an individual who has been the foster parent of a ward of the state for at least one year; recognizes that incarcerated parents should be able to participate in case plan reviews for children in foster care.

SB 2340 Changes TANF regulations so that child support does not count so greatly against grant assistance.

HB 4257 – DHS shall issue upon request a card certifying that the holder has been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. Allows for collection of associated fee not to exceed $10.

HB 4425 – Creates procedures to coordinate with federal reg-ulations if children of military parents suffer child abuse.

SB 2777 – Prohibits minors from being committed to DJJ facilities for committing crimes that are not felonies or for certain non-violent felonies.

SB 2512 – Ensures the parent, guardian or responsible relative of abused minors relay contact information for the minor’s living relatives to DCFS.

SB 2956 – Requires buildings to be more accessible to individ-uals with disabilities.

HB 4327 – Requires DCFS to provide information on respite care, etc. when an investigation of alleged child abuse does not result in the placement of a child outside the home.

Healthcare and health-related lawsSB 2900 – Expands the role of Physician Assistants (“PAs”) and Advance Practice Nurses (“APNs”) throughout various Acts, by allowing them to perform many duties, or hold posi-tions normally reserved only for physicians or those similarly situated.

HB 5576 – Mandates insurance companies provide coverage for all contraceptive drugs approved by the FDA.

SB 1564 – Health Care Right of Conscience law. Ensures patients receive information about treatment options, regard-less of medical provider’s religious beliefs.

HB 4462 – Allows state police, local police and other enti-ties to administer epinephrine and be trained on how to administer it.

HB 5593 – Substance abuse programs licensed by DHS must provide educational info on opioid treatment options, includ-ing use of medication for opioid addiction and overdose, how to administer naloxone.

SB 2601 Extends the time frame for the filing of a motion to vacate to 60 days after the discharge of probation once alcohol or drug treatment as a condition of probation has been completed.

HB 5594 – If defendant needs opioid abuse or addiction treat-ment, court shall require them to participate in prescribed drug treatments under care of licensed physician.

SB 2459 – Allows use of video conferencing equipment in hearings concerning use of psychotropic medicine or electro-convulsive therapy.

Miscellaneous or unusual lawsHB 0538 – Designates the pirogue – a long narrow canoe made from a single tree trunk – as the official state artifact.

HB 3239 – Amends the Chicago School District Article of the School Code by allowing 17 year olds to run for election as a community resident of a Local School Council (LSC).

HB 5651 – Allows vehicle owner’s to select their birthday as the vehicle’s registration expiration date.

HB 6006 – Requires vehicles to change lanes when coming up on a car with its hazard lights on.

HB 4105 – Allows motorcycles rear lights to be blue.HB 5912 – Clarifies that a person riding a bicycle has all the rights applicable to a driver of a vehicle, including those regarding a vehicle’s right-of-way.

SB 2743 – Bars yoga teacher training from state regulation as a business.

HB 4344 – Allows a relative of a deceased military member to request an honorary sign around designated roads.

HB 4432 – Allows students an excused absence from school to play “Taps” at a military funeral.

HB 5788 – Adds catfish to the list of aquatic life that may be taken by pitchfork, spear gun or bow and arrow.


ARTICLES

26

Koenig & Strey GMAC Real Estate v. Renaissant 1000 South Michigan I, 2016 IL App (1st) 161783In a decision with which attorneys who represent commercial lenders will be forced to reckon, the Illinois Appellate Court strictly construed the language of a personal guaranty for a sizable commercial loan, holding that the individual guarantors were not liable for more than $10,000,000.00 in post-judgment interest that had accrued during a rancorous foreclosure battle.

To secure more than $22,000,000 in loans to a limited liability company, a bank obtained the guarantees of three individu-als in addition to a mortgage on real property. Upon maturi-ty, the bank accelerated the balances owed on the loans and the borrower defaulted. The bank foreclosed on the real estate and sought a judgment against the guarantors pursuant to the guarantees. A judgment of foreclosure, the date on which post-judgment interest begin to accrue, was entered on January 26, 2009. After the confirmation of the sale of the real estate to the bank that took place only after years of litigation and an appeal, a deficiency judgment of approximately $18,000,000—$10,000,000 of which was post-judgment interest that had ac-crued in the nearly 7 years since the judgment of foreclosure—was entered against the guarantors.

The guarantors appealed, arguing that the circuit court’s in-clusion of post-judgment interest in the judgment against them was improper under the guarantees. The appellate court agreed with the guarantors, noting that “although the Guaran-ty Agreement provides that [the guarantors] are liable for the accrued and unpaid interest on the Notes, there is no provision within the document which renders them liable for the statuto-ry post-judgment interest on the foreclosure judgment entered against the [borrower business entities].”

Reasoning that the scope of the guarantee agreement was governed by general contract principles and finding that the agreement was not ambiguous, the appellate court strictly con-

strued the guarantees against the bank and rejected the argu-ment that post-judgment interest could be considered “interest on the Notes,” which the guarantees had included within their scope. Post-judgment interest, a purely statutory phenomenon, the court held, is distinct from pre-judgment interest, a prod-uct of the lending agreement between borrower and lender and memorialized in a note.

The court also addressed other points raised by the guarantors, again strictly construing the language of a letter of credit and the mortgage, but this time in favor of the bank.

Schweihs v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 2016 IL 120041In this appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court DID SOMETHING re IIED, rejecting a borrower’s claim of emotional distress aris-ing from her relationship with her home mortgage servicer, Chase.

Pursuant to a term in her mortgage, Chase has the right to protect its interest in the borrower’s property upon her default. During a foreclosure proceeding and before the expiration of the borrower’s redemption period, Chase’s property preserva-tion agents entered the borrower’s home, changed one of the locks, and turned off the utilities, believing the property to be vacant. The borrower was indeed home and was startled and upset by the arrival of the agents and their entry into her home. She later sought treatment for post-traumatic stress, anxiety, and depression and alleged suffering a host of other maladies as a result of the confrontation.

The circuit court granted Chase’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the borrower’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and granted a motion to dismiss a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim after the borrower amended her complaint. (Other claims remain pending.)

Illinois Law Update

Business Law

Editor Jordan Sartell


ARTICLES

27

The borrower appealed and the appellate court affirmed, hold-ing that, as a “direct victim,” the borrower had to allege “some physical impact” in order to maintain a claim for negligent infliction of emotion distress. With respect to the intentional infliction claim, the appellate court held that, as a matter of law, the agents’ conduct had not been “extreme and outrageous.”

