The Docket - July 2019 by Town Square Publications

THE

DOCKET

2019-2020

OFFICERS & DIRECTORS

INSTALLATION

The Official Publication of the Lake County Bar Association • Vol. 26, No. 7 • July 2019

CONFERENCE ROOM For meetings only. Seats 16 – 20 comfortably During business hours (8 am – 5 pm) • Member- Free • Non-Member $150/1st hour. $50/hour after • Non-Member, Not-for-Profit: $25/hour

2019 LCBA OFFICE RENTAL PRICING

After Hours (5 pm – 9 pm) • Member - $25 per hour • Non-Member – Not Available • Non-Member, Not-for-Profit: $50 per hour

MEMBER CENTER “The Bar” Accommodates up to 100 people During business hours (8 am – 5 pm) Members (add $25/hour for after hour events) • Meeting only (individual or group, no food or beverages served: Free • Self-Service reception or party (provide own alcoholic beverages): $50 per hour • Hosted beer & wine reception or party (beer & wine provided by Association): $250/ 1st hour, $50/hour after Non-Members: (add $50/hour for after hour events) • Meeting only (individual or group, no food or beverages served): $50 per hour • Self-Service reception or party (provide own alcoholic beverages and food): $300/ 1st hour, $50/hour after • Hosted beer & wine reception or party – Not Available Non-Member, Not-for-Profit: (add $25/hour for after hour events) • Meeting only (individual or group, no food or beverages served): $25 per hour • Self-Service reception or party (provide own alcoholic beverages and food): $150/1st hour, $25/hour after • Hosted beer & wine reception or party – Not Available Association Committee Meetings (Conference Room or Member Center) Without beer & Wine - Free With Hosted Beer & Wine - $150 flat fee (for 5 – 15 people), $200 (over 15 people) Room rentals are based on availability. Rentals include use of A/V already in room (phone, TV, Speaker. WIFI).

All rentals include free parking in our large, well-lit, 45 vehicle parking lot adjacent to the LCBA building.

Contact the LCBA Office at 847-244-3143 or info@lakebar.org

Contents THE DOCKET • Vol. 26, No. 7 • July 2019

6 Bar Foundation A Personal Invitation to 8 Expanding Your Family Law Over 900 of My Closest Toolkit: The New Illinois Friends Firearms Restraining

BY NICHOLAS A. RIEWER, Order Act PRESIDENT FEATURES

BY STUART A. REID

24 The Meeting Minutes 14 Ooh, Ooh That Smell…Can’t May 15, 2019 You Smell that Smell?

BY TARA R. DEVINE, SECRETARY

A publication of the

BY HON. CHARLES D. JOHNSON

300 Grand Avenue, Suite A Waukegan, Illinois 60085 (847) 244-3143 • Fax: (847) 244-8259 www.lakebar.org • info@lakebar.org THE DOCKET EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Jeffrey A. Berman,Co-Editor Hon. Charles D. Johnson,Co-Editor Jennifer C. Beeler Hon. Michael J. Fusz Deborah L. Goldberg Hon. Daniel L. Jasica Sarah A. Kahn Kevin K. McCormick Hon. Raymond J. McKoski Tracy M. Poulakidas Stephen J. Rice Neal A. Simon Hon. ­­­James K. Simonian Rebecca J. Whitcombe Alex Zagor STAFF Dale Perrin Executive Director Jose Gonzalez Membership Coordinator Katherine Montemayor Office Manager

AD SIZE 1/8 Page 1/4 Page 1/2 Page Full Page Inside Front or Inside Back Cover

Back Cover

ONE ISSUE

6 ISSUES

18 Even in the Clerk’s Office, Change is the Only Constant 22

BY ERIN CARTWRIGHT WEINSTEIN

Special Needs Considerations in Divorce

BY MICKI MORAN

COLUMNS

2 President’s Page Chasing One Rabbit

BY STEPHEN J. RICE, PRESIDENT

4 The Chief Judge’s Page The Unsung Hero who Financed the American Revolution

BY CHIEF JUDGE JAY W. UKENA

12 ISSUES

$70 $65 $60 $120 $110 $100 $175 $160 $145 $295 $270 $245 $600 per issue (Full Color) $750 per issue (Full Color)

Color ad rates: add $199 per issue to the above stated rates, excludes cover ads.

Classified Advertising

Standard $1.75 per word (Rate for LCBA Members) Text $2.75 per word (Rate for Non-Members) Bold $3.50 per word (Rate for LCBA Members) Text $4.50 per word (Rate for Non-Members) Classified Advertisement may contain as many words, numbers, symbols and boldface type.

26

In the Director’s Chair

Thank You for a Great Year!

BY DALE PERRIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

LCBA EVENTS

IFC 2019 LCBA Office Rental Pricing 3 The Calendar of Events 5 New LCBA Members 5 Grapevine 7 LCBA Office Space 11 Lawyer Referral Service 13 2019 Installation Dinner 17 Young & New Lawyers Mingle with the Judges 27 LCBA Golf Outing 29 Member Reception Sponsorship Opportunities 32 Monthly Committee Meetings

Advertising Rates To place an ad or for information on advertising rates, call (847) 244-3143. Submission deadline: first day of month preceding the month of publication. All submissions must be made in electronic format (high resolution PDF or JPG format at a resolution of 300 pixels per inch or more.) See www.lakebar.org/page/Docket_Advertising The Docket is the official publication of the Lake County Bar Association, 300 Grand Avenue, Suite A, Waukegan, Illinois 60085 (847) 2443143, and is published monthly. Subscriptions for non-members are $45.00 per year.

Reproduction in whole or part without permission is prohibited. The opinions and positions stated in signed material are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Association or its members.

All submitted manuscripts are considered by the Editorial Board. All letters to the editor and articles are subject to editing. Publications of advertisements is not to be considered as an endorsement of any product or service advertised unless otherwise stated.

Chasing One Rabbit

M

any people have asked me this past year: What will be your “Presidential Initiative”? Effective leadership requires a “cure-cancer” or “Monroe Doctrine” impetus, right? Well, “Jein” (Ja/Nein), as the Germans cleverly say. This is how I

2019-2020 OFFICERS & DIRECTORS Stephen J. Rice President Hon. Patricia L. Cornell First Vice President Joseph M. Fusz Second Vice President Kathleen Curtin Treasurer Tara R. Devine Secretary Brian J. Lewis Immediate Past President Hon. Christen L. Bishop Katharine S. Hatch David R. Del Re Thomas A. Pasquesi Dwayne Douglas Daniel Hodgkinson

2

The Docket

got to Jein.

For incoming Bar Presidents, the ABA puts on a leadership seminar each year, which I attended. One of the presentations was titled “40 Tips for Presidents.” One of those tips was: “Don’t have a Presidential Initiative.” The guy who gave that tip summarized his point succinctly: “You’ll have a damned enough time trying to complete the initiatives of the last three presidents!”

Let me first exonerate my predecessors: we’ve had a bit of a time in the past few years. Enough said.

When the presenter announced this particular tip, the room (500-1,000 participants) collectively “uh-huhed” and nodded.

So why do presidential initiatives often bog down into sand? The answer is twofold, and interrelated: first, one year is not enough time to “cure cancer”; second, we all have day jobs that hoover up a lot of our time and energy.

Being Bar President is a second fulltime job, but it

The

President’s Page

is . . . second (at least the last time I made my mortgage payment it was).

Now some Smartypants reading this is thinking: “Duh! That’s why Presidential Initiatives should start when you’re Second VP, and then come to complete fruition in your Presidential year.” Well, Mr. Smartypants: see #2, above.

But I do have a Presidential “Goal,” and although it may not inspire you into battle, my guess is that it will resonate with you professionally, and maybe personally, too.

This “initiative” stems from things I have observed about the LCBA, but also about other organizations I represent, others I read about, and about my own life, as well. The initiative is cogently summarized by a book I learned about at the ABA seminar titled Essentialism. The book’s subtitle is: The Disciplined Pursuit

BY STEPHEN J. RICE PRESIDENT of Less. The message of the book is this: to foster success, we must daily seek to achieve the pursuit of less, but better. The reason for this is that if we don’t pursue less-with-discipline, then we will wind up in the undisciplined pursuit of more, which is to say: we will be undisciplined, full stop.

Multi-billion-dollar corporations might seem to have little to do with tiny legal associations, but there are lessons that apply from one to the other. Last year I read an article about Elon Musk and his “other” company, SpaceX. (If you’re looking for an inspirational tale, read the 2015 biography of Musk by Ashlee Vance.) Tesla is the Musk company that gets most of the headlines. This is in part due to Musk’s overoptimistic promises about it and its corresponding overoptimistic stock market

valuation (my opinion, of course, even after its precipitous decline over the last several months). But Telsa renomé also comes from the fact that you see the cars all over Chicagoland these days, and especially at family law committee meetings.

The SpaceX article described how that company was, from a business perspective, quite different from Tesla. Though also a young company—Musk founded Tesla and SpaceX around the same time— SpaceX was profitable.

At the time and still today, Tesla was fending off insolvency rumors amid mostly unprofitable quarterly results and enormous cash-burn.

The article highlighted that SpaceX was much more like many other successful companies: it developed a technology—a successful rocket—and then relentlessly improved the design from one year to the next. In Silicon-Valley-business-speak, it “iterated.” In Essentialism-speak, it could be said to have pursued less, but better: first launch a rocket (2008); next, launch a satellite into space (2009); then, have a capsule return from space (2010); stick a reverse-landing (2015); re-use a rocket (2017); more recently, autonomously dock with the international space station (2019).

(Musk’s goal is to colonize Mars, by the way.)

So SpaceX has been much less sexy than Tesla, which appears built on the slogan “you gotta bet big to win big.” SpaceX, by contrast, appears to be a more conventional story of

steady, deliberative planning, growth, and profitability, with much less of the PR and marketing flash that underpins Tesla. (I would note that this was the narrative of the article, but not necessarily a complete picture of SpaceX, which has also taken a “bet big to win big” approach that nearly failed before it succeeded.)

Back to the LCBA, and to essentialism. I would like this year to be a SpaceX year: We are going to improve our Association by improving what we do, as opposed to attempting a “cancer cure” (in other words: no self-driving taxis to the courthouse this year, folks!). I would like us to pursue the disciplined pursuit of less-but-better in the many things we do— and there are a lot of them.

Doing less is not necessarily hard. But being disciplined in pursuing less is very hard—in fact, it may be the hardest thing we do. Read Essentialism for the full story on that; it is a short book with a powerful message.

I realize this “initiative,” such as it is, is not the “Ludicrous Mode” some of you might want. Perhaps Judge Cornell will take you for a spin in a new Tesla Model S/3/X/Y next year!

(Yes, those are Tesla’s actual model designations.)

This year, we are going to keep building the core business that was rocked two years ago, when hewhose-name-shall-not-bementioned pulled the rip cord and forced us to triage our operations.

Essentialism reflects the proverb “chase two rabbits, catch none.” My initiative is for us to chase one rabbit.

Let’s make our Association a better value to lawyers— members, and nonmembers who we want to become members—by doing what we do already, but better.

