The Docket - November 2021

THE

DOCKET The Official Publication of the Lake County Bar Association • Vol. 28 No. 11 • November 2021

V olunteer Lawyers Program Thank you to these attorneys who have either closed a pro bono case or taken a new pro bono case in 2020-2021. This program is supported by the Community Outreach Committee of the Lake County Bar Association. Members of the Lake County Bar Association are indicated with an asterisk (*). To become a volunteer please call Prairie State Legal Services at 847-662-6925.

2020-2021 Pro Bono Volunteers

Robert Ackley* L. Kat Allen* Femarie Ang* Greta Berna* Deanna Bowen* Julia Carpenter* Kaitlyn Costello* Damian Crooks* Kathleen Curtin* David Del Re* Mary Field* Joan Frazier David Ganfield II* Deborah Goldberg* Lawrence Gregory* Catherine Hermann Cathy Higgins Mora John Hough*

Deanna Hoyt* David Kerpel* Fiona McCormick* Chris Marder Jeffrey Middlesworth* Sandra Moon* Donald Morrison* June Peterson- Gleason* Stuart Reid* Gary Schlesinger* Stephen Simonian* Nicole Slobe* Michael Strauss* Robert Stavins* Rebecca Whitcombe* Magdalena Wilk Scott Williams*

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

2021 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) •M eeting only (individual or group, no food or beverages served: Free • S elf-Service reception or party (provide own alcoholic beverages): $50 per hour •H osted 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) •M eeting only (individual or group, no food or beverages served): $50 per hour • S elf-Service reception or party (provide own alcoholic beverages and food): $300/ 1st hour, $50/hour after •H osted beer & wine reception or party – Not Available Non-Member, Not-for-Profit: (add $25/hour for after hour events) •M eeting only (individual or group, no food or beverages served): $25 per hour • S elf-Service reception or party (provide own alcoholic beverages and food): $150/1st hour, $25/hour after •H osted 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. 28, No. 11 • November 2021

FEATURES 8 When Can an Officer Step Over the Threshold?

BY MICHAEL CHEN

12 Preparing Clients for Family Law Mediation

BY JERALD A. KESSLER

A publication of the

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 Hon. Daniel L. Jasica Sarah A. Kahn Kevin K. McCormick Hon. Raymond J. McKoski Stephen J. Rice Neal A. Simon Hon. ­­­James K. Simonian Rebecca J. Whitcombe Alex Zagor STAFF Greg Weider Executive Director Jose Gonzalez Membership Coordinator Nancy Rodriguez Receptionist

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

16 Final Score is Dog – 3, Mailman – 0, as Pooch Overcomes Cliché (And Precedent) to Prevail on Bite Claim

BY JEFFREY A. BERMAN

COLUMNS 2 President’s Page Grateful for the Time we Have Been Given

20 Foundation & Committee Minutes 22 The Meeting Minutes September 23, 2021

BY DANIEL HODGKINSON, SECRETARY

LCBA EVENTS IFC Office Rental Pricing 3 New LCBA Members 3 Membership Luncheons 5 Calendar of Events 11 Veterans History Project 21 Holiday Party 21 LCBF Fundraising Event 24 Monthly Committee Meetings

BY JOSEPH FUSZ, PRESIDENT

4 The Chief Judge’s Page Giving Thanks to our Court Partners

BY CHIEF JUDGE DIANE WINTER

6 The Chief Judge’s Page A Donation to Waukegan to College in Memory of Elizabeth Olszewski

BY DOUGLAS DORANDO, PRESIDENT

12 ISSUES

$85 $80 $75 $145 $135 $125 $195 $185 $175 $325 $295 $275 $650 per issue $800 per issue

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.

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.

Grateful for the Time we Have Been Given “November’s sky is chill and drear, November’s leaf is red and sear.”

– Sir Walter Scott

N

ovember is the last full calendar month of the meteorological autumn season, and the onset of consistent colder weather reminds us all of the coming winter and the

Joseph Fusz President Tara Devine First Vice President Katharine Hatch Second Vice President Kevin Berrill Treasurer Daniel Hodgkinson Secretary Hon. Patricia Cornell Immediate Past President Dwayne Douglas Hon. Jacquelyn Melius Craig Mandell Sarah Raisch Jeffrey O’Kelley Jeremy Harter

2

The Docket

beginning of the holiday season in the United States. With the close of another calendar year on the horizon, there is one last flourish of beauty in the trees with the changing leaves and the bright array of color before winter weather comes in.

The fall is often a time for reflection. Those of you who know me personally know that I enjoy movies, and often quote them.

There is a particular line from William Hurt in M. Knight Shyamalan’s film The Village that I often come back to every November: “We are grateful for the time we have been given.” While I saw that movie in theaters in 2004, that line did not take on particular significance for me until the following year, after the passing of my closest relative, my GreatAunt Susan Miller, simply known as “Aunt Sue.”

The

President’s Page

Aunt Sue passed away in October 2005 at the age of 94, a then record for longevity in my family. She was born as a royal subject under the rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1911, and was brought to the United States by her parents while she was still an infant. Aunt Sue was my paternal grandmother’s oldest sister, and when my grandmother passed away at the age of 59, she did her best to step in and fill the void in our family.

Aunt Sue was omnipresent in our lives as we grew up; she came to our school concerts, our graduations, was on the sidelines and in the stands during soccer games, swim and track meets, and basketball tournaments. I don’t think there was a single childhood friend of my siblings or me who did not know her, and all could speak to her kindness and generosi-

BY JOSEPH FUSZ PRESIDENT ty. Additionally, she passed along the oral history of her side of the family to us, including stories of Chicago and the “old neighborhood” when she was a child, and tales of relatives we would never know, but for her willingness to share.

Virtually everything I know about “the Metzgers” was from Aunt Sue. Following high school graduation, Aunt Sue would come to visit us at college and wanted pictures taken in front of notable campus landmarks at the University of Notre Dame and the University of Illinois. She joked that she had “finally gone to college,” and wanted as much proof as possible.

She would call our dorm rooms, we would all speak with her at least once a week, and soon even our college friends got to know and would ask about Aunt Sue. She marveled at the

technological developments that we had, from email to cell phones, and when we spoke to her about getting a computer, she just laughed. “When you remember life before having a radio in the home, you aren’t of the ‘computer age,’” she said.

But after college, I went to law school far away in Louisiana. While we were still able to talk once a week, seeing Aunt Sue in person became limited to holidays and summer vacations. When I was home, I would see her often, taking her from her home in Des Plaines to grocery stores, restaurants, doctor’s appointments, wherever she wanted to go. Always an energetic woman, by this time her age began to show more, her health became more fragile, her voice far quieter. Aunt Sue would open up more about her feelings on being “the last one left”; her entire family, including all of her younger siblings as well as her only child, had preceded her in death long before.

To her, the world had changed and moved on from her time, and it was difficult to find people who had any shared experiences with her.

In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall in the greater New Orleans area, and I found myself back in Chicago for my last fall semester of law school.

Displaced and at a Chicago law school where I knew virtually no one, unsure of what the future would bring, it was a difficult time. However, spending that semester at home allowed me to see Aunt Sue more in a few months than

I had in the two previous years. It certainly made it more comforting to me to be home, to be surrounded by family, when she passed away suddenly at the end of October 2005. It was the end of an era in my family, and while she had lived a great, long life, it was a difficult death to deal with.

The first Thanksgiving ever without her was extremely hard for me. But the time I spent with her that fall, the experiences I would not have otherwise had, being home rather than across the country, made it more bearable.