The borrower appealed again and the supreme court affirmed, holding that a physical impact is indeed required for a direct victim’s claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress in Illinois. Recapitulating the somewhat gruesome history of such claims in Illinois, the supreme court noted that Illinois has long required direct victims to allege some contemporaneous phys-ical impact and that only bystanders could allege claims based upon the “zone-of-physical-danger rule,” if the bystander, too, had a reasonable fear for his own safety based upon his proximity to the danger. In so affirming its own line of cases on the topic, the supreme court muted many decisions from other appellate courts in which the physical impact require-ment had begun to blur. With respect to the borrower’s claim against Chase’s agents, the supreme court reasoned that because she did not allege a physical impact, as a direct victim, the borrower’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress must fail.

With respect to the borrower’s claim for intentional infliction of emotion distress, the supreme court cited to numerous cases that illustrate the requirement that a defendant’s conduct must be “extreme and outrageous.” Holding that the agents’ conduct in entering the borrower’s home did not rise to such a level, the court noted that the agents had conducted an investigation prior to entering the home, speaking with neighbors and inspecting the property. The court also rejected the borrower’s reliance upon foreclosure law’s provision of her rights to possession of the property, holding that the entrance onto the property was not extreme and outrageous.

Kakos v. Butler, 2016 IL 120377In Kakos, the Illinois Supreme Court addressed a challenge to the constitutionality of Public Act 98-1132 (the “Act”), which, relevant to this appeal, limits the size of a civil jury to 6

persons. The Act, effective June 1, 2015, eliminated the ability for either party in a civil matter to request a jury of 12 persons.In its analysis of the appellant’s claim that the Act violated the right to trial by jury available under the Illinois Constitution, the supreme court looked to the similar provision in the federal constitution, the seventh amendment (and the sixth amend-ment with respect to criminal trials) and noted factors that distinguish the federal system and the Illinois system. Although the United States Supreme Court has held that the seventh amendment does not guarantee the right to a trial by 12 jurors because of certain arcane departures from common law, the Illinois Constitution has been held to guarantee the right to trial by jury as enjoyed at the time of the respective adoptions of the respective Illinois constitutions. Thus, the right to trial by jury, as it existed at common law in Illinois in 1970 is relevant. (The supreme court noted that two prior chal-lenges to jury makeup occurred in 1897 and 1938.)

In an interesting recounting of proposed amendments to the constitution concerning jury size, the supreme court found ample evidence that the drafters of the 1970 Illinois Constitu-tion believed that juries should be comprised of 12 individuals. Thus, the supreme court held that such a number was “here-tofore enjoyed” and thus constitutionally required. Therefore, the Act is unconstitutional insofar as it bars a litigant from seeking trial by a jury of 12 persons and declined to sever other portions of the Act from its holding, invalidating the Act in its entirety.

About the EditorJordan M. Sartell is a graduate of the DePaul University College of Law. His practice with Francis and Mailman, P.C. focuses on prosecuting class action claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and other consumer statutes. Jordan volunteers with the Willow Creek Commu-nity Church Legal Aid Ministry and is a member of the National Association of Consumer Advocates.

AD here

Our New Lawyers Program protects you, your clients – and your financial future – against unintended

mistakes. It’s easy to apply and (really!) affordable. Your first year probably costs less than your annual

smartphone bill. Visit isbamutual.com/newlawyer or call 800 473-4722 to get coverage now!

For those who: Are claims-free Are solo practitioners Passed the bar within the past 3 years

START YOUR

Career Right

isbamutual.com/newlawyer

16ISBA017_New-Lawyer_Ad_8-5x11_BW_DCBA_100916.pdf 1 10/9/16 5:51 PM

New

s &

Eve

nts

New

s &

Eve

nts

Members of Judges’ Nite Band, Alycia Fitz, Tim Newitt and Don Provenzale

30 I nBrief - By Terrence Benshoof

31 Judicial Profi le of Brian Jacobs- By John Pcolinski, Jr.

32 The Pros and Cons of Model Rule 8.4- By James F. McCluskey

34 DuPage Bar Foundation and the Human Race

34 Law Day 2017: Liberty Bell Award Nominees Sought

35 DCBA Update - By Robert Rupp

36 Legal Aid Update- By Cecilia Najera

38 The Celtic Lunch Returns- By Art Rummler

39 ISBA Update- By Kent A. Gaertner

41 March 31, 2017 Deadline to FilePetitions for Election of Offi cers and Directors

42 Congratulations to Judge Robert J. Anderson for LAP’s Judge of the Year Award- By Azam Nizamuddin

42 High School Mock Trial Competition Was Impressive- By Christine Olson McTigue

43 Classifi eds

44 Where to Be in March

News & Events


InBrief

March!! Baseball is only weeks away, with the Cubs finally getting to the World Series in InBrief ’s lifetime. And then they managed to pull off the miracle and win it! First time since 1908!! InBrief is looking for some DCBA members who remember that Series, and can tell us all about the differences, but, alas….

Now Hear ThisIllinois has a mandate for the court sys-tems (730 ILCS 167) which will require that every Circuit, by January 1, 2018, establish a Veterans’ Court program, to deal with the unique problems presented, at least in the criminal law arena, by veterans of our Armed Forces and the issues they have faced in extensive deployments. Just as an example, our forces have been deployed in combat missions overseas for most of the terms in office of the last two Presidents.

The uniqueness of military service is not confined to the criminal law area. Deployments take their toll on mar-riages, creating an entirely different set of problems, in those cases, from what the average family law practitioner might see. Even in contract and tort law, or chancery and probate, the nuances of the Service Members Civil Relief Act come into play.

DCBA President Ted Donner had noted these problems, and wanted to be ahead

of the game when DuPage County and the 18th Circuit are compelled to face them. He had heard about the program established at The John Marshall Law School and the Veterans’ Clinic, and sev-eral of us met with the Director, Brian Clauss, who was our featured speaker at the DCBA Veterans Day Lunch. As a result, the DCBA is proceeding with the establishment of a program to create a list of attorneys who will take on veterans’ issues, either for those who might qualify for legal assistance, or through the Lawyer Referral Program, with some training for those who would like to assist with VA disability appeals.

The initial committee, Tim Whelan and Terry Benshoof, met with Legal Assistance Foundation Director Ce-cilia Najera to discuss methods for implementation, and we hope to roll out the beginning of a plan by the end of March. (See the February Legal Aid column for additional informa-tion.) Those lawyers who would like to participate would apply to be added to the list, and the assignment would be administered through the LAF office, to pair up clients with attorneys meeting the various criteria that will be estab-lished. (No push-ups will be required!)

People, PlacesInBrief continues to scour the media

By Terrence Benshoof

outlets for those news items about our membership. We found more moving vans parked around DuPage law offices than there were around the White House!