Let’s make the programmatic side of our operations— the CLEs; the Gridiron; the golf outing—operate better, especially financially. Why? Because when those things work better: 1. They attract more members, which we—like every other Bar Association nationwide—need; 2. They generate non-dues revenue, which we need, because nobody wants to pay ever-increasing dues rates; 3. They help us provide better benefits for our employees, which helps us hire, helps us nurture, and, frankly, helps us not fall into the next crisis.

In short, they help us catch the one rabbit, which will nourish us and allow us to do bigger, better things in the future. My apologies to the vegetarians.

The Smartypants is thinking: “too vague; too uninspiring; I’d rather have the Tesla!” I get that. The “disciplined pursuit of less, but better” is not a clarion call to battle. You might think that very few highly coveted, successful organizations were ever created under the “less-but-better” mantra. In fact, very few organizations thrive—and many have perished—without it. (I used to work for one: Yahoo!, which exists today, but not in its original corporate form. Yahoo! is a case study in having chased two rabbits. Two hundred, actually.)

But how will we measure your efforts, Steve?

How will we know if you have earned the enormous salary an LCBA President receives (wait, what!? . . . ) I’ll give you one example of something I’d like us to improve: our Lawyer Referral Service (LRS). If you want to measure me on something in 12 months, then the LRS provides a good metric. We can make that better, and it should achieve the three goals I set forth above. I hope that a clearer focus will help us improve the LRS, and to more broadly achieve what the cover to the book illustrates in its expressive drawing:

Rabbits aside, let’s hop to it!

9

The

9

Calendar of Events

July 22 Anatomy of a Trial – Closing Statements by Patrick Salvi Courtroom T810 July 25 Civil Trial Seminar 7-11:30 am Glen Flora Country Club July 25 LCBA Golf Outing 11:30 am – 7 pm Glen Flora Golf Club August 10 LCBF Family BBQ at Lake Minear Nick & Michone Riewer’s Estate

July 2019

3

The Unsung Hero who Financed the American Revolution

W

hen we think of the heroes of the American Revolution, luminaries such as Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John and Samuel Adams and John Hancock usually come to mind. But the person many say King George III hated the most, and who he called him “the most damning name of all on the Declaration of Independence”, was Robert Morris. He was the financier of the revolution and undoubtedly deserves to be properly recognized for his role in the founding of America.

Morris came from humble beginnings as an orphan immigrant from England who served as an apprentice for a shipper/ banker in Philadelphia.

He then by the age of 24, had opened the London Coffee House and had set up both shipping and banking firms of his own. He quickly garnered

4

The Docket

wealth and contacts and was renowned throughout his community, the colonies and the world. However, excessive British interference in the corporate affairs of the American colonies stirred Morris’ desire for liberty.

The Stamp Act of 1765, he felt, was a particularly egregious infringement for businessmen, prompting him to assemble his fellow colonists and take to the streets in protest.

By inspiring his fellow colonists, Morris’ efforts held the overreach of the Monarchy in check. Because of these efforts, he found himself in the Second Continental Congress where he managed organizational capital, even precuring war supplies from Europe in preparation for the large-scale conflict with England. His connections with distributors in the commercial shipping industry allowed him to identify and involve

The

Chief Judge’s Page supporters, even those in Europe who were sympathetic to the budding revolution in the colonies.

Initially Morris thought that the discussion of revolution might be premature and questioned whether the colonies were yet in the position to govern themselves. However, witnessing the desire of the people to be set free, he decided to abstain from voting against the motion for American independence and let it pass. In a letter to General Horacio Gates, Morris revealed his willingness to set aside his personal thoughts on revolt, because how earnestly his fellow colonists desired it, and said “I’m not one of those politicians that run testy when my own plans are not adopted for I think it is the duty of a good citizen to follow when he cannot

BY CHIEF JUDGE JAY W. UKENA lead,” and he gladly signed the Declaration of Independence. Because of his fund-raising abilities and character, he made friends with George Washington and wrote him over 130 letters from 1776 to 1798.

When Washington was hard pressed to cross the Delaware from the famous battle of Trenton, it was Morris who provided the much needed $10,000.00 to get provisions for those troops. It provided the boost to Washington that was needed for the decisive victory in Trenton.

During the Yorktown campaign in 1781, the fledging nation was again physically faltering, so Morris then issued a note of over one million dollars on his own credit to keep the nation and that campaign going. As he wrote to Benjamin Harrison, “my personal credit which thank heaven, I have

preserved though all the tempests of war has been substituted for that which the country has lost. I’m now striving to transfer that credit to the public.”

Morris was so respected not only in the colonies, but also in Europe, that he was able to secure many of the loans on behalf of the government to help finance the war. As most historians say, no other individual contributed more to the funding of the Revolutionary War, than Robert Morris. He truly lived the words in the Declaration he signed pledging his life, fortune and sacred honor for the sake of his soon to be country.

Without Morris’ tireless efforts to provide the army with what little they had, many suggest it was not plausible for the Continental Army to have survived, much less win the war. It should be noted that Morris also acted as Secretary of State, which was then called Agent of the Marine, during the war, a position he took without pay. In addition, the leaders of the Continental Army had to induce soldiers to leave their homes and farms and tolerate the miserable, destitute conditions suffered by the Continental Army. They promised those soldiers a lifetime pension of one half their pay, as opposed to the pay they actually received, which was often nothing at all. Morris realized that this was an obligation that post-revolutionary governmental had no way to meet. The soldiers realized that too, nearly

leading to a military coup in March of 1783, called the Newburg Conspiracy.

Morris received an impassionate personal plea from George Washington, that plea was largely responsible for ending the Newburg Conspiracy.

Congress paid some of the arrears to the Continental Army and further promised to pay the rest. Morris came to realize the country as constituted at that time, could never raise enough money to pay for the promised pensions. He also realized that there was significant sentiment in the colonies for refusing to pay Continental Army services’ pension at all. Morris was so disgusted with the attitudes of many, he resigned his post but decided to pay every soldier in the Continental Army three months of pension out of his own personal funds. He spent his last days in office printing personal checks to Continental Army soldiers.

Morris eventually became part of the Pennsylvania Delegation to the Constitutional Convention which made him one of the few men in America to sign the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution. Morris was elected as a member of the Continental Congress and is credited with casting the tie breaking vote in favor of George Washington in 1778 when the Conway Kubal, a group of individuals who opposed Washington and attempted to remove him as the commander of the Continental Army.

During the Constitutional Convention, he demonstrated what a fiery speaker he was and made a lot of political enemies along the way. Many say he was the most prominent person to attend the convention, with the possible exception of Madison.

According to notes taken at the convention, Morris rose to speak more than any other delegate including Madison, totaling an astounding 173 speeches.

Morris also drafted the Preamble to the Constitution which changed both the shape and debate over ratification and is perhaps responsible for forming more than anything else, the understanding that Constitution was intended to represent a truly unified country. Initially, the Preamble read, We the people of the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, etc.... Morris unilaterally changed this language to simply say, “We the people of the United States.” The significance of that change itself cannot be overstated.

At the time, there was very little public concept of what the term, the ‘United States’ meant. Before that concept was introduced, most citizens simply considered themselves to be citizens of an individual sovereign colony, whether it be Massachusetts, New York, or any of the others.

Morris’ choice of words in the Constitution caused people to realize that they were not voting for a confederation of independent colonies but were instead voting to transform a loose confederation of independent entities into a single

unified country.

After the ratification, Morris moved to France and became the ambassador to France from 1792 to 1794. After he returned to America, he finished out a senate term due to the resignation of James Watson. Morris was defeated for re-election in 1803 but continued to play an important secondary role in American Society, including serving as chairman of the Erie Canal Commission. After the ratification of the Constitution, Robert Morris did not play the same significant role in American history as did Washington, Adams, Jefferson and others. But without Robert Morris, it is difficult to imagine that our country would exist in the form it does today.

Welcome

New LCBA Members Attorneys Hailee Zabrin Berger Schatz

Jennifer Neubauer Shaw Law Ltd James Ferolo Klein Thorpe & Jenkins, Ltd. Michael Maher Salvi & Maher, L.L.C. Bruce Wolf Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard, P.C.

Professional Kathryn Walker Wintrust Waukegan Community Bank

Students Elizabeth Cannon Robert Ware

July 2019

5

A Personal Invitation to Over 900 of My Closest Friends

I

nitially, I would like to address this to the members of the Foundation Board who recruited me to serve as BOARD OF TRUSTEES Nicholas A. Riewer President Carey J. Schiever Vice President Joann M. Fratianni Secretary Perry S. Smith Jr. Treasurer Jeffrey A. Berman Immediate Past President Jennifer L. Ashley Nandia P. Black Douglas S. Dorando Kristie Fingerhut Hon. Fred Foreman (Ret.) Joseph M. Fusz Scott B. Gibson Kenneth J. Glick David J. Gordon Keith C. Grant Amy L. Lonergan Fredric B. Lesser Steven P. McCollum Joseph Morrison Michael G. Nerheim Melanie Rummel Hon. Henry C. Tonigan (Ret.) Hon. Joseph R. Waldeck (Ret.)

6

The Docket

President for the next two (2) years (Scott and Rick). There is no limo, is there? There is no yacht, is there? Good one, you got me.

The remainder of this article is directed at the other 900 plus members of the Lake County Bar Association who are also members of the Lake County Bar Foundation.

As President of the Bar Foundation I have been asked to assist and guide the Foundation to achieve its state purposes. There are several purposes that the Foundation is charged with, the first being “promoting the charitable, educational, scientific and literary mission of the Lake County Bar Association”. This can be found at Section 2 of the by-laws. If you are ever really really bored some evening and can’t think of

BY NICHOLAS A. RIEWER PRESIDENT anything else to do, you might want to look at the Association website which contains a section for the Foundation including our by-laws.

Essentially, the Bar Foundation is charged with raising money for philanthropic purposes. This is why, for the next 2 years, I will constantly be trying to get my hands in your pockets to help raise money.

Historically, the Bar Foundation has had a “GALA” every other year. Last year we held the GALA at Lake Shore Harley Davidson and were able to raise approximately $23,000.00, a substantial portion of which was donated to “Waukegan to College”.

In the past, the Bar Foundation has not had a formal fund raiser in the off years. We do, however, have the use of a condo

in Cabo San Lucas each year for 1 week. We sell raffle tickets for the use of the condo in an attempt to raise additional money to be used for charitable purposes. The raffle for the condo has generally been done at the annual holiday party.

Because this is in off year, I was trying to come up with a less formal event to help the Foundation raise money for charitable endeavors. As I mentioned in last months Docket article, I came up with a hair-brained idea of having a summer barbeque/party at my house.

Well, we’re gonna do it. Please accept this as an invitation to all members of the Lake County Bar Association/Foundation to join us on August 10, 2019 at my house for an afternoon/evening of food, beverages, swim-

ming and hopefully getting sunburned. This event is for the whole family so please bring your children. I am fortunate enough to live on a small lake in Libertyville, so we have swimming and water toys available for the kids. You should plan on bringing swimming suits, towels, sunscreen and life jackets for the little ones. My wife and I and our firm will provide the venue and all food and beverages (adult and kids). We will charge a modest fee of $20.00 per adult for the event and children will be free. All of the money generated through ticket sales will go directly to the Lake County Bar Foundation.