I viewed that time with Aunt Sue as a gift I would not have otherwise been given, and that viewpoint shifted my perspective that November. Those particular feelings brought me back to that movie quote from the year prior, “we are grateful for the time we have been given,” and it has been a point of reflection for me each November.

In our legal community, we have not seen as much of each other in 2021 as we would have liked.

Many of our friends and colleagues have retired, left the practice of law, or are extremely cautious, given the unpredictable nature of the pandemic. Among others, there is a feeling of “Zoom fatigue” and a desire to get back to the way things used to be. But we have been fortunate to have had times this year when we were able to come together in-person, such as the Memorial Service in May, the Golf Outing in June, and the Installation Social in July. The hours, memories, and experiences that we were able to

share as a bar association community—however brief—are special, and we should be grateful for the time that we had with one another.

November will offer us more occasions to come together, both virtually and in-person. The 19th Judicial Circuit will again host the Veterans History Project in-person at the Lake County Courthouse on Veteran’s Day, November 11. Every year that it has been held, members of the Lake County Bar Association have volunteered their time and services to make it a memorable experience for our veteran community.

This year will not only be an opportunity to thank these veterans for their years of service, but to see one another in service to the community in our Waukegan courthouse.

Furthermore, the final luncheon of our Bar Association fall session will take place on Tuesday, November 16. This meeting will feature an update presentation from the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Committee, providing our legal community with the latest changes and decisions affecting the practice of law in Illinois.

In addition to our regular committee meetings, there will also be a GAL Training seminar on November 4, and the Trust & Estates Annual Virtual Seminar on Friday, November 19.

The colors fade quickly from the landscape in November, and the rest of the year may be fleeting.

As I reflect on 2021, I am extremely thankful for everything you all have done to help make our

bar association a success during the pandemic. We may not see each other often this month, and with the adversarial nature of our profession, the times that we do see each other may not be the happiest of reunions. So let’s resolve to make the most of it when we are together, and be grateful for the time that we have been given. Thank you all.

Welcome

New LCBA Members

ATTORNEY Melanie Nelson Lake County State’s Attorney’s Office STUDENT Jessica L Gach Victoria Malone

MEMBERSHIP LUNCHEONS ARDC Update Luncheon November 16, 2021 12:15 p.m.

Virtual The cost each: LCBA Members $20 If registered by November 15, 2021.

(Must sign in to receive member pricing)

November 2021

3

Giving Thanks to our Court Partners

W

ith Thanksgiving Day soon approaching, I would like to recognize and thank a number of groups and organizations that have assisted our courts over the last year.

As you know, the 19th Judicial Circuit navigated through COVID—including its Delta variant outbreaks—which caused the courts to stop, shift, pivot, and rethink every function and process that takes place within the courthouse.

When COVID required courts to implement emergency plans, Chief Judges throughout our state were not left adrift to decide these matters on their own. The Illinois Supreme Court immediately began conference calls and then Zoom video conferences convening the Chief Judges to discuss emergency measures being taken by each circuit, exchange information on

4

The Docket

technology, and discuss assistance needed from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court took action to toll the speedy trial clock for criminal cases and other Supreme Court Rule amendments to assist trial court proceedings.

At first these meetings took place twice a week and now the meetings continue to be scheduled monthly. Current topics are eviction filings and the re-start of the speedy trial clock. These meetings gave the circuit courts unprecedented contact with the Supreme Court.

Together we found our way through the COVID maze.

I am very grateful for the support of my fellow Chief Judges and the assistance the Supreme Court justices provided throughout the pandemic.

Another thank you must go out to my judicial colleagues who accepted that court would be conducted on Zoom April

The

Chief Judge’s Page 2020 and got busy learning the platform. The approach taken within the 19th Judicial Circuit to conduct essentially all legal proceedings via Zoom was a major accomplishment and in retrospect proved to be an efficient method to keep the courts open during COVID. More importantly, after making this major decision, all judges contributed to establish best practices for their calls to make sure these changes worked for the attorneys and litigants. The judges contended with a record number of procedural and technological modifications to their work processes over the last year.

Also, their patience during technology failures, Zoom bombings, and undressed and disrespectful Zoom participants was much appreciated.

Next, behind every

BY CHIEF JUDGE DIANE WINTER judge is a group of staff members that keep all the daily court functions moving. Many of our staff worked from home early in the pandemic and adapted their work duties to the new virtual world. Others came to the office even before the vaccine’s availability because certain jobs required in-person attendance. I am proud that the 19th never shut down or failed to provide services in some manner. A special shout-out to our Judicial Information Services group and their Director, Winnie Weber, for getting us up and going on Zoom and continuing to improve our delivery of all technological services. I am especially grateful for the commitment and service of our Executive Director, Todd Schroeder, and my Administrative Assistant, Lorena Hernandez. They provided support, expertise, and a

laugh when needed.

The Courts work with many partners to jointly resolve issues for the benefit of the justice system.

I am thankful to have worked with Circuit Clerk Erin Cartwright Weinstein, State’s Attorney Eric Rinehart, Public Defender Joy Gossman, Sheriff John Idleburg, and Lake County Board Chair Sandy Hart.

As a group, more meetings occurred over the last two years than ever before, but we’ve worked through novel and tough issues.

The Lake County Board has also shown a true commitment to the work of the Courts through their award of American Rescue Plan Act and Cares Act funds for building remodeling, technology equipment, and Zoom licenses.

Another group who proved invaluable was the Lake County Facilities team. Hand sanitizer, plexi-glass, and safety signage appeared throughout the courthouse and courtrooms. We were all very thankful for the improved safety of our building.

Finally, the Lake County Bar Association assisted with the dissemination of new information and changes in procedures. Joint virtual meetings were held with judges and the LCBA members, which benefited all in attendance. The extended services of Presidents Stephen Rice, Patricia Cornell and Joseph Fusz throughout their presidencies were invaluable in reaching lawyers practicing in Lake County with important Administrative Orders.

So, for November of

2021, I am thankful for the community that surrounds the Chief Judge and the 19th Judicial Circuit. All the good work that was accomplished would not have happened without our community members putting their heads together and figuring out solutions.

What I’ve written above does not acknowledge many more organizations and individuals who contributed to getting the court system through the trials of 2020 and 2021.

To these unsung heroes: thank you for your contributions. Together, we make this a great place to work and live.

2

The

1

2 1

Calendar of Events November 11 Holiday Courthouse Closed

November 16 Membership Luncheon ARDC Update Virtual November 18 5- 7 p.m.

Virtual Call in Clinic November 19 2021 Virtual Trusts & Estates Seminar November 25 Holiday Courthouse Closed November 26 Holiday Courthouse Closed December 3 5 p.m.

LCBA Holiday Party LCBA Office December 10 Time TBD LCBF Virtual Fundraiser

Helping people obtain the benefits that are rightfully theirs.

Do you have a client who cannot work and is struggling to obtain Social Security Disability benefits?

Has your client already been turned down?

SSD cases can be time-consuming and confusing, with complex requirements and deadlines.

With nearly 25 years of experience, The Good Law Group has won cases at all levels of the claims process, including cases originally declined by the Social Security Administration.

Get help today!