Brad Pollock joined with three other founding partners to create Taxman, Pollock, Murray & Bekkerman, LLC, with offices in downtown Chicago.

In light of the above note, Ed Walsh and his compatriots are now known as Walsh, Knippen & Cetina.

Chris Maurer has been elected to the DuPage Bar Foundation Board.

Kiley Whitty has joined Lillig & Thors-ness in their Oak Brook offices.

InBrief was informed that Deanna Ros-inski has moved her family law and criminal law practices to Mulyk, Laho & Mack, in Glen Ellyn. The firm also wel-comed Teresa I. Pisula, who will han-dle their bankruptcy practice.

In the big move department, Momkus McCluskey Roberts LLC has added Josette Allen to its family law group, and DCBA Vice-President Stacey McCullough joins the firm as a part-ner, bringing her criminal law practice to Lisle.

News & Events


By John Pcolinski, Jr.

“I wanted to be a football player but it turns out, I wasn’t cut out for that” a wry Brian Jacobs said during the interview for this piece. Jacobs, who was Highly Recommended by the Judiciary Com-mittee of the DCBA for appointment to the office of Associate Judge was re-cently tapped to fill the vacancy created when the Honorable Karen Wilson was appointed Circuit Judge, has long been a team player of another variety. A long-time member of the Office of the Public Defender of DuPage County, Brian was drawn to the role of an advocate starting in college when he worked as a runner for the Chicago law firm of Stone, Pogrund & Korey for two summers.

Jacobs grew up in Bolingbrook and Lisle, Illinois and graduated from Benet Acad-emy (class of 1989) before matriculating at the University of Illinois. After grad-uation with a degree in History in 1993, he attended law school at Boston Col-lege. During his law school years, Jacobs had the opportunity to work for the Pub-lic Defender’s offices in Roxbury MA and Philadelphia, PA. Upon graduation he began his full time career in the Public Defender’s office for Kane County under now judge David Kliment. “My time working in Roxbury and Philadelphia

convinced me that I would enjoy being a full time advocate for individuals so the opportunity to work for the Kane County PD was one I was grateful to have,” says Jacobs.

Brian’s experience is not limited to crim-inal defense matters, however. He was employed by the Smith Amundsen firm in Chicago, Illinois in 2000-01 where he had two civil jury trials in less than a year before returning to public service in DuPage County. Although his time at Smith Amundsen was educational, he found he really missed the camaraderie of his earlier position and had the oppor-tunity to join up with one of his Kane County associates, Steve Dalton, who had moved to the Office of the Public Defender in DuPage County. Addition-ally, his duties included multiple mental health matters in both bench trials and before juries. “Those matters can be quite a challenge, because you often have only a short while to meet with the allegedly disabled person before undertaking the defense in a matter which invariably includes expert testimony.”

Brian remained with that office until his elevation to the bench, rising to the level First Assistant. Now 45 and a resident

of Wheaton, Judge Jacobs loves to travel. He has visited 25 countries and plans to go to Morocco in May. He is also a movie buff having seen every film nominated for best picture before the Oscars since the beginning of law school.

Judge Jacobs’ favorite memories from the public defender’s office are of the people. “I am profoundly glad that I had a chance to work with some of the most amazing attorneys, and have made lifelong friend-ships. By “people” I also, however, mean the clients. There is a day to day excite-ment in working for criminal defendants, as I never knew what would end up in my caseload. Truly, though, the best memories are the trials. There is nothing better, and the thing that I will miss the most, are the jury trials. Having a couple of week’s trial on a murder or a sex assault case is the most fun that I ever had as an attorney. They are so stressful, but in the end, they end up being the best memories that I have.”

Judge Jacobs indicates that he is looking forward to a long career on the bench and hopes to be able to make a differ-ence in the lives of people who come before him. He is currently assigned to Addison Field Court.

Judicial Profile Brian Jacobs

News & Events


The Pros and Cons of Model Rule 8.4

In August 2016, a proposal to establish ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) prohibiting harassment and discrimination in the practice of law was placed on the ABA House of Delegates’ agenda. The ABA proposal was circulated to all Illinois State Bar Association sections. Twenty- one sections expressed opposition to the proposal, three expressed support, and the remainder either took no position or did not consider it. On the eve of the ABA House of Delegates’ consideration, the proposal was amended. The amended proposal passed the House of Dele-gates on a voice vote only. The Illinois Supreme Court Professional Respon-sibility Committee is in the process of considering amendments to the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct to mirror the amended ABA Rule 8.4(g).

The Illinois Supreme Court Committee on Professional Responsibility has in-vited the Illinois State Bar Association, along with the Chicago Bar Associa-tion, the Chicago Council of Lawyers, the Women’s Bar Association of Illinois, the Black Women’s Bar Association of Illinois and the Cook County Bar Association, and others to respond to the revisions to Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

The ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) states that it is misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows, or reasonably should know, is harassment or discrimination related to the practice of law. The Rule as promulgated by the

ABA applies to all facets of the prac-tice of law as well as participation in bar associations and business and social activities related to the practice of law. It should be noted that the State of Illinois currently has laws to address and penal-ize any discrimination and harassment, and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 8.4(j) addresses rules for lawyers to counter discriminatory conduct.

Supporters of the Model Rule contend that it is consistent with, and in fur-therance of, broad ABA policy goals in promoting full and equal participation in the justice system and eliminating bias in the legal profession. The broad scope of the Model Rule is justified on the grounds that lawyers have special responsibility for administration of justice in all aspects related to the practice of law, and ethics rules make it clear that harassment and discrimina-tion will not be tolerated. This includes the limitation on your first amendment rights of free speech.

Supporters of the Model Rule note that 22 states (including Illinois) already include anti-discrimination prohibitions in their professional conduct rules and that it was important for the ABA to include such a provision in the model rules. Supporters contend that the language of the Model Rule “know or reasonably should know” protects law-yers against overaggressive prosecutions for conduct they could not have known was harassment or discrimination, while

By James F. McCluskey

conversely preventing evasive defenses of suspect conduct.

This writer totally disagrees with the supporters’ position and contends that whether a lawyer is guilty of discrimi-nation or harassment is subject to many possible interpretations. The operational language of the Model Rule is subjec-tive. Who is the person who judges “who reasonably should have known”? Is it the person making the statement, or the receiver of the statement or conduct? The supporters also contend that the Model Rule does not expand on what would be harassment and discrimination under federal or state law. They contend the Rule does not impact issues such as lawyer decisions to accept or decline representation, or the ability to charge a reasonable fee. However, this has not been clarified.

