Minnesota school district threatens to cut student

Meet Tony Richard, 17, and -- for the moment anyway -- a senior at Blaine High School in Blaine, Minnesota, a town of about 45,000 people not far from Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Richard faces expulsion because he allegedly violated the school's zero tolerance weapons policy.

Oh my, you say. What did this boy do?

Did he bring a loaded pistol into school? A rifle? Did he threaten a teacher? Another student?

Well, no.

According to Abby Simmons' article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Richard left a box cutter in his car -- a box cutter that he uses at his after school job at Cub Foods, a job which sometimes requires that he cut up cardboard boxes.

The box cutter, in plain sight, in a cup holder, was "spotted" by a security officer when Richard pulled into the parking lot.

Astonishingly, this -- just this and nothing more -- is the violation which has already resulted in young Mr. Richard being suspended for 10 days and, according to Simmons' article, school officials recommending "to the Anoka-Hennepin school board that he be expelled."

In a saner world, the high school disciplinarian would have urged Security Guard Barney Fife to calm down, then given Mr. Richard a pass to excuse his being late to class. The disciplinarian might have also suggested to Mr. Richard that he leave his work tools at work. And that would have been the end of the incident.

Zay N. Smith picked up the story for QT this morning, another amusing story in his continuing series, "The Case for Zero Tolerance of Modern School Administrators." In the Sun-Times, it was funny.

But it may not be funny for young Mr. Richard, not if he really does get booted out of high school. And it's not just the local school district that seems to be treating this ridiculous case as if it were a potential tragedy averted by vigilant security work.

Abby Simmons interviewed Charlie Kyte, executive director of the Minnesota Association of School Administrators, for linked Star-Tribune article. She quotes Kyte as saying, "While schools have zero-tolerance policies, you must also allow judgment to come into play." For a brief second, hope flared: Perhaps, I thought, here's where a grownup enters the conversation and shuts this silliness down. But Mr. Kyte continued, "The board's gotta look at this and say, 'Hmmm, did this kid really create a horrible act?' The second thing they have to ask themselves is, by giving a less rigorous punishment, are they also opening the door to kids thinking they can get away with this stuff?"

Create? Horrible act? Giving a "less rigorous punishment" might "[open] the door to kids thinking they can get away with this stuff?" What might some future miscreant hope to get away with? Having an after school job?

Here's my suggestion for a punishment: The Blaine school board should apologize to Mr. Richard.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Photo obtained from the linked Star-Tribune article. Entirely off-topic thing I learned while looking into this story: Blaine, Minnesota is also the off-season home of White Sox GM Kenny Williams.

Pamela Loza fundraisers announced

A fundraiser will be held for 12th Subcircuit Democratic judicial candidate Pamela Loza on September 25 from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. at Cheeseburger in Paradise, 1472 Market Street in Des Plaines. Tickets for this event begin at $50.

A second Loza fundraiser will be held in the Loop on October 2 at Sidebar, 220 N. LaSalle Street, also from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. Tickets for this event begin at $100.

More information about these events may be found at Ms. Loza's campaign website.

Ms. Loza's November opponent is Republican Laura J. Morask.

Few judicial races on Cook County ballot in November

Conservative blogger, columnist and radio host Tom Roeser often imagines the electorate as a giant, sleepy eye. Now that the Democratic and Republican National Informercials have concluded, one might imagine that giant eye fluttering open to consider what other races might be on the ballot in November.