847-577-4476 | 800-419-7606 thegoodlawgroup.com • info@TheGoodLawGroup.com 209 W. Madison Street, Suite 1, Waukegan, IL 60085

November 2021

5

A Donation to Waukegan to College in Memory of Elizabeth Olszewski

O

ver at least the last five years, the Foundation has partnered with Waukegan to College as a local BOARD OF TRUSTEES Douglas Dorando President Carey Schiever Vice President Perry Smith, Jr. Treasurer Joan Fratianni Secretary Nicholas Riewer Past President Jennifer L. Ashley Jeffrey A. Berman Nandia P. Black Kristie Fingerhut Hon. Fred Foreman (Ret.) Scott B. Gibson David J. Gordon Keith C. Grant Fredric B. Lesser Amy L. Lonergan Steven P. McCollum Joseph McHugh Hon. Michael Nerheim Michael Ori Shyama Parikh John Quinn, Sr. Eric Rinehart Melanie Rummel David Stepanich Hon. Henry C. Tonigan (Ret.)

6

The Docket

charitable organization for which our organization can provide support.

We’ve done so in many ways, due to the remarkable backing of the bar’s membership—not only supporting their mission monetarily, but also providing volunteer support for their many events, and directly assisting students to prepare for the rigor of college and the admissions process.

This year, our support came with the poignant reminder of Elizabeth Olszewski’s absence following her tragic death last year. Elizabeth had been one of you who had volunteered her time to mentor local students. It was only fitting, therefore, that the Foundation Board decided to make its gift to Waukegan to College in her memory. These kinds of gestures can only come with your support.

I’d also take this mo-

BY DOUGLAS DORANDO PRESIDENT ment to encourage you to consider donating not only money to the Foundation, but also your time. Partnerships like the one we have shared with Waukegan to College are built not only with the financial backing (for which we are immensely grateful to have such a generous membership) but also with the

sweat equity that comes with volunteering at our events, attending other events on behalf of the Foundation, and the community involvement that our organizations strives to support.

Waukegan to College is not alone on the list of organizations the Foundation supports, but we

also are constantly looking for other worthy organizations that meet our mission of promoting the administration of justice; encouraging increased competency and knowledge of the law; promoting greater diversity among the bar and the judiciary;

enhancing equal access to justice for all; upholding the honor and dignity of the legal profession; and preserving the history and culture of the legal profession in Lake County.

To these ends, we always encourage other organizations to apply for our sup-

port and consider partnering with the Foundation in this mission. We look to you, the membership, to help introduce us to one another and allow us to continue fostering these relationships.

We are immensely grateful to the member-

ship for your continued support, both monetarily and for your time, energy, and passion. While this donation serves to honor Elizabeth’s legacy, we ask each of you to continue supporting both our mission and her legacy with your involvement.

OFFICE SPACE AVAILABLE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE LAKE COUNTY COURTHOUSE INDIVIDUAL OFFICE OR SUITE CALL MIKE PERILLO (847) 732-5986

November 2021

7

When Can an Officer Step Over the Threshold?

Exigent Circumstances and Warrantless Entry Under Lange v. California

T

BY MICHAEL CHEN

he Fourth Amendment’s protections are a complicated and ever-evolving area of law. As new cases arise, definitions and understandings become more finely tuned—and lawyers get a clearer picture of what is and is not allowed.

The Fourth Amendment’s protections are a complicated and ever-evolving area of law. As new cases arise, definitions and understandings become more finely tuned—and lawyers get a clearer picture of what is and is not allowed.

The recent United States Supreme Court case of Lange v.

California advanced the law by clarifying what constitutes an exigency that could allow for a warrantless entry into a home—specifically in the context of law enforcement pursuing a fleeing misdemeanor suspect.

The Court, in an opinion authored by Michael Justice Kagan, held that law enforceChen is a 2L ment did not have blanket authority to at Northpursue people suspected of committing western misdemeanors into their home. Justice Pritzker Kagan instead wrote that particular School of Law with a exigencies had to be present, and an particular officer had to take them into account, interest before committing a warrantless entry in issues into a home in pursuit of a suspect. of mental THE CASE One night in Sonoma County, a police officer attempted to pull over a driver

8

The Docket

who was “asking for attention” by being very loud.1 The driver, a Mr. Lange, failed to pull over once the officer activated his overhead lights, instead driving about a hundred feet and pulling into his garage.2 The officer then entered Lange’s garage, questioned him, and conducted field sobriety tests.3 Lange was eventually charged with a misdemeanor.4 At trial, Lange moved to suppress any evidence the officer gathered after entering the garage, claiming that the warrantless entry was in violation of the Fourth Amendment.5 California law permitted police officers to enter a home if they were in pursuit of a fleeing suspect, even if that person was only suspected of committing a misdemeanor. California state courts

health and health equity. He spent the last summer interning at the Lake County State’s Attorney’s Office.

1 Lange v. California, 141 S. Ct. 2011, 2016 (2021).

2 Id. 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Id.

repeatedly found against Lange and refused to suppress the evidence. The Supreme Court took the case because it had never definitively said whether the pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect automatically justified a warrantless entry into a home.6

approach, officers can only pursue fleeing suspects into a home when there was a exigency present. Mere flight is not enough—an officer would have to know of or have reason to suspect that another exigency, such as additional flight or destruction of evidence or safety, existed.

HOME SWEET HOME The right to security in one’s home is central to everyone’s suite of Constitutional rights. Justice Kagan repeatedly stressed the importance of the home, calling it the “first among equals” of places protected by the Fourth Amendment.7 This respect for the home made Justice Kagan “not eager . . . to print a new permission slip for entering the home without a warrant.”8 However, this right is not absolute and Justice Kagan acknowledged that “reasonableness” is still the “ultimate touchstone” of the Fourth Amendment, and that law enforcement officers may still enter homes without permission if it is reasonable to do so.9 So, what makes a warrantless entry reasonable? Precedent says that warrantless entry can be reasonable in the presence of certain exigencies.10

COULD FLIGHT COUNT AS AN “EXIGENCY”?

In their earlier opinions,15 California courts expressed concern about suspects “defeating arrest” by “retreat[ing] into” a home.16 California viewed flight as an exigency that justified warrantless entry no matter what other circumstances existed.17 While Justice Kagan expressed sympathy for these concerns, she held that the flight of a misdemeanor suspect was not a sufficient exigency by itself. As discussed below, this was a point of contention between Justice Kagan and Chief Justice Roberts, who filed a spirited concurrence.

Justice Kagan was concerned about the broad scope of misdemeanors, which in California covered everything from assault to littering.18 With minor offenses, the emergencies that may make warrantless entry reasonable do not usually exist.19 The Court had previously held that the seriousness of the offense often added to the reasonableness of a warrantless entry, and Justice Kagan wrote that, in accord with this precedent, the flight of a misdemeanor suspect was not grave enough to categorially justify warrantless entry.20 While Justice Kagan was not in favor of a categorical rule, she acknowledged that a fleeing suspect adds to the equation and helps justify the reasonableness of a warrantless entry.21 Flight into a home is often combined with several other already-recognized exigencies, such as destruction of evidence and possible additional flight.22 Kagan went so far as to conclude that flight may justify a warrantless entry in “many, if not most, cases.”23

The Supreme Court had never endorsed a blanket rule that the flight of a misdemeanor suspect was itself sufficient exigency to justify warrantless entry in all cases, as the California court had.

WHAT COUNTS AS AN “EXIGENCY”?