Query: What if a lawyer cannot reason-ably charge a fee to a person of modest means? Is he or she then in violation of 8.4(g) for discriminatory behavior based on socioeconomic status?

The Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct currently include a prohibition against discrimination. Illinois RPC 8.4(j) and comments clearly guide a lawyer’s conduct against discrimination. This Rule has been in place since 1993.

While there are some similarities between the Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct and the ABA Model Rule,

News & Events


there are several differences. The most significant difference is that under the Illinois Rule, misconduct must be specifically tied to a violation of a federal, state, or local law prohibiting discrimina-tion and that no disciplinary charge can be brought against a lawyer without a final court or administrative order find-ing that the lawyer has engaged in an unlawful discriminatory act. The ABA Model Rule does not include this pre- requisite. Furthermore, the Illinois Rule is limited to discrimination while the ABA Rule specifically references both discrimination and harassment. The newly proposed Model Rule provides “such discrimination includes harmful verbal or physical conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others. Harass-ment includes sexual harassment and derogatory or demeaning verbal or physical conduct.”

The scope of the Illinois Rule prohibits conduct which “reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer.” To deter-mine whether the conduct impacts the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer, a number of circumstances are identified in the Rule including the seriousness of the conduct, whether the lawyer knew the conduct was prohibited, whether there is a demonstrated pattern of conduct, and whether the conduct occurred in con-nection with professional activities. The ABA Model Rule encompasses “conduct related to the practice of law.” As provided in the Comments, this phrase includes “representing clients, interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, and lawyers, operating a law practice, and participating in bar association, business, or social activities in connection with the practice of law.” The Illinois State Bar Association has specifically rejected the

Model ABA Rule as being too overbroad and vague and subject to many possible interpretations.

ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) is a rule in search of a problem. The statistics from the ARDC categorize the number of charges against lawyers alleging discriminatory or harassing conduct under Rule 8.4(j), and do not demon-strate a need for the ABA Rule. In 2015, five out of 5,090 charges involved claims of discrimination. In 2014, seven out of 5,254 and, in 2013, two out of 5,410. In 2012, it was six out of 5,712, and in 2011, it was zero out of 6,155. It appears that none of these charges resulted in any formal disciplinary prosecution.

The Illinois State Bar Association As-sembly, the governing body of the Illinois State Bar Association, overwhelmingly opposed the new ABA Model Rule at the Mid-Year Assembly meeting in Decem-ber 2016.

The reasons for the opposition are as follows:

1. The ABA Model Rule is unnecessary. Illinois already has specific rules on anti-discrimination. There are few charges that are made to ARDC under the existing Rule and other Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct cover discrimination and harassment when lawyers are representing clients. In all cases, when the matter is so egregious as to impact the adminis-tration of justice Illinois Rule of Pro-fessional Conduct 8.4(d), Comment 3, would provide a basis for disciplinary action. In addition, the substantive law of employment discrimination and harassment are fully in effect.

2. The ABA Model Rule is too broad. The applicable scope of the ABA Rule “conduct related to practice of law” is defined in such a way as to make it very broad in business or social activ-ities in connection with the practice of law. The enforcement of this Rule would be untenable.

3. The ABA Model Rule is too vague. The phrase “knowingly or reasonably should know”, is too vague and subject to many interpretations. This writer cannot stress enough the concern regarding the application of the Rule particularly when the person or entity deciding on what conduct should be prohibitive will be Attorney Registra-tion and Disciplinary Commission.

4. The existing Illinois Rule is sufficient. The requirement that a tribunal makes a finding of discrimination or harass-ment is appropriate and may act as a cure to many overbreadth and vague-ness concerns with the ABA Rule. The ABA’s reason for the Rule is to have uniformity in the United States, however, the Rule’s vagueness and overbreadth outweigh the desire for uniformity.

The Illinois Supreme Court should reject the adoption of this Rule as part of the Illinois Professional Rules of Conduct.

News & Events


Law Day 2017: Liberty Bell Award Nominees Sought

DuPage Bar Foundation and the Human Race

The DuPage County Bar Association seeks individual nominees for the Lib-erty Bell Award, presented annually to a non-lawyer individual who has served the legal community in a significant way and who have devoted substantial time and effort toward attaining and main-taining justice in these areas:

1) Promoting a better understanding of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights;

2) Encouraging greater respect for law and the courts;

3) Stimulating a deeper sense of indi-vidual responsibility so that citizens recognize their duties as well as their rights;

4) Contributing to the effective function-ing of our institutions of government; and

5) Fostering better understanding and appreciation of the rule of law.

The DBF is once again participating in the DuPage Human Race taking place on Saturday, May 6, 2017. There will be a 5k run and 2 mile fitness walk. This is a family-friendly fundraiser event that supports more than 70 local non-profit organizations. The race kicks off at 9am at the Esplanade at Locust Point, 1901 Butterfield Road, Downers Grove, just off I355. For registration fees and more

information, go to the dupagehumanrace.org website. Be sure to select DuPage Bar Foundation from the list of Charities. If you have any questions, you can also contact Cindy Allston at [email protected] or 630.653.7779.

Nominations should include the name, address and phone number of the individual and a letter citing the reasons for the nomination, plus a brief summary of the nominee’s qualifications for the award. Nominations must be received by March 24, 2017 and should be forwarded to Robert Rupp at DCBA, 126 S. County Farm Rd, Wheaton, IL 60187 or [email protected].

Law Day has been celebrated every May 1 since 1958. The event pro-vides an opportunity for Americans to reflect on the value of their liberties and the ideals of equality and justice under law. This year’s theme is the 14th Amendment: Transforming American Democracy. We hope you will join us for lunch on Thursday, May 4 at Cantigny, LeJardin with keynote speaker, Diane Wood, Chief Judge of the 7th District Appellate Court.