None of the money will be used to offset any costs

associated with throwing the party. We will also sell raffle tickets for the Cabo condo during the event.

The specifics for the event are as follows: Date: August 10, 2019 Time: 1:00 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Location: Riewer Estate in Libertyville, IL Menu: Appetizers, smoked pulled pork, smoked brisket, hamburgers, hotdogs and desserts.

In order to help me plan how much food and drink we will need, please RSVP at www.LakeBar. org or 847-244-3143.

I hope to see as many of you as possible on the 10th. You will be receiving a separate email which will contain my address.

See you soon.

Lake County Bar Foundation

at Lake Minear August 10, 2019 1:00 p.m. - 7 p.m.

Riewer Estate Libertyville, IL

$20 per adult • Children are FREE All food and beverages (adult and kids) will be provided.

This event is for the whole family. There is a lake for swimming, so bring swim suits, towels, sunscreen and life jackets for the little ones.

RSVP at www.LakeBar.org or 847-244-3143

All proceeds to benefit the Lake County Bar Foundation.

Your New Office Could be in the LCBA Building

• Furnished • Approximately 2,000 square feet • Two blocks from the courthouse • Two private offices • Conference room

• • • •

Large reception area Men’s and women’s bathrooms Small kitchen Free parking for staff and clients

Available Now Contact Dale Perrin at dale@lakebar.org to view the property and get more details.

July 2019

7

Expanding Your Family Law Toolkit: The New Illinois Firearms Restraining Order Act

E

BY STUART A. REID

ffective January 1, 2019, Illinois became the seventh state to provide a legal mechanism through which family members and law enforcement officers may seek the removal of firearms from an individual in order to prevent that person from harming others or, as is often the case, harming themselves.

That statute is the Illinois Firearms Restraining Order Act, located at 430 ILCS 67 et. seq. Illinois family law attorneys are generally quite familiar with Orders of Protection and, to a lesser degree, Stalking No Contact Orders, each of which can be used to provide protections for individuals when violence, threats, stalking or harassment meet certain criteria. However, the new Firearms Restraining Order Act is more narrowly focused and has received limited attention since its enactment. On March 4, 2019, the Lake County Clerk of Court published a series of five firearms restraining order forms1 on its website. Similar forms are now appearing online in various counties across the state. This article will provide you Stuart Reid with an overview of the Illinois Firearms is an Attorney at Restraining Order Act and will compare Law with the and contrast it with Orders of Protec-

1

8

The forms consist of: A Verified Petition for Firearms Restraining Order; a Firearms Restraining Order Summons; an Emergency Firearms Restraining Order; a Six Month Firearms Restraining Order; and a Motion to Terminate Firearms Restraining Order.

The Docket

Law Offices of Stuart A. Reid in Deerfield, IL.

tion and Stalking No Contact Orders in terms of who may petition for one, the remedies available, and the relevant timelines and procedures.

BACKGROUND Firearms Restraining Orders (or “FROs,”) have already proven effective at reducing gun violence. While ninety percent of Americans who attempt suicide survive the attempt, less than ten percent of Americans who attempt suicide using a firearm survive.2 Researchers in Connecticut concluded that for every ten to twenty gun seizures under that state’s Firearms Restraining Order statute, one suicide was averted.3 In 2018, the day after Vermont’s new statute went into effect, Vermont law enforcement officials obtained an 2 Implementation and Effectiveness of Connecticut’s Risk-Based Gun Removal Law: Does It Prevent Suicides, Jeffrey W. Swanson, PHD et. al., Law and Contemporary Problems 80 (2) 2017, 179 at 204.

3 Id. at 203.

extreme risk protective order against a high school student who maintained a journal titled “Journal of an Active Shooter,” which detailed his plans to kill more students than any previous school shooter.4 While gun control opponents have been quick to raise due process concerns relative to firearms restraining orders5, the due process protections in the Illinois Firearms Restraining Order Act are robust. First, an ex parte emergency Order under the Illinois Firearms Restraining Order Act is limited to a maximum duration of 14 days after which a full hearing must occur (although it may be extended for a longer period by mutual agreement of the parties). This is a shorter maximum duration that either Emergency Orders of Protection or Emergency Stalking No Contact Orders in Illinois, each of which are limited to 21 days. Likewise, the maximum duration of a FRO issued after a full hearing is six months, while plenary Orders of Protection and Stalking No Contact Orders can be issued for up to two years. Furthermore, not only does the Firearms Restraining Order Act provide that “[a] person subject to a firearms restraining order issued by this Act may submit one written request at any time during the effective period of the order for a hearing to terminate the order,”6 the statute even goes so far as to specifically require the court to provide the respondent with the form necessary to request a termination hearing upon the issuance of the FRO. In addition, if the respondent is alleged to constitute an immediate danger to an intimate partner7, the petitioner must make a good faith effort to provide notice to the intimate partner of the intent to seek an emergency order, which provides an

opportunity for the intimate partner to testify against the issuance of a firearms restraining order if she (or he) feels it is unwarranted. Finally, the Illinois statute provides that any person who knowingly provides false information in attempting to obtain a FRO is guilty of perjury under Section 32-2 of the Criminal Code of 2012.8 Suffice to say, the new Illinois statute arguably “bends over backwards” to provide ample due process protections even beyond those existing under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act and the Stalking No Contact Order Act. WHO MAY APPLY Both family members of the respondent and law enforcement officers are permitted to petition under the Illinois Firearms Restraining Order Act. “Family members” include spouses, parents, children, step-children and any other person related by blood or by present marriage to the respondent, as well as persons who share a common dwelling with the respondent. From an Illinois family law perspective, two significant exclusions are clear. First, a former spouse is not eligible to petition for an Illinois Firearms Restraining Order, although former spouses are often petitioners for Orders of Protection and Stalking No Contact Orders.

Second, an intimate partner who does not share a common dwelling with the respondent is also, somewhat inexplicably, ineligible to seek a FRO. Again, people in intimate relationships, such as parents of a child in common or those in a dating or engagement relationship, but who maintain separate residences, may desire the protections that a FRO provides, but currently lack standing under the new Illinois Firearms Restraining Order Act. Notably, while the Act provides a detailed definition of “family member,” no definition is provided for a “law enforcement officer” suggesting a broadly inclusive definition of that term.

It is also worth noting that there are other several other classes of individuals who might conclude that an emergency firearms restraining order is warranted, but who are likewise excluded as petitioners under the act. For example, neither school administrators nor fellow students who become aware of a classmate making dangerous or threatening statements may petition for a FRO under the Illinois Act (although the New York equivalent of the law allows school

On February 15, 2019, disgruntled employee Gary Martin killed five people and wounded several police officers in Aurora, Illinois upon learning that his employment was being terminated.

4 5

6 7

Giffords Law Center, Extreme Risk Protection Orders, https:// lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-agun/extreme-risk-protection-orders/#state See The ABA is Committed to Due Process, Unless You’re a Gun Owner, https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorburrus/2017/09/13/the-aba-is-committed-to-due-process-unlessyoure-a-gun-owner/#7f502bc127ce and Are Gun Violence Restraining Orders Consistent With Due Process?, https:// reason.com/blog/2018/02/20/are-gun-violence-restraining-orders-cons 430 ILCS 67/45(a). Emphasis added.

Defined as a spouse, former spouse, a parent with whom the respondent has or allegedly has a child in common, or a person with whom the respondent has or has had a dating or engagement relationship.

8

430 ILCS 67/35(c).

July 2019

9

administrators to petition9). Second, mental health and other health care workers, such as in-home care providers, might have more frequent and extensive contact with a potential respondent and become aware of individuals threatening harm to themselves, experiencing signs of dementia or severe depression and wielding firearms in their home in a haphazard or alarming fashion. A neighbor might become aware of gunfire coming from a neighbor’s property, combined with indications of mental instability and alcohol or drug abuse. Again, however, each of these categories of potential petitioners lack standing under Illinois law and must obtain the cooperation of a qualifying family member or law enforcement official if a Petition is to be prepared.

HOW THE PROCESS WORKS The process of obtaining an Illinois FRO is commenced by filing a verified petition in the county where the respondent resides.10 As with Orders of Protection and Stalking No Contact Orders, county clerks may not charge fees for filing, amending, vacating, certifying or photocopying petitions or orders. Likewise, no fees may be charged for service by the sheriff or other law enforcement officials. The initial petition may seek an emergency, ex parte order, in which case the affidavit or verified pleading must allege that the respondent poses an “immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another” by firearm, and must also disclose the type and location of any firearms believed to be in the possession or control of the respondent.11 An emergency hearing shall be held the same day that the petition is filed or the next day that the court is in session. Alternatively, a party may move directly for a 6month firearms restraining order alleging that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another in the near future by firearm12; however, a 6 month order may not be obtained on an emergency ex parte basis. While it is not entirely unambiguous, the fairest reading of the statute is that a petitioner may not seek a 6 month order on an emergency basis by providing notice of the emergency court appearance to the Respondent. Rather, the choice appears to be clearly between seeking an initial emergency ex parte order and then proceeding to the full evidentiary hearing within 14 days of the emergency order’s issuance or petitioning directly for a 6 month order on a non-emergency basis. Again, though, it is critical to note that regardless of whether one is seeking an emergency or 6 month order, notice must be provided to “any and all” intimate partners if the respondent is alleged to present a danger to, or have made a threat against, the intimate partner.13 There is no parallel to this clause in either the Illinois Domestic Violence Act or the Illinois Stalking No Contact Order Act and, as a result, it seems likely that this clause may some9 10 11 12 13

Effective August 24, 2019 (2019 NY SB 2451/ AB 2689).

430 ILCS 67/10.

430 ILCS 67/35.

430 ILCS 67/40.

430 ILCS 67/35, 40.

10 The Docket

times trip up petitioners who are not familiar with the new statutory requirements.