Justice Kagan defines exigencies as times when “the needs of law enforcement [are] so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable.”11 What counts as an exigency has been established over the years in a long series of cases. Instances like rendering emergency assistance, protecting evidence, and preventing escape are just a few of the exigencies that Justice Kagan cited as being supported in the case law.12 However, the Court has never endorsed a blanket rule that the flight of a misdemeanor suspect was itself sufficient exigency to justify warrantless entry in all cases, as the California court had.13 In fact, Justice Kagan stressed that determining what exigencies exist (and are applicable) is a matter best done on a case-by-case basis.14 Thus, under a case-by-case 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Id. at 2019.

Id. at 2018.

Id. Id. Id. at 2017.

Id. (quoting Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011)).

Lange, 141 S. Ct. at 2017.

Id. Id.

15 The state of California had declined to argue the case in front of the Court, so the state’s position was represented by an amicus party.

16 Lange, 141 S. Ct. at 2017.

17 See id. at 2019.

18 Id. at 2020.

19 Id. 20 Id. at 2021.

21 Id. 22 Id. 23 Id.

November 2021

9

THE HOLDING Finally, we come to the holding: California’s blanket rule that the flight of a misdemeanor suspect is enough of an exigency to justify a warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment. Instead, law enforcement officers must identify additional exigencies that exist or likely exist to justify a warrantless entry.24 Those exigencies are the same as they always have been: “imminent harms of violence, destruction of evidence, or escape form the home.”25 Absent these, an officer simply has to stop at the doorstep and wait for a warrant before entering the home.26 With this rule, Justice Kagan sought to strike a balance between the interests of law enforcement and the interests of protecting civil rights.

THE CHIEF JUSTICES DISAGREES: WHY MAKE THE POLICE’S JOB HARDER? While the decision was a unanimous 9-0, Chief Justice John Roberts filed a fiery concurrence. Roberts worried that the Court’s opinion would prove to be too burdensome on officers and make their job too difficult—and dangerous. Roberts laid out two scenarios that he believed the opinion allowed: for a suspect to “dash out the back door” or to “get a gun and take aim from inside.”27 Either of these events would defeat law enforcement and even put an officer’s life in danger. Roberts lambasted what he called the “absurd and dangerous” requirement that an officer stop to consider whether exigencies existed before performing a warrantless entry.28 He instead supported the general rule that officers may “enter premises without a warrant when they are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect.”29 However, both events that the Chief Justice laid out— 24 Id. at 2024.

25 Id. 26 Additionally, Justice Kagan dives into the common law history of warrantless entry into homes and concludes that an exception was only granted in cases of felony suspects. Thus, Justice Kagan finds that the common law history does not support a categorical rule for warrantless entry into a home for the pursuit of misdemeanor suspects. Id. at 2023-24.

27 Id. at 2028.

28 Id. 29 Id. (quoting King, 563 U.S. at 460).

potential escape and protecting officer safety—are clearly sufficient exigencies that would allow for a warrantless entry under the standard put forth by Justice Kagan.

If there was a reason to suspect that either event could occur, the Court’s opinion would have allowed an officer to effect a warrantless entry. Justice Kavanaugh recognized this and in his separate concurrence minimized the actual distance between Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kagan’s positions.

ONE BIG HAPPY COURT? Despite Chief Justice Roberts’s strong language, Justice Kavanaugh contended that “there is almost no daylight in practice between the Court’s opinion” and Chief Justice Roberts’s concurrence.30 Justice Kavanaugh pointed out that exigent circumstances will also exist in almost all cases of fleeing misdemeanants and “nine times out of 10 or more” a warrantless entry would be allowable.31 Justice Kagan made a similar point when she wrote that flight may provide justification for a warrantless entry in “many, if not most, cases.”32 At the end of the day, in the case of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect, an officer should be able to point to some circumstances, whether real or suspected, that would justify a warrantless entry under the standard laid out by Justice Kagan. The only impact is that blanket, broad rules like California’s will not be allowed. Law enforcement is still supported and given tools without civil liberties being completely trampled.

CODA: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE Justice Thomas also filed a concurrence that was primarily concerned about the impact the case had on the federal exclusionary rule: whether evidence gathered from an unconstitutional search would be allowed in court, or excluded. Remember: this case arose over Mr. Lange’s attempt to exclude evidence from his case. While a Fourth Amendment violation is a serious matter, Justice Thomas pointed out that such a violation does not automatically trigger the exclusionary rule.33 Justice Thomas was loath to provide suspects any incentive to evade law enforcement and stated that “[h]ere, exclusion is inappropriate because it would encourage suspects to flee.”34 Justice Thomas stressed that even though the Court is laying out a rule that may allow lower courts to find a Fourth Amendment violation, those same courts should not necessarily exclude evidence that stems from such a violation.

30 Lange at 2025.

31 Id. J. Kavanaugh also stresses that this rule does not affect fleeing felons.

32 Id. at 2021.

33 Id. at 2026.

34 Id. at 2027.

10 The Docket

World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan &

VETERANS of Other Conflicts

WE WANT YOU! to Participate in the 2021 Veterans History Project Thursday, November 11, 2021 at the Lake County Courthouse, Waukegan, Illinois *Check in begins at 8:00 am Registration is now open for the Annual Veterans History Project. Registered participants will be interviewed by volunteer lawyers regarding their wartime experiences. These oral histories will be recorded and transcribed by court reporters, and then archived in the Library of Congress.

Once archived, these first-hand accounts of American war veterans will be accessible online to serve as both an inspiration for generations to come, and to be available for use by researchers so that Americans can better understand the realities of war.

Civilians who were actively involved in supporting war efforts (war industry workers, such as “Rosie the Riveter,” USO workers, civilian flight instructors and pilots, medical personnel, etc.) are also invited to share their valuable stories.

Space is limited to 28 veterans. Breakfast and other refreshments will be provided courtesy of volunteer organizations. Registered veterans are welcome to bring family members.

To register for this event, please contact Lorena Hernandez at 847.377.3771 or lhernandez@lakecountyil.gov.

2019 Veterans

November 2021

11

Preparing Clients for Family Law Mediation

O

BY JERALD A. KESSLER

ver the last 40 years, mediation has proven to be very effective in family law cases.

When family law clients decide to mediate, or are ordered to mediate by the court, lawyers can provide a valuable service by taking some time to prepare the client.

Many lawyers, when a case is to be mediated, simply tell the client to call them when the mediation is complete. But most clients are not familiar with mediation or how to approach negotiating in mediation. What follows are a few pointers on how to assist clients who are headed to mediation.

PRELIMINARY POINTS Obviously, some of your advice might be different if your client was referred by the court to mediate only child-related issues, as opposed to private parties seeking mediation for all issues in a divorce. What follows is general advice, some of which may not be applicable in a given situation, depending on the particular issues and parties.

Remember, your client has a statutory right to have you attend the mediation, although generally not necessary. In a case where the attorneys have worked-up the file, and trial

12

The Docket

is imminent, attorneys will often agree to mediate rather than proceeding to trial. Obviously, the attorneys would attend the mediation in situations of this type.

Unless it is a situation where the parties have been litigating and are on the eve of trial, the presence of attorneys is usually not necessary. The mediator will ask for your attendance if he/she thinks it would be beneficial. It is generalJerald ly better, however, if the attorneys Kessler do not attend the intake or initial converted his practice meeting. Most mediators do separate largely to intakes. The mediator needs to develmediation op rapport with the client and gain 31 years ago. a buy-in to the process. This is also He has mean opportunity for the client to vent diated over 2500 cases, (rather than in a joint session). This is provides easier for clients to do when it is just advanced the mediator and the client. mediation training, and has taught Mediation is based on self-demediation for college, graduate termination by the parties. But as and law school students. He currently serves as president of the mediators, we want informed Mediation Council of Illinois. decision makers. If it is apt to be a multiple session mediation, instruct

your clients to stay in touch with you. They probably won’t – because they want to keep fees down and/or get upset when you play devil’s advocate. Therefore, make it a point for you to call the client.