WelcomeWelcome to our new DCBA Members. Attorneys: Angelo J.Kappas, Gordon & Rees, LLP; Lauren Frances Crissie, Ostojic & Scudder, LLC; Melissa Lynn Fox; Betty Tsamis, Tsamis Law Firm PC; Jessica S. Naples, Davi Law Group, LLC.; Joshua E. Stern, Law Offices of Joshua E. Stern; Meghan E. Early, Early, Tousey, Regan, Wlodek & Wong, LLC; Eron M. McCormick, Gierach Law Firm; Samuel Marrero, Jr., Gil Law Group; Lori GLevin, Lori G. Levin Attorney at Law; Vincent A. Incopero, Real Law Group P.C.; Erin Ashlee Walgrave, Newland & Newland, LLP.; Douglas M. Matton, Matton Law Offices; Robert E. Blinstrubas, Law Office of Robert Blinstruba, P.C.; Laura M Maul, Esp Kreuzer Cores LLP; Timothy A. Hickey, Bishop & LaForte, Ltd.; Kathryn M. Lyons, Palmisano Law Group; Catherine J. O’Suilleabhain, Rathje & Woodward, LLC; Michael S. Krzak, Clifford Law Offices; Jeffrey D. Corso, Cooney Corso & Moynihan LLC; Robert T. Kuehl, Kuehl Law, P.C.; Amrita Narasimhan, The John Marshall Law School; Sagar Paresh Thakkar, Delic Law, LLC; Tristan Hinriksson, Paulsen Malec & Malartsik; Amy Rebecca Silberstein, Law Offices of Joshua E. Stern; Konrad Kamizelich; John S. Osga, Osga law Office.

Student Members: Diana M. Martinez; Leslie Rae Wood; Jacob Exline; Kimberly Lauren Bartoszewski; Janna Borgheiinck; Sierra Hagl; Joy Gippeumjo.

2016 Team DCBA

News & Events


DCBA Update

Can you hear me now?By Robert T. Rupp

It has been both encouraging and disturbing to have several members approach me over the last few weeks asking why they were no longer seeing DCBA e-mails. It certainly wasn’t for a lack of sent messages as many of you well know!

The encouraging part was that these members had actually noticed the comings and goings of the DCBA miss-ing from their daily routine. The disturb-ing part was really two fold. First, it was disturbing that these active members felt their member records were set to receive e-mail notices and somehow our system or their firewall had shut them out. Sec-ond, it disturbed me when I thought that short of the print version of The Brief which you hold in your hands now, we do not have clear and consistent channels outside of e-mail to communicate with our members, current and potential.

The first problem is one remedied by technology and education. Unless you have opted completely out of receiving DCBA e-mail, you should be seeing at least periodic messages related to your Section’s MCLE programming and case law updates. Also, our weekly e-Mail newsletter, The Docket, is sent faithfully every Thursday. If you don’t see these, something is amiss. Call the office and any staff member will be happy to check

the settings on your record to make sure your profile is set to receive the messages you wish to receive. Also, printed ver-sions of The Docket are available in the Attorney Resource Center on Friday morning and sit out until replaced by the next issue.

The second problem is one requiring all our best thought and effort. E-mail is simple, affordable and dangerous. While it seems the perfect medium to use to keep all DCBA stakeholders informed, it is easy to be lulled into thinking that every message is hitting its target. The observation I shared in opening this column proves this to be false and I would posit that the attendance at several DCBA events over the past six months is further anecdotal evidence. Well over 90% of our promotional and informa-tional messaging is done via e-mail. When e-mail fails, those messages go unheard.

So what to do? Over the next three months, I will be working with the DCBA staff and members at all levels, especially Eric Waltmire and our Website and Media Committee, to focus on the ways we communicate with each other as a bar association. In addition to our award winning print journal and our website, the DCBA maintains profiles on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook and

About the AuthorRobert Rupp is the Executive Director of the DuPage County Bar Association. He has worked in professional association management since 1994, serving a variety of national and international medical and legal associations, including the American Bar Association.

we will have discrete strategies for each of these to use the special tools each platform provides. We will explore new interactive spaces on the web to allow for greater member collaboration and easier access to the tremendous substantive work of our members, Sections, Com-mittees and Commissions. We will learn from the successes (and failures) of other bar associations as we chart our digital future and we want to hear from you too.

There will be times when we formally ask, but some of the best learning will be when you tell me, another member of the staff, or anyone in DCBA leader-ship what you are seeing or not seeing with regard to our communication with you. Problem with e-mail…let us know. Website confusion…let us know. Social media wizard…join us! Together we will learn, grow and improve those things we do that should be a valuable part of every DCBA member’s day.

News & Events


I’m sure when some of you receive your Legal Aid assignment in the mail, you may not feel like you won a Sweepstake prize. No visit from the Prize Patrol for you, just a thick yellow envelope or a very humble e-mail from [email protected] asking for your assistance in addition to your already trying case-load. You may even hear the Song of the Volga Boatsmen echoing in your head. I’ve even heard it grumbled on occasion that, “It’s the clients that have no money that argue the smallest issues to the nth degree.” Now, I may have left an exple-tive out of that quote, but I believe this statement is a myth. Please allow me to play Mythbuster.

Our office just finished applying for three different grants in February, and this year our office did some different investigating into some of Legal Aid’s case statistics. With the assistance of the membership of the DCBA, 234 cases were opened and assigned and 386 cases were closed during calendar year 2016. That translates to over 7 cases completed every week. Legal Aid is so grateful for your efforts. Of the completed cases, 150 of these cases were Order of Protection cases; 90 were Divorce cases; 65 were Parentage cases; 25 were Guardianship of an Adult cases; 18 cases were assigned Pro Bono Guardians ad Litem; 14 were Bankruptcy cases; 6 were Child Support Defense cases; 7 were Adoption cases;

4 were Guardianship of a Minor cases; 1 was a Housing Issue; and the remain-ing 6 cases were post decree cases that involved maintenance or college expenses.

It may be logical to conclude that Legal Aid assignments take a longer time to complete given the assumption that lower income clients are not willing to settle and want to argue for arguments sake. But, we found this was simply untrue. We found that the average Order of Protection case took 5 hours to complete and was done within 5 months. The average Bankruptcy assignment took about 6 hours of service to com-plete and lasted 8 months. The average Legal Aid Divorce case needed 20 hours and 10 months to complete. The aver-age Legal Aid Parentage case required 13 hours and 6 months to complete. On the average, our Pro Bono Guardians ad Litem donated 30 hours of work and re-quired about 8 months to investigate and make recommendations on their cases.

It’s easier to forget the cases that settled quickly. As we all know, sometimes it can feel like an epoch passes before you and your client can enter a final Judg-ment and have some closure. Unpleasant situations always seem to linger forever, and I know we really want to scream, “You’re killing me, Smalls!” Instead, let’s remember our Legal Aid Program is justly recognized for its commitment

to serve the needs of the community. All of you know that you are helping the vulnerable gain access to the courthouse. All clients ask questions, but all of you know some may not even have the abil-ity to articulate their thoughts because they may be overanxious and cannot find the words to express themselves. How true it is that a mental illness, learning disability or lapse in concentration due to other health issues or medical treatments may hinder a client’s ability to concen-trate and articulate. Yet you continue to represent the needy realizing that all clients have emotions, but some may not feel they can channel their feelings in a positive manner and may become less responsive because they are over-whelmed with worry about where they will secure safe housing or how they will put food in their children’s bellies. All of our clients have received your care and attention. Your empathy wields grace and good advocacy. Once again, Legal Aid thanks you for the impact that you are making on behalf of our clients, our Program, and our community.