The burden of proof for an emergency 14 day order is “probable cause to believe that the respondent poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another” by firearm.14 That burden rises from the level of probable cause to “clear and convincing evidence” for the issuance of a 6 month order.15 Notably, the statute does not indicate any discretion in the court to issue orders of more than 14 days but less than 6 months in duration, stating, “if the court finds clear and convincing evidence to issue a firearms restraining order, the court shall issue a firearms restraining order that shall be in effect for 6 months” subject to renewal or termination.16 This too is different from plenary Orders of Protection and Stalking No Contact Orders, both of which are limited to a maximum of two years, but which provide the court with the discretion to determine the duration within that range.17 Perhaps the most critical component of an Illinois firearms restraining order is that if the court issues either an emergency or 6 month order and makes a probable cause finding that the respondent possesses firearms, then the court “shall… issue a search warrant directing a law enforcement agency to seize the respondent’s firearms.”18 This requirement of a search warrant in conjunction with the issuance of a firearms restraining order helps to fill a critical gap in enforcement when an individual whose rights to possess a firearm have been revoked. On February 15, 2019, disgruntled employee Gary Martin killed five people and wounded several police officers in Aurora, Illinois upon learning that his employment was being terminated. That individual’s Illinois firearm owner’s identification card had been revoked and his concealed carry permit denied when a background check found that he had a mid-1990’s felony conviction for aggravated assault in another state.19 Although a letter was issued by the state police instructing Martin that his FOID card had been revoked and required him to give up his weapons, it does not appear that any further action was taken to enforce his FOID revocation. As stated by Mark Jones, senior policy advisor for the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, “They rely on people to be compliant… It’s an honor system. There’s no real teeth in it…”20 As a result, “More than 75 percent of the people who received gun license revocations last year in Illinois ignored the notices” according to Illinois state police.21 While about 10,800 firearm-owner cards were revoked in 2018, only about 14 15 16 17 18 19

430 ILCS 67/35(f) 430 ILCS 67/40(f).

430 ILCS 67/40(g).

750 ILCS 60/202(b)(0.05) and 740 ILCS 21/105(b), respectively.

430 ILCS 67/35(f-5) and 40(g-5), respectively.

Aurora shooter should not have had a gun due to felony conviction, but state law failed to stop him, Chicago Tribune, February 16, 2019. https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/aurora-beacon-news/news/ ct-met-aurora-gary-martin-gun-20190216-story.html 20 Id. 21 Records: 75 percent of revoked Illinois gun licenses ignored, Fox News, February 22, 2019. https://www.foxnews.com/us/ records-75-percent-of-revoked-illinois-gun-licenses-ignored

LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE

Why should YOU join the LCBA Lawyer Referral Service?

The LCBA Lawyer Referral Service (LRS) is a valuable member benefit as well as a public service. LRS provides member attorneys with an opportunity to build business through client referrals. The service benefits the public by helping callers quickly find an attorney in the area of law in which they need help. The LRS is widely publicized and all LCBA members in good standing who carry the required malpractice insurance are eligible to join.

The LRS program is designed to assist persons who are able to pay normal attorney fees but whose ability to locate legal representation is frustrated by a lack of experience with the legal system, a lack of information about the type of services needed, or a fear of the potential costs of seeing a lawyer.

The Lawyer Referral Service is an intuitive win/win/win. We’re helping the public, by providing them with legal resources with some degree of reliability; we’re helping our members, by playing matchmaker with clients whom they can help for a minimal referral cost; and we’re helping the Bar Association and our public image by offering our services. Although not all of the matches will work out, the risks and costs are minimal and the rewards are great.

Deborah Goldberg, Goldberg & Kane

“I have been a member of the referral service for many years, particularly in the fields of Trusts & Estates. The service has generated a stream of potential clients, some of which are not viable but many of which have ripened into clients for litigation or estate planning. Frankly, I don’t mind answering people’s questions about our field of law, which most people find confusing. The referral service has been a great way for potential clients to speak with me and discuss the issues before having to spend money and before I have to commit to the clients. I whole-heartedly recommend the LCBA’s Client Referral Service as a way to grow your practice.”

Fredric Bryan Lesser, Lesser Lutrey McGlynn & Howe LLP As a long-time member of the LCBA Lawyer Referral Service I know how useful it is to be a member of the service. I have obtained several cases through the service and would strongly recommend that attorneys seeking cases join.

Compared to the many online services that claim to provide cases, the LCBA’s referral service actually delivers at a much lower cost.

Steve McCollum, Law Offices of Steven P. McCollum, P.C.

AVA I L A B L E R E F E R R A L PA N E L S • Administrative • Appellate • Commercial

• Consumer • Criminal • Employment

• Environmental • Family • Real Estate

• Estate Planning, Wills, Trusts and Probate • Personal Injury / Property Damage

C O N TA C T T H E L C B A AT 8 4 7 . 2 4 4 . 3 1 4 3 O R AT I N F O @ L A K E B A R . O R G

L A K E C O U N T Y L A W Y E R . I NJulyF2019O 11

2,600 of those individuals returned the firearms disposition records documenting that the firearms had been transferred out of their possession following the revocation.22 The requirement of a search warrant when a FRO is issued, while unlikely to result in the removal of every firearm subject to such orders, does ensure an active law enforcement effort to go to the respondent’s residence (or other places where the Respondent’s firearms are23) and collect the firearms for safekeeping while the order is in effect.

EXTENDING AND TERMINATING ORDERS A respondent subject to an Illinois FRO may petition once for a hearing to terminate the order, but bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that they no longer pose a danger to themselves or others by having firearms in their possession.24 This same subsection permits the petitioner to petition for a renewal of a firearms restraining order at any time during the last 3 months before the expiration of the order. It is also worth noting the respondent may petition the court to allow his or her firearms be transferred to another person who may lawfully possess them, rather than being held by law enforcement, so long 22 Id. 23 430 ILCS 67/35(f-5) and 40(g-5), respectively.

24 430 ILCS 67/45.

12

The Docket

as that person does not reside at the same address.25 This clause certainly raises concerns about a respondent transferring their firearms to aligned family members (parents, siblings, etc.) living nearby who might be considerably less diligent about keeping the firearms out their hands than if the weapons were in law enforcement custody.

CONCLUSION It is important to remember that every fact pattern is unique and that an Illinois Firearms Restraining Order is not going to be the appropriate tool in every situation where a firearms owner is behaving inappropriately. However, by adding the Firearms Restraining Order to your family law toolkit, alongside Orders of Protection, Stalking No Contact Orders, divorce court injunctions and other remedies, you will be better able to tailor your remedy requested to the particular issue your family law clients are facing. The Illinois legislature has clearly made a concerted effort to balance public safety and due process concerns in crafting the Illinois Firearms Restraining Order Act and, while the exact tipping point of that balance can always be debated, the evidence is rapidly accumulating that Firearms Restraining Orders are preventing gun deaths in those states where they have become available.

25 430 ILCS 67/45(i-5).

2019 INSTALLATION DINNER EXMOOR COUNTRY CLUB, JUNE 7, 2019

Continued on page 17

July 2019

13

Ooh, Ooh That Smell…Can’t You Smell that Smell? - Lynyrd Skynyrd.

BY HON. CHARLES D. JOHNSON

I

n the last several years, the decriminalization and soon-to-come legalization1 of marijuana in Illinois has spawned questions in other related areas, such as how to quantify intoxication for the charge of Driving Under the Influence of Drugs2 and the effect of potential legalization on those previously convicted for cannabis-related offenses.3 Another emerging issue involves the “plain smell” doctrine: whether the smell of cannabis from a motor vehicle can constitute reasonable belief of criminal activity, sufficient to stop or search that motor vehicle. Two recent cases, In re O.S. 2018 IL App (1st) 17176 and People v. Rice 2019 IL App (3d) 170134, seem to have conclusively resolved the question in favor of such olfactory probable cause determinations.123 The plain smell doctrine is first Hon. Charles mentioned in Illinois in a 1970 case D. Johnson where officers testified that they has been an smelled marijuana and saw DefenAssociate Judge for the dant apparently drop something, 1

2 3

14

https://chicago.suntimes.com/ news/legal-pot-marijuana-legalization-jb-pritzker-interview-graduated-income-tax-lightfoot/, accessed 4/29/19 https://will.illinois.edu/news/story/highon-the-highway-challenges-with-marijuana-duis, accessed 4/29/19 https://www.chicagoreader.com/ chicago/weed-whacked-decriminalization-cannabis-convictions/Content?oid=69668832, accessed 4/29/19

The Docket

where marijuana was later found. The Court said that: “[w]here the smell of contraband is established to the satisfaction of the court, it is a sufficient basis under proper circumstances for officers to believe that a crime is being committed in their presence.”4

19th Judicial Circuit since 2005. He was an assistant Lake County State’s Attorney from 1990 to 1994, and a local prosecutor from 1994 to 2005. He is currently assigned to the Criminal Division.

“Plain smell” was also later mentioned in a concurrence in a 1975 case involving canine sniffs of luggage at O’Hare Airport:

“…the contents of the suitcases were in ‘plain smell’, a variation of the plain view doctrine, so that the defendants had no reasonable 4 People v. Erb, 128 Ill. App. 2d 126, 132, 261 N.E.2d 431, 434 (Ill. App. Ct. 1970).

In addition to being instructive on the issue, you just can’t ignore a case called Erb on the subject of officers smelling marijuana; it’s like predestination.

expectation of privacy as to the escaping odors.”5 It was also later referred to in People v. Bartelt, another dog-sniff case, in which the Court upheld the validity of a dog-sniff search of Defendant’s vehicle, despite that the officer required Defendant to engage in a “set-up” procedure of rolling up the windows and turning the blowers on high. This time in a dissent, the Court addressed the nature of the “plain smell” doctrine:

“In order for the ‘plain view’ or ‘plain smell’ doctrines to be applicable, the officer, and in this case (the dog), had to be in a place where they could lawfully be before they could lawfully view or smell.”6

or actually lying. More is required.”11 Wombacher accepted this premise wholeheartedly, stating: “We concur with the Argenian court that to hold that the uncorroborated testimony of a police officer that he smelled the odor of cannabis is sufficient to establish probable cause justifying a search would be to give an unlimited license to conduct searches.”12 At this point, it would have seemed that the plain smell doctrine was dead in the water. Subsequently, however, in People v. Stout, the Illinois Supreme Court considered the appeal of a trial court order suppressing the search of a vehicle based solely on an officer’s testimony that he smelled the odor of cannabis coming from the car. In reversing the trial court and the Appellate Court’s affirmance of the trial court’s order, the Stout court held:

All other things being equal, this case law history would seem to have established beyond doubt the validity of plain smell evidence in supporting a search of a motor vehicle.

The plain smell doctrine seems to have had a difficult time getting accepted, as seen in Erb, where the Court went to great lengths to explain that there were other factors supporting probable cause.7 Subsequently, in People v. Wombacher,8 the Court relied on a prior case entitled People v Argenian.9 In Argenian, an officer testified that he smelled the odor of burnt cannabis coming from a vehicle that had been involved in a motor vehicle accident, and based on this observation, searched the vehicle, finding a handgun in the glove box.10 The Argenian court seemed none too pleased with this scenario, upholding the suppression of the evidence: “ To hold otherwise would be to give an unlimited license to any police officer to search any and all vehicles merely on his uncorroborated testimony that he was an expert marijuana sniffer and that he smelled marijuana in the car. That testimony could conveniently be used to justify any search at any time whether or not there was marijuana on the premises and whether or not the officer was a qualified expert or was honestly mistaken 5 People v. Campbell, 35 Ill. App. 3d 196, 205, (1975), rev’d on other issues, 67 Ill. 2d 308 (1977) 6 People v. Bartelt, 384 Ill. App. 3d 1028, 1038–39 (2008), aff’d, 241 Ill. 2d 217 (2011) 7 128 Ill.App.2d at 132-35 8 104 Ill.App.3d 812 (1982) 9 97 Ill.App.3d 592 (1981) 10 And a pipe containing regular tobacco, but no cannabis. 97 Ill. App. 3d 592, 593

“The trial court erroneously relied on People v.

Wombacher and People v. Argenian.

In both of those cases the appellate court held that an officer’s testimony that he smelled the odor of burning cannabis must be corroborated in order to establish probable cause. Such additional corroboration is not required where a trained and experienced police officer detects the odor of cannabis emanating from a defendant’s vehicle.