Call the mediator if you have a special concern or if your client is conflict avoidant and think he/she will fail to bring out a significant consideration. Also, don’t assume that your client has given you a complete or accurate account of what has transpired in the mediation.

In tense situations, people seldom hear or remember everything.

disclosure, not confidentiality. The ULC commissioners decided to leave confidentiality up to the individual states. The Illinois Uniform Mediation Act (710 ILCS 35/9) states: “Confidentiality. Unless subject to the Open Meetings Act or the Freedom of Information Act, mediation communications are confidential to the extent agreed by the parties or provided by other law or rule of this state.” [emphasis added.] Our local rule requires the mediator to provide an Agreement to Mediate.

Make sure the Agreement to Mediate contains a confidentiality provision.

(Ideally, there should also be a separate confidentiality agreement.)

7. Inform your client that the judge will not hear what transpired in mediation unless there is a written agreement, approved by the attorneys and signed by all parties. The court is not interested in who ‘played nice’ or who caused the mediation to fall apart.

When family law clients decide to mediate, or are ordered to mediate by the court, lawyers can provide a valuable service by taking some time to prepare the client.

I. GIVE THE CLIENT A BASIC DESCRIPTION OF THE MEDIATION PROCESS 1. The mediator is in charge of the process, and the parties, not the mediator, are in charge of making the terms of their agreement.

Remind your client that he/she is 50% of the vote.

Both parties have power in a mediation. Nothing is going to emerge from the mediation unless the client agrees to it. The client can always say “no” to an objectionable proposal.

2. Emphasize to the client that this is the most direct opportunity they will have to determine the outcome of the case.

3. Mediation is a process – identifying issues, gathering information to address the issues, brainstorming options to resolve the issues, discussing the options. Inform the client that if they jump to the bottom line at the outset, they are likely to reach an impasse and get stuck.

Advise the client to give the process a chance to unfold.

4. Advise your client to focus on the future. The past cannot be undone, and, it is unlikely that the parties will ever agree on who did/said what. Rehashing the past does not solve problems. Advise your client not to get dragged into a debate on who did/said what.

5. Mediation tends to be iterative, not linear. The issues are inter-related, so usually an issue is not nailed down on the first pass (e.g., division of property could determine how far apart the parents reside, which in turn could impact the parenting schedule). Eventually, the various components come together. The client needs to let the mediator proceed with the process.

6. Court-ordered mediation is subject to our local rules. However, our local rule only incorporates provisions of the Illinois Uniform Mediation Act. The Illinois Uniform Mediation Act deals with the privilege to prevent

II. GENERAL ADVICE FOR CLIENTS ABOUT MEDIATING 1. Although mediation is confidential, documents introduced by the parties in mediation are still admissible if they could have been obtained through discovery or are otherwise admissible. “Mediation communications” (oral, written or non-verbal) in a mediation (other than threats of violence or other criminal acts) are privileged against disclosure under the UMA, but should be protected with a confidentiality agreement.

2. If the mediator is an attorney, and the client is an attorney, remind the client that the mediator is still under a Himmel obligation, notwithstanding confidentiality in mediation.

3. The client should be encouraged to remain open to solutions other than preconceived ideas of the outcome.

Clients sometimes overlook superior options in their rush to secure a specific goal.

4. At the outset of each meeting, the mediator should ask if there are any pressing issues before delving into the main issues. If the mediator doesn’t ask, tell your client to bring up “housekeeping” issues that require immediate attention. If not, the client might be too distracted to focus on other issues.

5. Clients who had controlling spouses occasionally use their newly found voice to challenge everything their spouse says. It’s preferable for the client to be selective about what they challenge, and to concentrate on the

October 2021

13

actual issues. Often, the formerly controlling spouse becomes enraged at the newly empowered spouse, attributes the behavior to the spouse’s “evil” attorney, and reflexively rejects everything proposed by the spouse.

6. Mediation is voluntary (even if court-ordered!).

The client should be encouraged to make a good faith effort to utilize the process. Even if the client thinks that mediation will be a waste of time, sometimes people are pleasantly surprised by the other person’s willingness to negotiate.

7. Inform the client that it is always permissible in mediation to say “I need to think about that.” They shouldn’t say “I want to talk to my attorney about that” even if that is their intention.

8. Clients should be reminded not to attack or criticize the other person, regardless of how tempting. Attacks are not persuasive; they only anger the other person and make them defensive. In order to agree, the other person would have to admit that the attack and criticisms are correct—it doesn’t happen.

9. Your client needs to give the other party a face-saving way to back off of proposals the client has rejected.

Mediators sometimes refer to this as a WOW: Way out With Dignity.

10. Related to the WOW: your client should give some thought to the other party’s constituency. How will they explain their decisions to friends, relatives, etc., while saving face.

11. Ask your client: “If you get what you want, do you care what the other person thinks?”

Generally, when the other person is difficult or hostile, the correct answer is “no.” Obviously, when it comes to preserving family and parenting relationships, we don’t want the parties to emerge from mediation even more antagonistic. However, there are times when it may not be possible to obtain the other person’s willing affirmation without upsetting them. At the other extreme, some clients will go along with a proposal they actually dislike, just to gain the approval of the other party (sometimes hoping for a reconciliation).

12. If your client has questions of the other party, they should present them as inquisitive, not accusatory—i.e., dumb-it-down, Columbo style.

FREE CLE • DISCOUNTED CLE BUSINESS MEETINGS • LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP • THE DOCKET & WEEKLY E-NEWS

14

The Docket

13. If a client feels uncomfortable, the person should ask to take a break or to caucus with the mediator. The person can also call the mediator later to express their concern.

14. People like to be acknowledged. It doesn’t cost your client anything to acknowledge a positive attribute or contribution by the other party.

15. Discuss the case with the client and give them a range of possible outcomes. Clients often hear only what they want to hear, and arrive at mediation with the notion that the court will give them exactly what they want (because they think that’s what their attorney said)!

They tend to forget or not hear any of the other possible outcomes or downside.

16. Lingo—give clients a rough idea of the following: BATNA: Their best alternative to a negotiated agreement WATNA: Their worst alternative to a negotiated agreement MLATNA: Their most likely alternative to a negotiated agreement (to the extent we can ever predict what a judge might do) 17. Mediators try to assist people in identifying their interests and the other person’s interests—as opposed to positions. Instead of their positions, ask your client to identify their interests and the interests of the other side.

Positions don’t overlap—but interests often do. The overlap is where the agreement is to be found. E.g., Position: “I want the house.” Interest: “I want a nice place to live in this community.”

18. If the mediator writes up an agreement advise your client NOT to sign it. (In a post-decree mediation, the mediator may draft a memo then and there. Unless it is very straightforward and ideal for the client, the client ought not to sign anything.) This is the same rationale of why prove-ups without a written judgment have been barred. I have never placed signatures lines on my memoranda. I want people to review the document(s) with their attorney. The final section of my documents state: “This Memorandum is voluntary. Neither party shall attempt to request a court to impose it on the other party until reviewed and approved by each party’s attorney, until the attorneys add a signature line to the Memorandum, and until each party signs the document.”