Legal Aid Update

By Cecilia Najera

Legal Aid Case Mythbuster

About the AuthorA Wheaton native, Cecilia “Cee-Cee” Najera is a graduate of the University of Iowa and received her J.D. from Southern Illinois University. She served as the DCBA New Lawyer Director from 2004 to 2009 and is currently the Director of DuPage Bar Legal Aid Service.

News & Events


About the Author

News & Events


LRS Stats12/1/2016 - 12/31/2016

The Lawyer Referral & Mediation Service

received a total of 610 referrals, including

19 in Spanish (379 by telephone, 6 walk-

in, and 225 online referrals) for the month

of December.

If you have questions regarding the service,

attorneys please call Cynthia Garcia at

(630) 653-7779 or email [email protected].

Please refer clients to call (630) 653-9109

or request a referral through the website at

www.dcba.org.

Administrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0

Bankruptcy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Business Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Civil Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0

Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Consumer Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Contract Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0

Criminal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141

Elder Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Employment Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Estate Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Family Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111

Federal Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0

Government Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Health Care Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0

Immigration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Intellectual Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Mediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Mental Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0

Military Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0

Personal Injury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Real Estate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

School Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Social Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Tax Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0

Workers’ Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . .19

The Celtic Lunch Returns

Feeling the mid-winter Chicago blues? Maybe you’re longing for the verdant green valleys of the old sod? DCBA has the remedy. Come join your friends and colleagues at the 2017 Celtic Lunch. The lunch is being held at noon on March 17, 2017, which is also St. Patrick’s Day. The festivities will be held at Cooper’s Corner on Roosevelt Road in Winfield, which seasoned bar members will re-member was once known as the Viking. Cooper’s Corner is a great venue for the lunch, convenient to the courthouse, many law offices and centrally located. The cost of the lunch is a mere $35 and includes a sumptuous buffet lunch and 2 beverages of your choice. Can you say “green beer please?” And to help

get the celebrating going, Irish singer Gavin Coyle will perform pop, folk and traditional music from his homeland. Mr. Coyle is an accomplished musician who is sure to have everyone sayin’ “Erin go Bragh”.

Said, Ted Donner about the lunch event, “We don’t schedule a Celtic Luncheon every year, we have a tradition of leaving that decision to whoever is serving as president. For me, it was easy. In fact, with Saint Patrick’s Day falling on a Friday this year, I didn’t see that there was a whole lot of choice. You have to treat the Clurichauns well or they’ll trash the place.” Thanks Ted, now we all need to Google that word. Hope to see you there.

By Art Rummler

News & Events


By Kent A. Gaertner

ISBA Update

After a busy mid-year meeting in December, the ISBA Board of Governors will meet again in March in Springfield and in May in Naperville. At the time of this writing the Executive Board is still developing the agendas for the meetings.

The Annual Meeting will return to the Abbey in Fontana, Wisconsin, June 15th through June 17th. Judge Russ Harti-gan will be installed as the new ISBA President. DCBA past-president Jim McCluskey will move into the office of President Elect and DCBA member David Sosin will be the 2nd Vice President The new 3rd Vice President will be elected this spring. As of this writing, former Board of Governor member Lisa Nyuli, from South Elgin IL. and current Board of Governor member Dennis Orsey from Granite City, IL. have announced that they are candidates for that office. Both are highly qualified. Vince Cornelius will move into the Past President’s office.

The ISBA President’s trip will take place April 27th to May 6th, 2017 and will be a cruise from Athens to Rome on Oceania Cruises. Information is available at the ISBA website under “Events” and “ISBA Calendar”. These trips are always very popular and you can’t go wrong with a luxury cruise line in the Greek Islands.

If the Greek Islands don’t trip your trigger, how about New Orleans? The ISBA Family Law Update Festival will be held at the Hyatt French Quarter Hotel on March 9th and 10th, 2017. Reduced room rates are available for those who register by February 17th, 2017 (which is only a few days after this issue comes out). DCBA member Judge Tim McJoynt will be one of the program moderators. The Festival includes 11.75 hours of MCLE credit and a complimentary reception for networking. A list of program topics and more information is also available under the “Events” banner at the ISBA website. Choose the drop down to “ISBA Calendar”.

About the AuthorKent is the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit’s representative on the ISBA Board of Governors. He is the principal of Kent A. Gaertner P.C. and “Of Counsel” to Springer Brown, LLC. where he concentrates his practice in bankruptcy and workouts. He was president of the DCBA in 2009/2010.

ISBA Elections Coming Up Along with Spring Time Get-a-Ways

County Court Reporters, Inc.

600 S. County Farm Rd., Suite 200B

www.countycourtreportersinc.net

[email protected]

630.653.1622

630.653.4119 (fax)

As always, if there is anything I can assist you with relevant to the ISBA – please do not hesitate to contact me. I would love to hear from you.

Celtic Lucheon ReturnsCome join your friends and colleagues at the 2017 Celtic Lunch which will be held this year ON St. Patrick’s Day... Friday, March 17.

When: Friday, March 17, 2017 Where: Cooper’s Corner 27W150RooseveltRd,Winfield,IL60190 Time: Noon-2pm Cost: $35includesbuffetlunchandtwo(2)beveragesofyourchoice (cash bar will remain open after the luncheon)

News & Events


March 31, 2017 Deadline to FilePetitions for Election of Officers and Directors

Any DCBA member who is interested in running for election for the office of Third Vice President or for the office of Director of the Association, should file his or her nominating petition along with other requirements, with the Executive Director of the DCBA not earlier than March 1 and not later than 5:00 p.m. March 31, for the upcoming 2017 elections.

Petitions must include signatures from at least 20 Voting Members of DCBA. The “Board of Directors Duties and Expectations” statement must also be signed and returned with the petitions along with a photo and short (100 words or less) biographic paragraph.

Petition forms will be available from the DCBA Executive Director no sooner than the first Monday in February (6th). Members are also referred to DCBA

Bylaws, particularly Section 8 pertain-ing to the form of the petition and the method of voting. In particular, Section 8 provides:

Any active Member in good standing and otherwise eligible to run for a position on the Board of Directors may file his or her Nominating Petition for the office of Third Vice President or Di-rector. The Nominating Petition shall be in writing in the form approved by the Executive Director and contain the signatures of twenty (20) or more Mem-bers eligible to vote for a candidate for the office of Third Vice President or Director. The Nominating Petition shall be made available to candidates on the first Monday in February. Completed petitions shall be filed in the office of the Association not earlier than March 1, nor later than 5:00 p.m. on the last

business day of March preceding the commencement of the term of office.