Hence, to the extent that our holding in this case conflicts with the holdings in People v. Wombacher and People v. Argenian, and any other case dealing with this issue, they are incorrect and are not to be followed.13” The plain smell doctrine had thus been re-invigorated. , The Illinois Supreme Court considered the question once again 21 years later, this time going back to the dogs in People v. Caballes: “ the use of a well-trained narcotics-detection dog—one that ‘does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from 11 97 Ill. App. 3d 592, 594 12 104 Ill. App. 3d 812, 817 13 106 Ill. 2d 77, 88 internal citations omitted

July 2019

15

public view,’ [citation] —during a lawful traffic stop, generally does not implicate legitimate privacy interests cognizable under the fourth amendment.”14 All other things being equal, this case law history would seem to have established beyond doubt the validity of plain smell evidence in supporting a search of a motor vehicle.15 However, in July, 2016, the Illinois legislature effectively decriminalized possession of less than 10 grams of cannabis. Shortly thereafter, in January, 2017, the minor “O.S.” was found by Chicago Police to be in possession of a .22 caliber Beretta handgun, for which he was ultimately adjudicated delinquent16 In the course of his juvenile case, during a hearing on O.S.’s Motion to Suppress Evidence, Chicago Police Officer Jason Cloherty testified that he and his partners drove past a vehicle stopped on the street in Chicago. Officer Cloherty testified that he smelled the odor of cannabis coming from the parked vehicle, which was also parked in a no-parking zone, and the officers stopped and approached the vehicle based on these observations. O.S., who was the front seat passenger, was removed from the car, whereupon the Beretta was located in his jacket pocket. Among other things, O.S. argued that, because the possession of small amounts of marijuana had been decriminalized, the odor of marijuana could no longer provide probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to authorize a search of a vehicle.17 In support of this theory, O.S. cited to Commonwealth v. Cruz,18 in which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had held that, because of a referendum resulting in the decriminalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana, “odor of burnt marijuana alone cannot reasonably provide suspicion of criminal activity.19 Nevertheless, the O.S. court also examined case law from other jurisdictions in which the question of decriminalization vis-à-vis plain smell has been considered,20 and concluded that “case law holding that the odor of marijuana is indicative of criminal activity remains viable notwithstanding…decriminalization…”21 Even more recently, in People v. Rice,22 the Court considered the exact issue framed in O.S., and (perhaps surprisingly, given the somewhat up-and-down history of the plain smell doctrine,) reached the same conclusion, after examining the same case law from other jurisdic14 221 Ill. 2d 282, 332 15 The same analysis does not hold true for non-vehicular searches since vehicles suffer from a diminished expectation of privacy. Stout 106 Ill.2d at 86 16 In re O.S. 2018 IL App (1st) 171765 @ ¶13-15 17 Id. @ ¶27 18 459 Mass. 459, 945 N.E.2d 899, 908-10 (2010) 19 Id. 20 Id. @ ¶28; including People v. Zuniga, 2016 CO 52, ¶¶23, 28, in which it was held that, although possession of one ounce or less of marijuana is allowed, “a substantial number of other marijuana-related activities remain unlawful.”

21 Id. @ ¶29 22 2019 IL App (3d) 170134

16

The Docket

tions. The opinion in Rice also stands as an excellent primer on the general subject of plain smell, covering all the relevant case law from Terry23 all the way through O.S. Its analysis is best conveyed in the Court’s citation to a quote from O.S., “decriminalization is not synonymous with legalization.”24 As can be seen, the plain smell doctrine seems to be firmly established in Illinois criminal law, but it is interesting (at least to the author) to see how it dovetails with other search-and-seizure issues that have gone before. For instance, several of the cited cases involve situations where some minor traffic violation had taken place (speeding in Rice,25 improper parking in O.S.26 ) Although both cases ultimately were decided based on the plain smell probable cause determinations, one wonders if the searches would as easily have been upheld if there were no smell of marijuana present. Way back in in the July and November 2007 editions of the Docket, an erudite and not-yet-nearly-so-grey-haired author examined a series of cases regarding whether police can arrest a person for a non-jailable offense, and search that person incident to that arrest.27 At the time, the governing law on the subject appeared to be People v. Moorman,28 which held that “stopping an automobile for a minor traffic violation does not, by itself, justify a search of the detainee’s person or vehicle. The officer must reasonably believe that he or she is confronting a situation more serious than a routine traffic violation.”29 The “something more” concept harkens back to Argenian,30 and was the cause of some consternation, at least on the part of this author.

That issue, thankfully, has been put to rest in People v.

Fitzpatrick,31 which held that Moorman was inconsistent with Illinois search-and-seizure law (which is in “limited lock-step” with federal law,) and that therefore a custodial arrest for a petty offense is permissible.32 Would the searches in Rice and O.P. have been upheld if the officers had simply arrested the defendant drivers and searched the cars incident to those arrests?

Another question that arises from the recent “plain smell” case law involves its interrelationship with People v. Gocmen33, which stands for the proposition that a witness, at least for probable cause purposes, need not be an expert to give an opinion that a person is under the influence of drugs In addition to Gocmen’s abandon23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31 32 33

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) 2019 IL App (3d) 170134 @ ¶24 Id. @ ¶3 2018 IL App(1st) 171765 @ ¶25 Criminal or Ordinary Traffic Offender, The Docket, July 2007 edition, page 29; Bridgewater Over Troubled Lago Vista, The Docket, November 2007 edition, page 9; Hon. Charles D. Johnson 369 Ill.App.3d 187, (2d Dist. 2006) Id. @ 198 See footnote 9, supra.

2013 IL 113449 Id. @ ¶19 2018 IL 122388, the subject of yet another article by your steadily-greying yet prolific author: I’ve Seen the Needle and the Damage Done, The Docket, Hon. Charles D. Johnson

ment of the need for expert testimony, there is People v.

Topor,34 which held that a sufficiently-corroborated tip from a private citizen (caller identified himself, facts were corroborated, no evidence that caller had motive to fabricate) that identified the smell of cannabis coming from an automobile need not include a basi1s by which the caller knew the smell was, in fact, cannabis. When taken together, it would appear that the case law has come a long way since it was necessary to have the testimony of a “trained and experienced police officer detect(ing) the odor of cannabis”35 for reasonable grounds, and that 34 2017 IL App (2d) 160119 35 Stout, 106 Ill. 2d 77, 88

apparently any old citizen could give information about the “plain smell” of marijuana sufficient for reasonable grounds to stop a motor vehicle. Is it therefore necessary for a police officer to testify that he has experience identifying the odor of marijuana? Can the Court take judicial notice that “the smell of burnt cannabis, is ‘distinctive’ to much of the general public”?36 It is reasonable to assume that these will be the next questions presented in the progress of the Plain Smell Doctrine. Stay tuned…

36 Topor, 2017 IL App (2d) 160119, ¶ 23

2019 INSTALLATION DINNER EXMOOR COUNTRY CLUB, JUNE 7, 2019

July 2019

17

Even in the Clerk’s Office, Change is the Only Constant

New Filing Fees and Fines Schedules are in Effect as of July 1, 2019

S

BY ERIN CARTWRIGHT WEINSTEIN, CIRCUIT COURT CLERK

tatutes, it seems, are always changing. One day you think you understand, and the next day you are starting all over again. Access to Justice teams have been busy at work trying to establish more consistency in the fines and fees charged in all Illinois counties, including criminal, civil and traffic cases.

As part of this effort, Public Act 00-987, the Criminal for fines and fees after January 1, 2021, is anyone’s guess. For Traffic Assessment Act, modifies Section 105/27.1b of the now, below is a synopsis that will hopefully make the changClerks of the Circuit Court Act (705 lLCS 105/27.1b). The es easier to comprehend, or at least get you started.

Circuit Clerk’s Office, Court Administration, and the 19th Changes to the Civil filing fees are the easiest, so I will Judicial Circuit Judges have worked tirelessly over the last start there. There are seven total schedules that may apply ten months to understand the act and put the figures to to any case. This includes a base amount established in the paper. We completed a new County Board Ordinance, Clerks of the Circuit Court Act and an additional $20.00 which replaces the prior ordinance library fee which was established purdated September 14, 2004, establishing suant to 55 ILCS 5/5-39001.

Erin Cartwright Weinstein has fines and fees. The new Ordinance served as Establishing Civil Fees and Criminal When initiating a filing in a civil the Clerk of and Traffic Assessments to be charged action, the fees will be as follows: the Circuit by the Clerk of the Circuit Court was

Schedule 1: $334; Court since approved by the County Board on June

Schedule 2: $284.00; 2016. Prior to that she 11, 2019 and will take effect on July 1,

Schedule 3: $109.00: served as a 2019.

Schedule 4: $0 Lake CounThe benefit to this legislation is that ty Assistant attorneys and litigants will have more The fees for responding to a filing State’s consistency when paying fines and fees in civil court will be: Attorney, and 12 years in different counties throughout Illinois.

Schedule 1: $209.00 in private The downside is that this is only an

Schedule 2: $129.00 practice.

18-month trial. What the future brings

Schedule 3: $0

18

The Docket

Contained within each scheduled fee amount shown above is a lump sum which the legislation allows to be assessed by each county individually to meet any needs for judicial operations. We looked at the fees that were assessed and those abandoned by the legislature to determine where there was a need in Lake County. We chose court security, the neutral site custody exchange, the children’s waiting room, and the Circuit Clerk’s general fund. These fees are listed in the ordinance.

Debt collection fees for certain civil judgments are now $35, $45, and $65 depending on the amount being sought, and excludes child support and maintenance collections.

The State’s Attorney’s Office will receive a 10% fee from the sale of real estate sold in foreclosure proceedings when there is a lien for delinquent taxes.

Certain fees were reduced – motions to vacate a bond forfeiture will require no filing fee, and appeal preparation charges for records up to 100 pages is $50.00, and 101-200 pages is $100.

Other fees stayed the same, such as charges for alias summons, jury services, changes of venue, and petitions to vacate, all of which will remain $40.00.

Appeals preparation for over 200 pages, wage garnishment, copy charges, record searches, and expungement services will also be unchanged.

Finally, some fees were added as “additional fees,” such as guardianship and advocacy fees. However, the Lake County Judiciary did not include these fees in the drafting of the new ordinance; therefore, the County Board did not include them. You may see these fees if you practice in other counties!

The fee waiver statute, 705 ILCS 5/5-105, has completely changed. First, the Judge now has the discretion either waive fees entirely or simply reduce them by 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% of the total fee (or not at all). The statute lays out the requirements for the court’s determination. Please read through this statute carefully, there are many new components; for example, the waiver only lasts a year, and if an attorney is hired on the case, they must pay the fee in full despite the previous waiver. The court will set a date certain for the payment to be made, and status dates will be established by local court rule to ensure compliance.

Senate Bill 1504 is considering a modification of this part of the statute, so please keep your eyes and ears open! Also, check out Supreme Court Rule 472, 705 ILCS 105/27.1(b) for more details.