19. If it looks like the mediation is going to end without an agreement, talk to your client about how they want to end it. Leave the door open for further discussion. Don’t force the other party to “eat crow” if they later decide to continue negotiating. Better to exude a sense of openness, reasonableness and disappointment upon leaving—not “I’ll see you in court.”

Visit the LCBA Website lakebar.org MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION THROUGH THE CHICAGO BAR ASSOCIATION ¨

I have 35+ years’ experience in personal injury li�ga�on, with a focus on heavy truck li�ga�on for the past 20 + years.

¨

Media�ons and arbitra�ons are available online

¨

Mee�ng rooms are available in Waukegan or Chicago for in person sessions

¨

The Chicago Bar Associa�on established rate for media�on is $400 per hour with a four hour minimum.

¨

Many small to midsize auto cases can be successfully mediated for around $1000 a party.

¨

You do not have to be a Chicago Bar Associa�on member to use the service.

¨

Contact the CBA Media�on Service at www.chicagobarmedia�on.org or call 312.554.2040

¨

Or contact me at 312.217.0054.

HELP WANTED

Civil Litigation Associate Attorney Minimum 3 years experience Lake County Attorneys preferred Excellent Research, Writing, and Oral Advocacy Skills Sought Opportunities for Growth Salary commensurate with experience 401(k), Medical, performance bonus, etc.

Send inquiries to: info@lawjtlg.com Johnston Tomei Lenczycki & Goldberg, LLC 350 N. Milwaukee Avenue, Suite 202 Libertyville, IL 60048 847-549-0600 www.lawjtlg.com

November 2021

15

Final Score is Dog – 3, Mailman – 0, as Pooch Overcomes Cliché (And Precedent) to Prevail on Bite Claim

A

BY JEFFREY A. BERMAN

normal dog may be provoked into biting when a plaintiff sticks his hand through the mail slot of a house where he knows the dog is present and, thus, the plaintiff cannot recover for injuries resulting from the bite.

In a shopworn fact pattern straight of out the cliché, a 45-pound dog named Chelsea bit a mailman.1 On June 17, 2021, the Illinois First District Court of Appeals, after “walking” in a “normal” dog’s paws, found the letter carrier could have provoked the attack when he stuck his hand through the mail slot of the house where he knew the dog was present. The Court thus held he could not recover from the dog’s owners for his injuries.2 THE GENESIS OF A WOEFUL “TAIL” Kevin Claffey, a letter carrier for the United States Postal Service, was de1

2

16

This scenario has been the source of countless comedy routines, and is far from unique, as more than 5,800 postal workers were bitten by dogs while on the job in 2020. See “U.S. Postal Service Releases Dog Attach National Rankings,” https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2021/0610-usps-releases-dog-attack-national-rankings.htm.

Claffey v. Huntley, 2021 IL App (1st) 191938.

The Docket

livering mail to the home of Virginia and Mark Huntley in Glencoe on Oct. 1, 2015. The Huntleys’ front door had a mail slot with two flaps, one on the outside and one on the inside of the door. A spring kept the inside flap shut.

Trying to ensure that the inside flap would not damage the mail, Claffey stuck his right hand through the mail slot, lifted the inner flap, and used the left hand to insert the mail.3 In addition to a mail slot with two flaps, the Huntleys also had two Jeffrey Berdogs, one of which was Chelsea, man of the law firm of a 45-pound Labrador mix. Claffey Anderson + knew that the home had dogs, and Wanca has he heard the dogs barking before he extensive placed his hand in the mail slot.4 experience in The mailbox activity caught commercial litigation, Chelsea’s attention. The dog then class actions leapt up and bit the mailman’s right and insurhand and refused to let go for several ance coverseconds. Claffey then managed to age litigation in state and federal pull his hand away from Chelsea’s courts across the country. He is Co-Editor of the Docket and serves on the LCBF Board of Trustees.

3 4

Id., at ¶ 3.

Id.

jaws, but the top of his hand was ripped, and he was in considerable pain.5 Claffey sought medical attention. He received one stitch, was prescribed medication and later underwent physical therapy. He continued to experience acute pain, however. Eventually, he required surgery to repair an injured nerve in his finger.6 CLAFFEY UN-LEASHES HIS LAWYERS Claffey sued the Huntleys in the Circuit Court of Cook County. His action sought to recover damages for the injuries he suffered from the dog bite under the Illinois Animal Control Act, which provides: If a dog or other animal, without provocation, attacks, attempts to attack, or injures any person who is peaceably conducting himself in any place where he or she may lawfully be, the owner of such dog or other animal is liable in civil damages to such person for the full amount of the injury proximately caused thereby.7

other words, a normal dog acts reasonably and proportionately to stimuli.11 Such a dog does not overreact to petting or greeting, and in cases where a viscous attack is out of proportion to the reaction of a normal dog to the same stimulus, there is no provocation.12 Judicial decisions have thus attempted to differentiate between actions that would provoke a normal dog from those that as a matter of law could not. For example, kicking a dog, pulling on a dog’s ears or tail, or striking a dog may be acts that amount to provocation for a normal dog.13 At trial, Claffey testified that he knew the Huntleys owned two dogs and that the dogs would sometimes get excited when he delivered mail to their house.14 When he knew the dogs were present, Claffey would often bundle the mail and leave it between the front and screen doors. He also testified that he could insert mail through the slot without placing his hand inside the house to hold the inner flap open and had done so before. But at other times, Claffey said he would place his hand through and hold the flap open.15 After the close of evidence at trial, Claffey moved for a directed verdict, arguing that there was no evidence of provocation.16 The Circuit Court denied the motion, reasoning that “a reasonable jury could conceivably infer from the evidence in this case that the act of sticking his entire hand or a portion of his hand through the mail slot could be considered provocation of these dogs.”17 Accordingly, the matter was submitted to the jury.

The jury returned a verdict finding in favor of the Huntleys and against Claffey.18 Claffey’s motions for

Under Illinois law, the term “provoked” means “any action or activity, whether intentional or unintentional, which could reasonably be expected to cause a normal animal in similar circumstances to react in a manner similar to that shown by the evidence.”

The Act thus imposes liability on animal owners if the injured person proves that he or she (1) suffered injuries from the animal; (2) was at a place where he or she had the lawful right to be; (3) conducted himself or herself peaceably; (4) and the attack was without provocation.8 Under Illinois law, the term “provoked” means “any action or activity, whether intentional or unintentional, which could reasonably be expected to cause a normal animal in similar circumstances to react in a manner similar to that shown by the evidence.”9 Further, a normal dog is one that is average, and is neither unusually aggressive nor unusually docile.10 In 5 Id. 6 Id., at ¶ 4.

7 510 ILCS 5/16 (West 2012).

8 2021 IL App (1st) 191938, at ¶ 15, citing Smith v. Pitchford, 219 Ill.App.3d 152, 154 (5th Dist. 1991).

9 2021 IL App (1st) 191938, at ¶¶ 9, 15 citing Kirkham v. Will, 311 Ill.App.3d 787, 794 (5th Dist. 2000) and Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Civil, No. 110.04 (rev. June 2009).

10 Kirkham, 311 Ill.App.3d at 793-94 (“The cases tend to focus on how an average dog, neither unusually aggressive nor unusually

docile, would react to an alleged act of provocation.”).

11 Wade v. Rich, 249 Ill.App.3d 581 (5th Dist. 1993) (attack was “out of all proportion to the unintentional acts involved”); Smith, 219 Ill. App. 3d at 154 (provocation cannot be said to exist where the attack is out of all proportion to the unintentional stimuli involved.).