There will be one (1) Third Vice Presi-dent and three (3) Board of Directors members elected in the upcoming 2017 election. Directors are elected for a 3-year term.

Electronic voting will begin by April 10 and must be completed no later than the first Monday in May (1st), with elec-tion results announced by May 8. If you require a paper ballot, please contact Robert Rupp at [email protected].

This year, a Candidate Meet and Greet will be held at the Attorney Resource Center on the morning of Thurs-day, April 6, giving all candidates an opportunity to introduce themselves to members.

News & Events


Congratulations to Judge Robert J. Anderson for LAP’s Judge of the Year Award

High School Mock Trial Competition Was Impressive

We all know how stressful and demand-ing the legal profession can be. We have known that high levels of stress can lead to many psychological and physical ail-ments over a long period of time. This is particularly acute for small firm law-yers and solo practitioners. Now, new research shows that attorneys are at a relatively high risk for substance use and other mental health concerns. A study published in the Journal of Addiction Medicine found more than a fifth of practicing lawyers struggle with problem-atic alcohol use. In comparison, only 12 percent of highly educated workers of various professions, including doctors, screened positive for levels of alcohol consumption consistent with a drinking problem.

Should a pledge master be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and hazing arising from the death of a student who died playing “water Jeopardy” during a pledge event? This problem was the subject of this year’s DCBA high school mock trial competition, which was held on Saturday, February 4th. 25 schools fielded 32 teams to participate in the competition. The courthouse hallways were abuzz with energy and the spirit of competition as the students, coach-

It is for this very reason that back in 1980, a group of concerned lawyers began Lawyer’s Assistance Program (“LAP”) to address the issue of alcohol-ism and addiction by members of the legal profession. After a relatively modest start with little funding, the LAP now obtains funding and administration support from the ARDC and the Illi-nois Supreme Court and has a full time staff with hundreds of volunteers. In fact, LAP provides free and confidential services including urgent intervention, consultations, assessments, individual or group therapy, all within the confines of a confidential environment. Over 400 trained volunteers provide peer support to lawyers and judges. Many lawyers and judges serve as trained volunteers.

es and proud spectators moved from room to room to participate in the two preliminary and one final round. Sean McCumber served as the master of ceremonies, putting together the compe-tition. Over 50 lawyers and judges served as evaluators.

Each school fielded a prosecution and defense team, one for each of the two rounds. Team members played vari-ous roles in the trial, including those

Every year, as a result of the outstanding work of the LAP staff and the sacrifice of volunteers, LAP presents an award to those that have gone above and beyond and set an example of support. This past year, LAP gave its Judge of the Year Award to DuPage County Circuit Court Judge, Robert J. Anderson, who said in his acceptance of the award, “We can’t change the past, but we can affect the future.” In 2016, Judge Anderson helped train over 40 judges to become inter-veners to help attorneys. We are proud that one of our own was presented with this highly coveted and deserving award. Great job Judge Anderson and to all of the other awardees.

of witnesses, expert witnesses, defense and prosecution lawyers. The students showed a mastery of the facts and the law, and were poised and professional.

And the winner? St. Charles North defeated Bartlett in the final round.

If you did not have a chance to serve as an evaluator this year, please mark your calendar for next year. This is a competi-tion you do not want to miss.

By Azam Nizamuddin

By Christine Olson McTigue

News & Events


ClassifiedsJoliet/ShorewoodVirtual office in Will Co. located 200 yds from I-55 exit. Mailing address, works space, conference room, sign for mail & packages. This and more for $50/mo. Call 630-926-2637 for info.

WheatonOffice Space – 1200 square feet – Nicely furnished and decorated. Located at highly visible SE corner of Roosevelt Rd and Warrenville Rd in Wheaton. Perfect for attorney. Lease terms negotiable. Call Ronald M. Dell CPA 630-653-3430. Available 2/1/17.

Professional OfficeBuilding For Sale-Hanover ParkFully furnished corner lot on RT.19; Lighted sign. One story ranch style converted home. Two offices; conference room(table for 8/8 leather chairs). Back office-kitchen and eat-ing area; large minolta copier. Recep-tion area with two secretarial stations. Two bathrooms. 1 car garage storage with built in shelving. CONTACT: DOUG PAULEY 630-729-7951

Wheaton Office SpaceOne to three furnished offices over-looking park in Danada area – reason-able rent-conference room and kitchen included – three support staff areas and copier available. Call 630-690-9900.

Elite Process Serving, Inc.

Flat Rates, Statewide Coverage, Quick Turnaround,Trusted Since 2003

(630) 299-4600 www.elitepsi.com

16106 Route 59, Suite 200Plainfield, IL 60586

Illinois License #117-001199

County Court Reporters, Inc.

600 S. County Farm Rd., Suite 200B

[email protected]

630.653.1622630.653.4119 (fax)

Naperville – Primacy Business Center Office solutions to meet all of your needs! Whether you are looking for an office in a prestigious location with full service amenities or just a professional image for your company, one of our virtual services can provide you with just that for a fraction of the cost. We have it all! Our offices are located in a modern, class A, state-of-the-art office building situated in the heart of Tech Corridor. Need a hand? Don’t worry Primacy can provide you with the administra-tive services you need, virtually! We can take on those everyday tasks you don’t have the time for because you’re too busy growing your business. Use us only when you need us! Contact us today to schedule a tour! 630-780-1000 or [email protected]

Wheaton – Former “TICOR” BuildingAt 330 Naperville Road - 11 X 15 of-fice available in 2 office suite, w/ or w/o secretarial space; Furnished or unfur-nished. $450. Call (630) 668-9590.

NapervilleLocation! Location! Location! Multi-ple offices available in historic build-ing in downtown Naperville. Completely upgraded with library/conference room, receptionist and reception area for clients. Parking lot at building and plenty of side street parking directly at the building. Many extras included in lease. It doesn’t get better than this. Stop by and take a look! Please contact Bob Heap at 630-369-4980 or [email protected] for more information.

News & Events


News & Events


On March 3, 2017, the Belushi Auditorium of the McAninch Center at the College of DuPage will be the place to be. This edition of the show is entitled: “Leadership in a Post-Truth World” and promises to be exceptionally entertaining. “It is going to be a very fun year. We have some new writers with fresh jokes and ideas,” said Director and Head Writer, Nick Nelson. “We would also like to thank President Trump for being an oasis of material.” “Я очень рад за шоу в этом году,” gushed Producer Christina Morrison who added, “Ник Нельсон глупый маленький человек.”