With regard to criminal matters, fines will be

charged at a minimum of $25 for minor traffic offenses, and $75 for all other offenses, unless otherwise directed by statute. However, if it appears that the fine would be a burden to the victim (not the defendant) the court may reduce or waive the fine; otherwise, the fine is not waivable at any level. 705 ILCS 135/5-5 is full of nuances, too many to list without losing you, but worth the read.

Criminal and traffic fees are now called schedule assessments pursuant to the new act, 705 ILCS 1351,5-5, 5-10, 5-15, 5-20, and the changes are significant.

There are a total of 13 new schedules: four felony offense schedules, four misdemeanor offense schedules, a major traffic offense schedule, a minor traffic offense schedule, a truck weight and load offense schedule, a conservation offense schedule, a SCR 529 traffic offenses schedule (no appearance required), and a Petty/ Business/non-traffic offense schedule. For these fees, the court must assess the schedule assessment for the highest-level charge, and only one schedule assessment may be ordered. These fees may be waived or reduced.

Many of the fees in these schedules remain familiar and relatively consistent with the 2004 ordinance.

However, numerous fees were repealed from the act, including fees for DNA tests, trauma clerk, State’s Attorney, Camera Grant Fund, LEADS, roadside memorial fund, fire prevention fund, speeding in a school zone penalty, and fire truck loan fund. Other fees were not repealed but were not included in the new Act. Therefore, these fees are set forth as part of a lump sum payment that the judiciary was authorized to distribute for court operations (similar to the civil fees above). The lump sums included assessments for court security, specialty courts, state’s attorney fund, and the circuit clerk.

Additionally, there are conditional assessments that the court may order in addition to the scheduled assessment, fine, and restitution, which are set forth based upon each specific criminal act for which the defendant was sentenced. The conditional assessments include, but are not limited to: crim lab fee, child porn fee, human trafficking fee, and DUI Analysis fee. 705 ILCS 135/10 is the court’s directive. I highly recommend reading this statute.

Finally, the court may order an add on fee under 705 ILCS 135/5-15. These fees include, but are not limited to: service providers, probation service fees and sheriff fees. The service provider fee is not eligible to be waived or reduced, receive credit for time served or

The fee waiver statute, 705 ILCS 5/5-105, has completely changed.

July 2019

19

be substituted with community service.

735 ILCS 135/5-20 describes the obligations for community service and credit for time served, and is another worthy read since things have changed. For example, credit for time served or substance abuse treatment will be applied equally over the scheduled assessments but may not be applied to the fine, restitution or add on fees.

Sentencing Orders: Supreme Court Rule 452, obligations for sentencing order, states “At the time of sentencing in a criminal case, the court shall enter a written order imposing the sentence and all applicable fines, fees, assessments, and costs against the defen-

ANNOUNCEMENT

Curtin Law LLC is pleased to welcome Sarah Kahn as an associate. Sarah is a graduate of the University of Iowa College of Law. She is a native of Lake County and has practiced in Family Law for the past four years. Sarah sits on the Board of Directors for AWALC, and also serves on the editorial committee of The Docket.

611 S. Milwaukee Ave. Ste. 4 Libertyville IL 60048 847-549-0253 • www.curtin-law.net

20 The Docket

dant and specifying the applicable credits. The State shall draft such order and present the order for review by defendant or, if defendant is represented, by defense counsel, before submitting it to the court.” The 19th Judicial Circuit will have a fillable form available in the courtrooms. The circuit clerks will continue to print off the cost schedules, as they do now; the financial order is an additional part of the order. This includes branch courts!!

The Application for waiver of fees in criminal matters must be in writing and filed at sentencing or within 30 days thereafter. Criminal and civil fee waivers are similar given that the judges will follow statutory guidelines to determine eligibility, and the fees may be reduced by 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% or 100%. Do not forget that fines, restitution, add on fees, and offenses filed under the vehicle code are not eligible for a waiver or reduction.

We will all need to be patient with each other while getting used to these new fees, and not shy away from asking questions. We will all be wading our way through these changes for the next 18 months, at which time the legislation will presumably change, and we will start all over again….

YOU'RE IN A DEMANDING PROFESSION

How do you fit exercise into your hectic schedule?

The Exercise Coach® has the answer I tried The Exercise Coach for the first time a little over a year ago. I thought I was too busy to exercise, but still wished I was strong and healthy. The promise of a full workout in 20 minutes enticed me to try it. One year later, I am so thankful to have The Exercise Coach in my morning routine. I attend twice a week for 20 minutes each session. I am stronger and more fit than ever before. I have days when I don’t want to go, but REALLY it’s only 20 minutes – and the results are amazing! If you’re on the fence, get a free consultation and workout so you can see how easy and hard a 20-minute workout can be.

Michone Riewer, Riewer & Collins LLC

The Exercise Coach provides highly efficient workouts which are easy to fit into my busy schedule. Since joining The Exercise Coach, I have found it easier to maintain a consistent exercise routine. The staff at The Exercise Coach are extremely knowledgeable, friendly and encouraging. I highly recommend The Exercise Coach, especially for busy individuals who struggle to find the time to fit exercise into their hectic schedules.

Kelly Collins, Riewer & Collins LLC

The Exercise Coach in Bannockburn is professional, personal and personalized.

Having been through a number of surgeries in the past few years, the professionals at ‘Coach’ worked with my surgeons and the physical therapists to design personalized programs to ensure the muscles I needed to improve for a quick recovery were highlighted during each session. Indeed, the Coach pros and rehab staff for the surgeries kept in touch, on a regular basis, resulting in a much quicker and complete recovery. Even the rehab staff commented that they were impressed by the thoroughness of The Exercise Coach to make sure my exercise program was what was I needed, not a boilerplate used for all clients.

Jeff Lyon, Lyon & Caron LLP

Ideal for busy professionals who feel they do not have the time to work out or who just do not want to take the time.

I have been a member for over 2 years; going twice a week for just 20 minutes. The trainers are outstanding. The workout is monitored by computers, and with regular assessments the results are tracked and proven. I am much leaner and stronger. I was a skeptic at first, but it really works.

Stephen S. Newland, Newland & Newland LLP

CALL NOW TO SCHEDULE YOUR TWO FREE SESSIONS Bannockburn Buffalo Grove Gurnee Lake Zurich Libertyville

| | | | |

847-948-8000 847-279-0059 847-855-9305 847-726-3785 847-680-3761

www.exercisecoach.com

July 2019

21

Special Needs Considerations in Divorce This article is intended to provide practical assistance to divorce practitioners dealing with clients who have a child with special needs. Many of these cases are factually complex and involve considerations that are outside of the normal course of a divorce.

T

BY MICKI MORAN

he First Step is to Not Overlook Special Needs Considerations in Divorce or Post-Decree Issues. The number of children with disabilities is significant. The prevalence of autism in children is now 1 in 59.1

There is conflicting evidence that having a child with a disability increases the likelihood of divorce.

What is known is that having a child with special needs complicates the divorce process and requires careful consideration of many factors in counseling and representing clients.1 For many parents contemplating divorce, the first consideration when one or more of the children have a disability is how and whether they will manage the complications of parenting and supporting a special needs child. At the initial cliMary “Micent interview, when there are children ki” Moran is the found(including older children) one of the ing partner initial questions I ask is whether any 1

Autism Speaks, CDC increases estimate of autism’s prevalence by 15 percent, to 1 in 59 children (Apr. 26, 2018) (“Nationally, 1 in 59 children had a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) by age 8 in 2014, a 15 percent increase over 2012), https://www.autismspeaks.org/ science-news/cdc-increases-estimate-autisms-prevalence-15-percent-1-59-children.

22 The Docket

of the children have special education issues or have been diagnosed with a disability. If the answer is yes, then I use a comprehensive checklist to assist me in getting a thorough understanding of the child’s needs in the context of this family. It is important to ask detailed questions about the nature of the disability. It is also a good idea to request documents (e.g. evaluations, school records, Individual Education Plans (IEP)) that provide detailed information regarding the child’s disability.

As a starting point, ask whether a child receives special education services in school. Does the child have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or a 504 Plan? Ask the of The Child client to describe what services (e.g. and Family speech, occupational therapy, counLaw Center seling) the child receives and request of the North Shore, a copy of the documents as a resource which regarding the needs of the child. Typibecame a cally, asking for the last two years of division of educational records will be sufficient.

Grund and The IEP and the 504 Plan will often Leavitt in October, 2018. have useful information regarding the

child’s educational and related issues, including a description of how the disability impacts their functioning in school and in life. In the process of reviewing the IEP or 504 Plan you will learn about the school district and the parent’s input into the discussion. This is relevant information when deciding who or whether a parent will be the designated parent for school district purposes, the allocation of parenting time and decision making.

It also provides important data about the severity of the child’s needs and may signal a discussion regarding a departure (upwards) from guideline support. In addition to the school documents, requesting a copy of any evaluations provides yet another source of relevant information. In addition to the IEP, I ask the client to provide me with a list of treatment providers and other resources.

It is not uncommon for parents to disagree about the nature and severity of the child’s disability.

Determining whether the parents are in agreement about the special needs of the child and the current interventions is an early essential step since it may shape the way you discuss and counsel your client regarding the Allocation of Parenting Time and Decision Making. If the parents are in substantial disagreement about the child’s needs, this may make shared decision making inappropriate. Asking the client whether they are able to work together with the other parent and cooperate concerning their child is an essential early inquiry.

Reviewing the statutory language in 750 ILCS 5/602.5 is a starting point for the allocation of parental responsibilities and decision making. The statute states in subparagraph(a) that the court shall allocate decision-making responsibilities according to the child’s best interests.

Nothing in the Act requires that each parent be allocated decision-making responsibilities. The significant issues that the statute refers to when considering an allocation of parental responsibilities and decision making are as follows:

Those significant issues shall include, without limitation, the following:

(1) E ducation, including the choice of schools or tutors.

(2) Health, including all decisions relating to the medical, dental, and psychological needs of the child and to the treatments arising or resulting from those needs.

(3) Religion, …

(4) Extracurricular activities. (c) Determination of child’s best interests. In determining the child’s best interests for purposes of allocating significant decision making the court shall consider all relevant factors, including without limitation the following. (1) the wishes of the child …; [not an absolute)]; (2) the child’s adjustment to his or her home, school and community; (3) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved; (4) the ability of the parents to cooperate to make decisions, or the level of conflict between the parties that may affect their ability to share decision- making; (5) the level of each parent’s participation in past significant decision-making with respect to the child; (6) any prior agreement or course of conduct between the parents relating to decision-making with respect to the child; (7) the wishes of the parents; (8) the child’s needs; (9) the distance between the parents’ residences, the cost and difficulty of transporting the child, each parent’s and the child’s daily schedules, and the ability of the parents to cooperate in the arrangement; (10) whether a restriction on decision-making is appropriate under Section 603.10; ... (15) any other factor that the court expressly finds to be relevant.

Therefore, the allocation of parenting time may require creativity, flexibility, and a lawyer who is familiar with the challenges of the individual child’s disability.

(b) Allocation of significant decision-making responsibilities. …

The cases interpreting this statute and its predecessor are very fact specific and tend to give unequal weight to the factors depending on the circumstances of each case.

No one factor controls in the appellate decisions. Clearly, it is in the child’s interests for both parents (if appropriate) to share decision making and parental responsibilities in a way that works for the individual family and

July 2019

23

keeps the child’s best interests front and center.