12 Smith, 219 Ill.App.3d at 154.

13 E.g., VonBehren v. Bradley, 266 Ill.App.3d 446 (4th Dist. 1994) (pulling the dog’s tail and ears and striking the dog).

14 2021 IL App (1st) 191938, at ¶ 5.

15 Id. 16 Id., at ¶ 8.

17 Id. 18 Id., at ¶ 10.

November 2021

17

judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial were each denied.19 Claffey then appealed.

THE APPELLATE COURT MAKES A “SPECIAL DELIVERY,” BUT IT’S ONLY FOR THE DOG On appeal, Claffey sought a second bite of his own, arguing that the Circuit Court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict and his motion for judgment n.o.v., since there was no evidence of provocation.

Claffey asserted that “[a]s a matter of law, mere presence of Mr. Claffey’s hand in the mail slot cannot constitute provocation in Illinois.”20 In support of his position, Claffey cited several Illinois appellate cases where courts found the plaintiff ’s conduct did not amount to provocation as a matter of law.21 Claffey chiefly relied on the decision in Robinson v. Meadows.22 In Robinson, the defendants’ two dogs started barking and jumping when someone knocked on the front door.23 One of the dogs, Ben, became particularly agitated.24 Jamie, a visiting four-year-old girl, frightened by the dogs’ behavior, screamed.25 In response, Ben viciously attacked Jamie, tore her lip, and caused other injuries to her face, neck, and throat.26 A jury returned a verdict in favor of the dog owners.27 The pivotal issue at trial and on appeal was whether Ben attacked Jamie without provocation.28 The appellate court observed that prior precedent supported the conclusion that provocation does not exist when a dog viciously attacks a victim out of all proportion to the unintentional act involved.29 It also found that while Jamie’s scream triggered Ben’s attack, the assault was so savage that her scream could not amount to provocation as a matter of law.30 Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for judgment n.o.v. and remanded for a new trial on damages.31 The Appellate Court in Claffey declined to follow Robinson, finding that decision and the other cases Claffey cited did not compel the same result in this case.32 In that regard, the Court observed: Claffey’s assertion that his hand was merely present in the mail slot ignores what we believe are significant facts and circumstances that dis19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Id. Id., at ¶ 16.

See id., at ¶¶ 16-18.

Robinson v. Meadows, 203 Ill. App. 3d 706 (1990).

Id. at 708.

Id. Id. at 709.

Id. Id. at 708.

Id. at 710.

Id. at 713, citing Nelson v. Lewis, 36 Ill.App.3d 130, 134 (5th Dist.

1976).

30 Id. 31 Id. 32 2021 IL App (1st) 191938, at ¶ 20.

18

The Docket

tinguish this case. By placing his hand through the mail slot into the interior of the Huntleys’ house, Claffey breached the enclosure that otherwise separated and protected him from the Huntleys’ dogs. But for that act, the dogs could not have come into contact with him. We also find it significant that the mail slot’s interior flap had a spring-loaded hinge. This feature required the deliberate act of pushing it open for a hand to reach inside the house. Indeed, Claffey testified he held it open on purpose.33 The Court concluded that the case was distinguishable from the scenarios contemplated in Robinson, because: In those instances, no barrier separated the person from a dog if it reacted to the stimuli of their ordinary act. But Claffey is not similarly situated to those hypothetical plaintiffs. Rather than a mere external stimulus, Claffey took the additional step of introducing a stimulus into the dog’s separate environment exposing himself to a possible reaction.34 The Court then reviewed a competing line of cases from outside of Illinois in which courts held that plaintiffs may be precluded from recovering for injuries sustained when they were trespassers or otherwise intruded into spaces where they knew a dog was confined, and which were, in its view, more apposite.35 Proceeding from that proposition, the Court stated: We likewise believe provocation is generally a question of fact and the fact finder may consider whether the plaintiff had knowledge of the risk of harm from an animal and voluntarily exposed themselves to that risk. … If so, and the plaintiff’s actions would be reasonably expected to cause a normal dog in similar circumstances to react in a manner similar to that shown by the evidence, the fact finder may conclude the dog was provoked.36 Contrary to the Illinois caselaw cited by Claffey, which he suggested supported the conclusion that his actions would not be provocation as a matter of law, the Appellate Court adopted the reasoning of the Louisi33 Id. 34 Id., at ¶ 21.

35 Id., at ¶¶ 22–24, citing, among others, Farley v. Picard, 29 N.Y.S. 802, 803 (N.Y. Gen. Term 1894); Badali v. Smith, 37 S.W. 642 (Tex. Civ. App. 1896); Matson v. Kivimaki, 200 N.W.2d 164 (Minn.

1972); Blair v. Jackson, 526 S.W.2d 120 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1973); Kenney v. Barna, 341 N.W.2d 901 (Neb. 1983); Engquist v.

Loyas, 803 N.W.2d 400 (Minn. 2011).

36 Id., at ¶ 25.

ana Supreme Court in a case decided under a Louisiana statute that differs from the Illinois Act.37 Following from that decision, and creating for itself its own dog day afternoon by imbuing itself with the dog’s perception (and hopefully not any fleas to go along with it), the Appellate Court concluded: In this case, the Huntleys secured their dog against contact with outsiders by keeping it inside their home. . . . But by breaching that security, Claffey encroached on the dog’s isolated environment and exposed himself to risk of harm. The dog could not have come into contact with Claffey under these circumstances. Echoing Farley, Claffey had to “go to the dog to be bitten.” Furthermore, Claffey knew of and had a way of avoiding the risk the Huntleys’ dogs posed to him. . . . Moreover, regardless of Claffey’s intent or purpose in placing his hand through the slot, a jury could reasonably expect a normal dog to perceive a hand entering its enclosed environment as an intrusion and react as it did; in other words, that this bite 37 Id., at ¶ 26, citing Pepper v. Triplet, 864 So. 2d 181, 197-98 (La. 2004).

was provoked. Provocation focuses on the dog’s perspective.38 The Court thus held that “a reasonable jury could conceivably infer from the evidence in this case that the act of sticking his entire hand or a portion of his hand through the mail slot could be considered provocation.”39 Because a reasonable jury could conclude that Claffey provoked the dogs by sticking his hand through the mail slot despite being aware of their presence, the Court thus affirmed the denial of Claffey’s motions for directed verdict or for judgment n.o.v.40 In the annals of “dog bite litigation,” the pooch often seems to be the underdog. But, in this instance, having been told he is “barking up the wrong tree,” it seems to be the pet-ulant human who is left with his “tail between his legs” in the end. Apparently, having taken a “walk” in a “normal” dog’s head, this Court “pawstulated” it was the “leashed” it could do for its furry doppelganger.

38 Id., at ¶ 27.

39 Id. 40 Id., at ¶¶ 28-29.

SAVE THE DATE

You’re Invited LAKE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION HOLIDAY PARTY* December 3, 2021 LCBA Office 300 Grand Ave. Waukegan, IL 60085 5 p.m.

A VIRTUAL FUNDRAISING EVENT

*The LCBA is planning to hold this Holiday party in a safe/responsible manner

FRIDAY DECEMBER 10, 2021 More information coming soon.