The regular ticket price for this year is $110 and includes heavy appetizers, intermission snacks and post-show dessert as well as an open bar before the show and at intermission. Govern-ment and new attorneys (5 years or less) and court staff can

Where to BeIn March

Judges’ Niteattend for only $65. Organizers once again will run both silent and live auctions and a split the pot raffle. Last year’s winner took home over $1800! Both show and raffle tickets may be purchased on the dcba.org website. Raffle ticket holders do not have to be present to win. Sponsorships and raffle prizes are still being sought.

The show raised more than $15,000 last year and is an important fundraiser for the Legal Assistance Foundation of DuPage County which provides legal representation for the indigent of DuPage County in bankruptcy, divorce, parentage, and Order of Protection cases, as well as probate cases where the attor-neys establish guardianships for disabled adults (who have no estate) or over minors where the guardian is indigent.

800.252.0402 www.atgf.com [email protected]

Check out what our members say about us.

Consider this: ATG members make more money, receive individual training, use intuitive ATG technology, and have access to the finest underwriting staff in the business. ATG is the only title insurance company that advocates the interests of lawyers and the clients they serve. Join ATG today, you’ll be glad you did.

There’s only one.

Looking for a title underwriter that offers ease of use, superior service, and a 50-year history of supporting lawyers?

PREPAREDTO BE A LEADER OF ILLINOIS LAWYERS

L I S A M . N Y U L I

LISA M. NYULI

THANK YOUTHANK YOU

LISA M. NYULI

Candidate for ISBA 3rd Vice President

www.ovclawyermarketing.comFOR LAWYERS

630-635-8000

I want to express my gratitude for the support I have received over the

past few months as I traveled across the state to meet with attorneys

from diverse practice areas. I look forward to taking your feedback to

the ISBA to help address the unique challenges we face within the legal

profession.

I am grateful for the opportunity to play an active role in the ISBA and

Illinois legal community. I would appreciate your vote when the ISBA

election begins on March 29, 2017.

Thank you for your support,

“Attorney Nyuli’ s commitment to providing her contemporaries with a more favorable practice of law cannot be questioned. This considerable energy and commitment to our laws and our lawyers is the reason that I strongly endorse her candidacy for Third Vice President of our Illinois bar association.”

Candidate for ISBA 3rd Vice President

LISA’S SUPPORTERS

- Lee A. Marinaccio Fellow, American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers

- Irene Bahr Law Office of Irene F. Bahr

“Lisa is a lawyer's lawyer. She is in the trenches with the rest of us and knows the challenges of running a law practice, making a payroll and giving back to the profession and her community. She is a recognized long time leader both within the ISBA and as a Past President of the Kane County Bar Association. You can count on her to put the solo and small firm attorneys at the forefront of her focus as Third Vice President of the ISBA. Please support her with your vote when your ballot arrives.”

Robert H. Alvine - MolineSteven A. Andersson - AuroraFrank V. Ariano - Steamboat SpringsIrene F. Bahr - WheatonPatrice Ball-Reed - ChicagoMargaret Bennett - Oak BrookJacalyn Birnbaum - ChicagoGloria Block - ChicagoArnold Blockman - ChampaignChristopher W. Bohlen - KankakeeCraig Brown - St. CharlesEmily Carrara - NapervilleJulie Cibulskis - AuroraMichael W. Clancy - St. CharlesRobert Clifford - ChicagoJ. Randall Cox - SpringfieldJane Craddock Ryan - ElginSandra Crawford - ChicagoKimberly Davis - LisleMichael C. Doyen - Elgin

Julie Gumina - NapervilleMark Hassakis - Mt. VernonPaula H. Holderman - LaGrangeEdward W. Huntley - SpringfieldKenya Jenkins-Wright - ChicagoMichele Jochner - ChicagoNancy Joerg - St. CharlesJulie A. Johnson - Chicago

Emily Masalski - ChicagoSteven Mevorah - LombardRobin R. Miller - WheatonErica C. Minchella - SkokieClifton John Mitchell - PeoriaTimothy Moran - ChicagoAdria East Mossing - ChicagoJohn O’Brien - Arlington Heights

Timothy J. Reuland - AuroraJeanne Reynolds - SkokieScott G. Richmond - South ElginSusan w. Rogaliner - St. CharlesRhonda L. Rosenthal - Crystal LakeCurtis Ross - ChicagoJustin Ryan - ElginAlice L. Sackett - Sycamore

Donald R. Tracy - SpringfieldRichard L. Turner, Jr. - SycamoreJ. Brick VanDerSnick - St. CharlesTamika Walker - RockfordRichard H. Wessels - St. CharlesErin Wilson - ChicagoRichard Wilson - ChicagoJ. Nelson Wood - Mt. Vernon

Sharon Eiseman - ChicagoRodney Equi - WheatonHoward W. Feldman - SpringfieldRichard D. Felice - WheatonPeter Flowers - St. CharlesMichael C. Funkey - AuroraGunnar J. Gitlin - WoodstockLoren S. Golden - ElginKelli Gordon - SpringfieldChristopher J. Graham - GenevaEdward T. Graham, Jr. - TaylorvillePaulette Gray - Crystal Lake

Thomas J. Kasper - ChicagoShawn S. Kasserman - ChicagoElizabeth A. Kaveny - ChicagoTimothy Kelly - BloomingtonLaura Urbik Kern - ElmhurstPatrick Kinnally - AuroraMatt Kirsh - ChicagoPamela J. Kuzniar - ChicagoDiana M. Law - AuroraPhilip J. Lengle - St. CharlesLori G. Levin - ChicagoLee A. Marinaccio - Oak Brook

Paul Osborn - SterlingMargaret O’Sullivan - Orland ParkRaiford Palmer - NapervilleAlan Pearlman - NorthbrookKerry Peck - ChicagoSteven N. Peskind - St. CharlesMollie Peskind - St. CharlesMary Petruchius - SycamoreThomas K. Prindable - ChicagoGary Rafool - East PeoriaSteven Rakowski - NorthbrookMasah Renwick - Homewood

Maria Sarantakis - Western SpringsGary L. Schlesinger - LibertyvilleGeorge L. Schoenbeck - Orland ParkGregory A. Scott - SpringfieldLidia E. Serrano - St. CharlesLeticia Spunar-Sheets - ChicagoJennifer L. Stallings - South ElginLawrence Stein - ChicagoMichael Strauss - LibertyvilleMaureen Sullivan Taylor - NapervilleSarah Taylor - CarbondaleRyan Theriault - St. Charles