It is presumptive under the Section 602.7(b) that both parents are fit to have unrestricted parenting time.

However, determining early on whether the parents are in agreement regarding the needs of the child and the caregiving arrangements is critical. Reviewing with your client the factors set out in 750 ILCS 5/602.7(b)(1) and the issues presented by their special need’s child provides a framework for decision making and drafting of the Parenting Agreement and Allocation Judgment. Parents may disagree on what is in the best interests of their child with a disability. For example, a consideration of whether one parent has and will continue to be the primary caregiver impacts all aspects of the case. In my practice it is common that one parent has taken on the role of case manager in medical and educational decision making.

This parent has been on the ground every day managing the complex decisions for the child. Judges should be made aware of the roles historically played by each parent as a pivotal consideration in allocation of decision making.

In many cases the parents can no longer afford for one parent to be underemployed or unemployed following the divorce and the resulting separate households.

Clients may agree about the needs of the child but may have more difficulty determining a schedule that works in the new family configuration. Standard parenting plans rarely fit children with disabilities. Therefore, the allocation of parenting time may require creativity, flexibility, and a lawyer who is familiar with the challenges of the individual child’s disability. For example, some children (even non-disabled children) struggle with transitions and that needs to be accounted for in any allocation of parenting time. This makes a presumed equal parenting schedule inappropriate if this arrangement won’t be in the child’s best interest.

No child with a disability is the same. In counseling clients, it is important to avoid relying simply on a label as short hand for a description of the child. Details matter. Even if parents are fully cooperating and aligned with their child’s needs, if there are other children, this may require parents to navigate different parenting schedules to accommodate the needs of the entire family. See In re Marriage of Capelle,2 for an analysis of the application of the statutory factors in the allocation of parenting time.

made only one time per school year. 3 750 ILCS 5/606.10 Designation of custodian for purposes of other statutes.

Solely for the purposes of all state and federal statutes that require a designation or determination of custody or a custodian, a parenting plan shall designate the parent who has the majority of parenting time. This designation shall not affect the parent’s rights and responsibilities under the parenting plan. For purposes of Section 10-20.12b of the School Code only, the parent with the majority of the parenting time is considered to have legal custody.

When both parents share educational decision-making and agree on the needs of the student it is easier to navigate the special education process. Urging parents who may be conflictual in other areas to attempt to cooperate in the educational realm makes it more likely that the educational needs of the child will be met.

Students are eligible for special education beginning at age 3 through the day before their 22nd birthday. For more severely disabled students remaining in school as long as possible makes sense. “Aging out” of the special education provides them the additional time to receive services and interventions.

CHILD SUPPORT: The statutory amount of child support may be insufficient to meet the needs of the child with special needs.

Frequently, both parents are already spending well above the costs associated with typical children. Many disabled children require specialized care that may not be covered by insurance and results in significant out of pocket expenditures for the family. For example, in cases where a child is on the autism spectrum, insurance may or may not cover the necessary interventions.

In this situation it may be appropriate to discuss with the parties and, if necessary, ask the court to make a finding for a deviation from statutory guidelines. Under 750 ILCS 5/505, Section 3.4, Deviation Factors reads as follows: I n any action to establish or modify child support, whether pursuant to a temporary or final administrative or court order, the child support guidelines shall be used as a rebuttable presumption for establishment or modification of the amount of child support. The court may deviate from the child support guidelines if the application would be inequitable, unjust or inappropriate. Any deviation from the guidelines shall be accompanied by written findings by the court specifying the reasons for the deviation and the presumed amount under the child support guidelines without a deviation. These reasons may include:

SPECIAL EDUCATION ISSUES: Residency: In cases of divorced or separated parents when only one parent has legal guardianship or custody, the district in which the parent having legal guardianship or custody resides is the resident district. When both parents retain legal guardianship or custody, the resident district is the district in which either parent provides the student’s primary regular fixed night-time abode resides; provided that the election of resident district may be 2

2018 IL App (5th) 180011-U, 2018 WL 310 5765 (5th Dist. June 21, 2018) (not for a child with special needs).

24 The Docket

3

105 ILCS 5/14-1.11.

YOUNG & NEW LAWYERS MINGLE WITH THE JUDGES SLYCE COAL FIRED PIZZA COMPANY IN HIGHWOOD,

JUNE 12, 2019

July 2019 25

(A) Extraordinary medical expenditures necessary to preserve the life or health of a party or a child of either or both of the parties; (B) Additional expenses incurred for a child subject to the child support order who has special medical, physical, or developmental needs; and (C) Any other factor the court determines should be applied upon a finding that the application of the child support guidelines would be inappropriate, after considering the best interests of the child.

In gathering information relevant to a request for a deviation from guidelines, you should ask your client to produce invoices for treatment providers, a schedule of the child’s day, including travel to outside therapists, number of hours of care each day and the specifics of those interventions.

750 ILCS 505.2 provides for the provision of health insurance in addition to child support obligations.

Typically, child support terminates at age 18, to the earlier to occur of graduation from high school or age 19, if the child is still attending high school at age 18. However, children who would otherwise be emancipated may require ongoing life-long support.

NON-MINOR CHILDREN WITH A DISABILITY 750 ILCS 5/513.5 governs the issues related to support for a non-minor child with a disability. To be “disabled” for purposes of § 513.5, the child must have a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity” and is either generally regarded or has been recorded as having the impairment.4 § 513.5 (c). Disabled for purposes of the § 513.5 is not necessarily the same as “disabled” for the purposes of the Probate Act, and it is not a prerequisite that the child first be declared disabled in a probate court proceeding.

The factors that the court must consider in making an award under 750 ILCS § 513.5 include both parent’s financial resources to meet their needs including retirement savings, the standard of living had the marriage not been dissolved, the child’s financial resources, and any 4

750 ILCS 5/513.5.

Visit the LCBA Website: lakebar.org 26 The Docket

other resources, such as government benefits.5 In two unpublished orders under Rule 23, the Second District discussed the factors that should be considered in awarding post majority support.6 In one case, In re Hemphill, the court held that the trial court’s finding that the parties 20 year- old daughter was disabled was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered the father to pay non-minor child support and all uncovered medical expenses.

There are many unique concerns that must be addressed in a divorce settlement regarding special needs children. As the child reaches majority it is essential that the divorce agreement be structured so that the child does not lose his or her eligibility for SSI and or Medicaid or other needs-based benefits. If one spouse receives support for the benefit of the special needs child this may impact the child’s ability to receive benefits. At the time of the divorce, it is essential to anticipate, structure and carefully draft language to allow for continued support in a Marital Settlement Agreement. This can be done in a number of ways, specifically, the parties can arrange for a Special Needs Trust to be created for the benefit of the child. If the divorce pre-dates the recognition or identification of the child as one with a disability, the parties may need to amend their child support agreement to prevent an adverse impact on government benefits. For all clients, it is important to discuss potential and necessary modifications to their estate planning document.

I recommend the use of a checklist in counseling clients with children who have disabilities and in drafting Parenting Plans and Allocations of Decision Making as well as the Marital Settlement Agreement.

CONCLUSION Given the high incidence of families with children with disabilities it is essential to be aware of the unique considerations faced by divorcing families to ensure that the rights of the parties, most importantly, the children are addressed in this context.

5 Id. 6 See In Re Marriage of Wolf and Wolf, 2017 IL App (2d) 161109U.; In Re Marriage of Hemphill v. Robert Hemphill, 2017 IL App. (2d) 160833-U. I.

2019 LCBA Golf Outing

July 25, 2019 | Glen Flora Country Club Register online at www.lakebar.org

Players of all levels are encouraged to participate in the 2018 Lake County Bar Association Golf Outing.The LCBA Golf Outing is guaranteed to be a huge success which you do not want to miss.

Feel Good Four Pack (per player) Does your golf game struggle a bit?

No worries – for a $20 contribution to the Lake County Bar Association, you can purchase a Feel Good Four Pack consisting of the following:

Golf Championship Trophy For those who take this outing seriously, this is your goal.

Remember, two members of a foursome must be LCBA Members to win the trophy.

• 2 Do-Over Mulligans for Tee Shots • 1 Do-Over Mulligan for a Chip Shot • 1 Give-Me - If ball is within 2 putter lengths of hole, pick it up and count is as only one stroke • 5 additional raffle tickets for door prizes

Contests for players of all levels • 1st, 2nd, 10th & “You Should try Bowling” Place Awards • Men’s/Women’s Longest Drive • Men’s/Women’s Straightest Drive • Men’s/Women’s Closest to the Pin • $10,000 Hole In One Prize Contests for players of all levels $185/player or $700/foursome • Greens fee, cart and range balls • Lunch, two beverage tickets and post play reception • Commemorative golf item • 1 door prize ticket per player • Raffle Prizes and Outing contests • 50/50 Ball Drop • Raffle prizes

Raffle Prizes We are seeking 5 - 10 raffle prizes valued at $500 or above. Donors receive: • Firm, organization or company prominently displayed throughout the championship • Firm, organization or company name/logo on all advance promotional materials once commitment is made • Acknowledgment of sponsorship in player welcome packet • 1/4 page ad in August or September 2019 issue of The Docket

• Registration & Practice 10:30 a.m.

• Lunch 11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.

• Shot Gun Start 12:30 p.m.

• Post Game Reception Approx. 5:00 p.m.

The Fine Print No reservations will be accepted unless payment is received (or guaranteed by a credit card) by Friday, July 19, 2019. No refunds will be issued after 12:00 Noon, Friday, July 19, 2019. Any member who reserves a foursome will be responsible for the payment and attendance of the entire group.

The reserving LCBA member’s credit card will be charged for the entire group fee regardless of whether the entire foursome is present to play on Thursday, July 25, 2019 (unless prior arrangements have been made before the cancellation date).

Join the fun as a Sponsor Hole In One Sponsor: $1500 (Exclusive to only 1 sponsor) Eagle 4-Some Sponsor: $1,200 (Exclusive Hole Sponsorship & 4-Some) Gold Tee Sponsor: $750 (Exclusive Hole Sponsor) Golf Cart Sponsors: $500 (2 available) Competition Sponsor: $250 (Longest Drive / Straightest Drive / Closest to the Pin) All sponsors acknowledged on rules sheet, during post-round reception and in the August issue of The Docket.

July 2019 27

Board of Directors’ Meeting

The

May 15, 2019

T

he Lake County Bar Association Board of Directors met on Wednesday, May 15, 2019.

In attendance were President, Lewis; 1st VP, Rice; 2nd VP, Cornell; Treasurer Fusz, Secretary, Parikh, Past President, Howe, Directors, Devine, Newsome, and Hatch, and Executive Director, Perrin. Also in attendance were incoming board members, Dwayne Douglas, Danny Hodgkinson, and Kathleen Curtin.

The meeting was called to order at 12:11 p.m.

Lunch from Big Ed’s BBQ was sponsored by Director Pasquesi CONSENT AGENDA A motion and second was made to approve the consent agenda including the April BOD Minutes and list of new member, Motion Passed.