November 2021

19

Foundation & Committee Minutes LAKE COUNT Y BAR FOUNDATION BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 IN ATTENDANCE:

BY ZOOM: Joann Fratianni John Quinn, Sr. Douglas Dorando David Stepanich Shyama Parikh Jennifer Ashley Amy Lonergan Carey Schiever Joe McHugh Hon. Henry “Skip” Tonigan (Ret.) Scott Gibson David Gordon Melanie Rummel Kristie Fingerhut Rick Lesser

BY PHONE: Perry Smith ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Greg Weider, Executive Director, LCBA, LCBF. I. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order by President Douglas Dorando at 4:01 p.m.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of August 21, 2021 were presented for approval. Motion to approve the minutes was made by Rick Lesser and seconded by David Gordon. Motion carried.

III. TREASURER’S REPORT:

20 The Docket

A. STATUS AND BALANCES OF LCBF ACCOUNTS: Treasurer, Perry Smith delivered the report to the Board based on the financial documents included with the agenda.

There were no significant changes in the accounts, except for a $500.00 charge from the Management Company for the Condo In Cabo in order to appoint Greg Weider our representative instead of Dale Perrin.

B. WARRANT/ APPROVAL OF EXPENSES PAID: The Warrants for Expenses for August 2021 were presented for approval.

Motion to approve the expenses made by Rick Lesser and seconded by Skip Tonigan. Motion carried.

IV. CONTINUING BUSINESS: A. FUNDRAISING SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING: 1. FUNDRAISING EVENTS UPDATE: Kristie Fingerhut reported that the Subcommittee met and discussed a number of ideas in light of the health challenges with regard to COVID. The subcommittee discussed the possibility of two to three events. They included the following ideas: a. An entertainment focused event such as “Shakespeare On

Demand” with theme baskets to be sold. b. An educational or historical focused event. c. A possible in person social event, hopefully in the Spring or Summer, 2022.

The subcommittee plans to meet the second Tuesday of the month at 4:00 p.m. and all Board members are invited to participate and share their ideas.

2. WAUKEGAN TO COLLEGE SPONSORSHIP REQUEST: We received a sponsorship request from Waukegan To College. Motion made

by Kristie Fingerhut and seconded by Shayma Parikh to authorize $1,000 as a Memorial Donation in the name of the late Elizabeth Olszewski.

Motion carried.

3. WORDS ON WHEELS GRANT REQUEST: The subcommittee failed to find this organization fit into the purpose of the Lake County Bar Foundation in order to fulfill a Grant request. Therefore the subcommittee does not recommend allowing the Grant request. Motion to deny the Words on Wheels Grant request was made by Rick Lesser and seconded

by David Gordon. Motion carried. Greg Weider will send a letter to Words on Wheels denying their request and explaining

their request does not fit the purpose of the Bar Foundation.

4. FUTURE GRANT REQUESTS: The fundraising subcommittee also discussed how to reach out to worthy organizations that might comply with our purpose and be able to donate our money to them. We decided on a three-prong approach: a. We could work on targeting request for proposals to find organizations that we could invite to apply for a Grant on our website. b. We could target newsletters and bulletins of various organizations so they could apply on our website. c. We could assist the 19th Circuit Court with their Help Desks.

5. CONDO IN CABO: We need to have a future discussion on whether or not we are going to have a raffle for the Condo in Cabo and how to recoup our expenses for the Condo.

B. CONSTITUTION DAY: The Constitution Day event was held on September 17, 2021 at Lincoln Plaza. The Foundation approved $500.00 in expenses for this event and Judge Mathews recognized the Foundation for our donation.

continued on page 24

November 2021

21

Board of Directors’ Meeting

The

September 23, 2021 CONSENT AGENDA • Minutes • New Members A motion was made and seconded to approve the consent agenda. The motion was unanimously approved.

DISCUSSION ITEMS • Treasurer’s Report Membership renewal and budget is in a good place.

OLD BUSINESS: • Write Off Policy A procedure for collection of past due invoices was presented for board review and discussion.

Notice has been sent

Meeting Minutes

BY DANIEL HODGKINSON SECRETARY

out to all outstanding invoices.

• LCBA Member Satisfaction Survey The Satisfaction Survey was approved to be sent to membership (No motion was needed).

NEW BUSINESS: • Lifetime Membership Application A lifetime membership application was submitted

by Attorney Ken Glick.

A motion was made and seconded to approve Mr. Glick’s lifetime membership and have dues be set at zero.

• Access to Justice Award The nominations for the Access to Justice Award are submitted directly to the LCBA Board. The Wayne Flanigan award comes through the Community Outreach and Diversity Committee and is then ratified by the board.

• Pro Bono Award lunch: October 19, 2021 A motion was made and seconded to have the Pro Bono Award lunch be virtual based on concerns about the Pandemic.

• Committee Updates

There’s no place like LCBA/LCBF... and we wouldn’t be the same without you

Renew your membership today!

LCBA is the professional community for the Lake County legal community, offering connections, information and resources you can’t get anywhere else. We look forward to continuing to support you and celebrating your successes.

www.lakebar.org

22 The Docket

Updates were given on all active committees through the Bar Association.

The meeting concluded at 1:08PM.

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Joseph Fusz President Tara Devine First Vice President Kevin Berrill Treasurer Daniel Hodgkinson Secretary Hon. Patricia Cornell Past President Craig Mandell Director Hon. Jacquelyn Melius Director Jeremy Harter Director Jeff O’Kelley Director Sarah Raisch Director Greg Weider Executive Director

We’ve got you covered. ISBA Mutual insures more small firms in Illinois than any other insurance company.

Same-day Service Risk Management Consultations

Answers questions and helps guide you through the process

Online CLE

Sponsored with the Illinois State Bar Association

No interest or fees for quarterly or monthly payments

Call us at (312) 379-2000 or visit us online at ISBAMUTUAL.COM/APPLY.

(312) 379-2000 | ISBAMUTUAL.COM

Foundation Minutes continued from page 20 C. REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTION: Amy Lonergan reported that there were no new developments on our Real Estate Tax Exemption.

V. NEW BUSINESS: There was no new business to discuss by the Board.

VI. ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn made by David Gordon and seconded by Skip Tonigan.Motion carried and the Meeting adjourned at 4:27 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Joann M. Fratianni Secretary

Bar

Bulletin Board

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

24 The Docket

Monthly

Committee Meetings

DAY

MEETING

LOCATION

TIME

1st Tuesday

Diversity & Community Outreach

Virtual Until Further Notice

12:15-1:15

1st Thursday

Real Estate

VUFN

5:30-6:30

Docket Editorial Committee

VUFN

12:15-1:15

2nd Tuesday

Criminal Law

VUFN

12:15-1:15

2nd Tuesday (Odd Mo.)

Immigration

VUFN

4:30-5:30

2nd Wednesday

Family Law Advisory Group (FLAG)

VUFN

12:00-1:00

2nd Wednesday

Civil Trial and Appeals

VUFN

4:00-5:00

2nd Thursday

Young & New Lawyers

VUFN

12:15-1:15

2nd Thursday

Trusts and Estates

VUFN

12:15-1:15

3rd Monday (Odd Mo.)

Solo & Small Firms

VUFN

12:00 noon

3rd Tuesday

Local Government

VUFN

12:15-1:15

3rd Tuesday

LCBF Board of Trustees

VUFN

4:00

Family Law

VUFN

12:00-1:00

LCBA Board of Directors

VUFN

12:00 noon

VUFN

5:30-6:30

VUFN

5:15-6:15

1st Thursday (Even Mo.)

3rd Wednesday 3rd Thursday 3rd Thursday As Needed

Debtor/Creditor Rights Employment Law

• 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.

November 2021 25

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

MEMBER RECEPTION

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 info@lakebar.org to add your name to a reception.