TREASURER’S REPORT Treasurer Joe Fusz presented the financial report for the period July 1, 2018 – April 30, 2019, pointing

28 The Docket

out that the cash flow actuals are exceeding projections with over $80k in the checking account due to cost saving measures, successful events and more accurate bookeeping. A list of LCBA expenses in April, including a breakdown of the Family Law Spring Conference income and expenses, were reviewed and approved.

An initial draft of the 2019-2020 Proposed Budget, prepared by ED Perrin, was presented. Board members were asked to review over the next month for discussion and possible vote at the June BOD meeting.

OLD BUSINESS: Real Life Program Update President Lewis reported that the committee met with a videographer last week. They have agreed to donate their time, amounting to a donation of approximately $20k.

Shooting of the video is scheduled to take place in July. The finished video

Meeting Minutes

BY TARA R. DEVINE SECRETARY

will be hosted on the LCBA website for participants to access via a payment portal, watch, and receive a certificate of completion.

Appellate Justice Reception Scheduled for July 11 in Courtroom T810 at 3 pm, followed with a reception in the LCBA Member Center around 5 pm. Attendance of Appellate Justices is confirmed. Steve and Joe will will begin soliciting sponsors likely in the amount of $1000, $500 and $250.

Courthouse Access Pass Updated application was reviewed and approved. Flat fee of $25 to be charged for new and renewal passes. Courthouse security has been strickly enforcing showing of passes.

2019 Installation Dinner 1st VP Rice provided an update on event scheduled for June 7, at the Exmoor

Country Club. Electronic invitations have been sent with numerous reminder emails scheduled. Already over 65 attendees. All Board members are strongly encouraged to attend and help spread the word.

NEW BUSINESS: 2019 -2020 LCBA Budget Subject already discussed during Treasurers Report (see above) Board Orientation 1st VP Rice announced plans to conduct a Board Orientaton for incoming and existing members of the Board. This will be a fun and casual event for a couple of hours, off-site with food and beverages in June or July. The purpose will be to review roles and expectations of members of the board, purpose of the organization and develop goals and plans for the year. Watch for an email with a “Doodle” link with proposed dates.

COMMITTEE LIAISON REPORTS Director Liaisons to report on activities of their assigned committees Civil Trial & Appeals - Spring Seminar scheduled for the morning of July 25th at Glen Flora Country Club (prior to the LCBA Golf Outing).

Community Outreach & Diversity – No report CLE – CLE buffet scheduled for May 30 from 1 – 5 pm in Suite C. $25 each per person, per session (3 sessions scheduled). A spin off of the Family Law Mock

Trial is being organized that will focus on various aspects of trial practice. The Brown Bag series will include one session a month starting in July ending in January.

Justice Schostok, Mullen, and Marjorie/Kelly from are organizing it. Cost being discussed.

Criminal Law - Meeting 5/14 was well attended Debtor/Creditor – No report Docket –An article was submitted by former Sherriff Curran. It has been edited and will be re-sent to the author for approval.

It may be discussed at the

next meeting.

Employment - No report.

Family Law – Next Spring Seminar will be held in Alberquerque, NM. Golf Outing - Scheduled for July 25th, at Glen Flora Country Club. Sponsorships and Registraton is open.

Judicial Selection & Retention - No report Local Government – No report Real Estate – No report Trust & Estates – Meeting scheduled for 5/16 Young & New Law-

yers – Meet & Mingle with the Judges event scheduled for June 12, at Slyce Pizza in Highwood.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ED Perrin announced that Jose Gonzalez has been rehired Membership Spring Picnic Luncheon will be held May 31, at Greenbelt Cultural Center LCBA Office will be closed Monday, May 27 for Memorial Day Motion and second was made to adjourn at 12:59 pm. Motion passed.

MEMBER RECEPTION SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES LCBA Member Receptions will generally be held on the 4th Thursday of every month.

Your $500 sponsorship includes: • Recognition in advertising before the event and on signage at the event.

• Reception from 4:30 – 6:30 p.m.

• Complimentary beer and wine.

Upgrades available for additional fee.

Contact Dale Perrin at dale@lakebar.org to add your name to a reception.

July 2019 29

Thank You for a Great Year!

1

year. 12 months. 52 weeks. 365 days. By time this issue comes out, that’s how long I will have been employed by the Lake County Bar Association & Foundation. This past year went by like a blink of an eye. But looking back, it included: 12 issues of the Docket; 24 Board of Director Meetings; 12 Executive Board Meetings; Numerous committee meetings; One Golf Outing; One Installation Dinner; One Real Estate Seminar; One Family Law Spring Seminar in Scottsdale; One Criminal Law Seminar in Milwaukee: One GAL Child Representative Training Seminar; One Holiday Party; One GAL Probate Seminar; One Doctor/Lawyer Dinner; One Trust & Estate Seminar; Two separate Judicial Selection Review Committee Process which resulted in two New Judge Swearing In Ceremonies; Two New Attorney Swearing In Ceremonies; One Foundation Casino

30 The Docket

Night Gala; Six Membership Luncheons; Several Member Receptions; Two CLE Seminars; Numerous CLE Brown Bag Lunches; Two TIM and VET Court Graduation Ceremonies; One Veterans History Project; One Law Day Recognition Program; One Ask A Lawyer Call In and One Drop In Clinic; Dozens of planning meetings for all these events; Dozens of meetings with our accountant, treasurer and members of the Executive Committee to get our finances figured out; Monthly meetings with staff; numerous interviews to hire a new employee; One NABE Small Staff Training Retreat followed by one ABA Bar Leadership Conference; and dozens of additional meetings with members, vendors and the general public looking for legal support.

This is far from a complete list of events and activities performed over the past 12 months, but I think

In the

Director’s Chair

you get the picture. It’s a lot!

On a day to day or month to month basis it may not seem like there’s a lot going on, particularly if you have a narrow focus on your particular area of law like Family Law or Real Estate.

But if you pull back and look at what all the other committees are doing at the same time, you realize that this organization is extremely active and vibrant. Not a single month goes by that there is no less than 6-10 different committee meetings, planning meetings, board meetings, CLE training opportunities, and other meetings or events.

I thank God for active, engaged and dedicated volunteer members willing to step up and help make all these events and activities happen. I also thank God for volunteer dedicated and engaged members of our Board of Directors who continue to move this great organization forward and seek out new and valuable

BY DALE PERRIN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR benefits for the organization. And finally, I REALLY thank God for hard working, dedicated and talented staff who know what needs to get done, and get it done, to make all of these events and activities look like it all just happens, so you can show up, reap the benefits and enjoy the event – as it should be.

To make an association like ours a successful organization, as it is, is truly a “Team Effort.” I know, very cliché, but very true.

Statistically we follow the 80/20 rule with only about 20 percent of our membership actively involved on an annual basis. With a membership of approximately 950 members, that’s really only about 200 members who regularly and actively participate and contribute. Just think what the Association could accomplish if another 50 or 100 members were to become actively and regularly engaged and involved.

18ISBA003_SSS-SECURE_ad_BW-8-25x10-75.pdf

1

4/3/18

8:25 PM

O smart | strategic | secure

secure

adj.

1. A situation that you can depend on because it is not likely to change.

2. Affording safety, as a place: He needed a secure hideout.

3. Feeling confident and free from fear or anxiety: everyone needs to have a home and to feel secure and wanted.

4. Firm and not likely to fail; stable. [ syn. defendable, defended, dependable, insured, protected, safe, shielded, sound, strong, trustworthy, watched over ]

Take the long view of practice and practitioner success. Consult with ISBA Mutual today to define your unique risk needs and learn about our free resources, so you can stay smart, strategic and secure.

312 379-2000 isbamutual.com

July 2019

31

Bar

Bulletin Board

Monthly

Committee Meetings

DAY

MEETING

LOCATION

TIME

1st Tuesday

Diversity & Community Outreach

LCBA

12:15-1:15

1 Thursday

Real Estate

Primo, Gurnee

5:30-6:30

Editorial 1st Thursday (Odd Mo.) Docket Committee

LCBA

12:15-1:15

2nd Tuesday

LCBA

12:15-1:15

LCBA

4:30-5:30

st

Criminal Law

2nd Tuesday (Odd Mo.) Immigration 2nd Wednesday

Family Law Advisory Group (FLAG)

LCBA

12:00-1:00

2nd Wednesday

Civil Trial and Appeals

LCBA

4:00-5:00

2 Thursday

Young & New Lawyers

TBD

5:30-6:30

3rd Tuesday

Local Government

LCBA

12:15-1:15

3rd Tuesday

LCBF Board of Trustees

LCBA

4:00

3rd Wednesday

Debtor/Creditor Rights

Varies

5:30-6:30

3rd Wednesday

Family Law

C-105

12:00-1:00

3nd Wednesday

Trusts and Estates

LCBA

12:15-1:15

3 Wednesday (Odd Mo.) Employment Law

Varies

5:15-6:15

3rd Thursday

LCBA

12:00 noon

nd

rd

LCBA Board of Directors

• RSVP to a meeting at www.lakebar.org.

• Meetings subject to change. Please check your weekly e-news, the on-line calendar at www.lakebar.org or call the LCBA Office @ (847) 244-3143.

• Please feel free to bring your lunch to the LCBA office for any noon meetings. Food and beverages at restaurants are purchased on a individual basis.

32 The Docket

To place an ad or for information on advertising rates, call (847) 244-3143

Do you have a speaker idea or suggestion for our business meetings?

We would like to hear from you!

Send your ideas to: dale@lakebar.org

Enough said.

ATG was founded in 1964 to preserve the attorney’s role in real estate transactions for the benefit of the client. We’ve stood by our word. We’ve made it a priority to promote your role in real estate transactions, advocate for your interests, and help protect the clients you serve. No other title underwriter in the Midwest can make that claim. There’s only one.

Offices throughout the Chicago area, Metro East and Champaign, Illinois, and Waukesha, Wisconsin.

800.252.0402

www.atgf.com

July 2019

33

300 Grand Avenue, Suite A Waukegan, IL 60085 Tel: 847-244-3143 Fax: 847-244-8259

Assisting Your Clients Move From the Past to the Future Assisting Your Clients Move From the Past to the Future

Mediation involves parties developing ways Mediation involves parties developing ways to jointly identify, articulate, address and to jointly articulate, satisfyidentify, their individual and address joint needsand and satisfyinterests; their individual andguide jointthat needs and our mediators process. interests; our mediators guide that process.

CHICAGO

LAKE FOREST OFFICE

LAKE FOREST WHEATON CHICAGO

LAKE FOREST

sdflaw.com

WHEATON

sdflaw.com

One Conway Park 100 North Field Drive - Suite 160 LAKE FOREST OFFICE Lake Forest, Illinois 60045 One(847) Conway Park 615-8300

100 North Field Drive - Suite 160 Lake Forest, Illinois 60045 (847) 615-8300

Carlton R. Marcyan Hon. Jane D. Waller (Ret.) Mediator Mediator JD, CPA, R. CFP® Carlton Marcyan jwaller@sdflaw.com Hon. Jane D. Waller (Ret. cmarcyan@sdflaw.com Mediator Mediator

JD, CPA, CFP® cmarcyan@sdflaw.com

jwaller@sdflaw.com