Many voters will be surprised to find that there are no contested judicial races; most of the judicial races ended when the primary votes were counted. There are only contests in four Cook County judicial subcircuits. These are the match-ups:

Shultz vacancy -- 4th Subcircuit

Maureen H. Masterson-Pulia, Republican














Pat Rogers, Democrat






I have not found a campaign website for Ms. Masterson-Pulia. Pat Rogers' campaign website is at www.electpatrogers.com -- but it doesn't look to have been updated since the primary.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Devlin vacancy -- 12th Subcircuit

Laura J. Morask, Republican














Pamela Elizabeth Loza, Democrat








Ms. Morask's website is electlaura.net. Ms. Loza's website is at www.lozaforjudge.com.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Ryan vacancy -- 13th Subcircuit

Annie O'Donnell, Republican









Ann Catherine Brady, Democrat






I have been unable to find a campaign website for either Ms. O'Donnell or Ms. Brady.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Tobin vacancy -- 13th Subcircuit

Margarita Kulys Hoffman, Republican









Carol Barnes, Democrat


Judge Kulys-Hoffman was appointed to her post by the Illinois Supreme Court. This past week she was also elected as an Associate Judge of Cook County by her fellow jurists. Her campaign website has not been updated since the primary. I've been unable to find a website for Ms. Barnes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

A vacancy -- 15th Subcircuit

Peter Fera, Republican









Anna Helen Demacopoulos, Democrat




I could find no campaign website for Mr. Fera. Ms. Demacopoulos' campaign website is at annaforjudge.com

My ride to work has gotten longer...

...because Zay N. Smith's QT is apparently no longer being published in the print edition of the Chicago Sun-Times. It remains available online (hence the link).

The Sun-Times is thin enough without this latest cut -- which I hope is only temporary.

Still, disappointments can sometimes provide opportunities. In this case, Mr. Smith may now be able to provide links to some of his tidbits. For example, take this item from yesterday's column:

Modern Education + the Criminal Mind =

A kidnapper in Oldsmar, Fla., put his gun down while seated next his hostage in the back of a car so he could send a text message, police said.

If you had an extra minute, wouldn't you like to look at the source material for this one?

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Update 9/18/08

Because of a virus, I've not taken the el to work for a number of days. This morning, though, I was back on the train. The good news was that QT was back in the Sun-Times. The bad news was that, because of some never explained problem at Irving Park, I had about an hour and a quarter to read it.

Laura Morask announces September fundraiser

12th Subcircuit Republican candidate Laura Morask has announced a September 11 fundraiser at Cavanaugh's, 53 West Jackson, from 6:00 to 8:00 pm.

Ticket prices start at $100. For more information, follow this link to Ms. Morask's website.

Morask's opponent on the November ballot is Democrat Pamela Elizabeth Loza.

Ross declared winner in 5th Subcircuit race

John Flynn Rooney reports in the August 21, 2008 the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin that the Circuit Court has declared a winner in the close 5th Subcircuit A race.

Following a recount trial that lasted a week and a half, Associate Judge Alfred Paul ruled Thursday that Dominique C. Ross beat Stephen Stern by 158 votes, 27,682 votes to Stern's 27,524.

Stern, a former President of the Cook County Bar Association, was rated Qualified or Recommended by every bar rating group for the February 2008 Primary. He was rated "Highly Recommended" by the Decalogue Society of Lawyers, the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago, and the Puerto Rican Bar Association. He was endorsed by the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Federation of Labor, and the Chicago Fire Fighters Union, Local 2.

Ross, a Chicago solo practitioner and a lawyer since 1995, did not submit her credentials for review by the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening. Ross was found "Not Recommended" by the Chicago Bar Association "at this stage of her career," but the CBA praised her for her "fine demeanor."

Rooney's Law Bulletin article quotes James P. Nally, Stern's attorney, as saying, "We certainly intend to appeal. We've conducted the case to make a good record [on appeal]."

Pending the outcome of any appeal, however, Ross will become a judge in December: No Republican filed for the 5th Subcircuit A vacancy.

William H. Hooks appointed to Berland vacancy

Cook County Circuit Court Judge Richard B. Berland will retire July 11.

The Supreme Court has already announced that William H. Hooks will replace Judge Berland. His appointment to this countywide vacancy is effective August 4 and will terminate on December 6, 2010.

Hooks is among the announced speakers for a July 18 IICLE program, "Managing Media in the High Profile Case." In one such recent high-profile case, Hooks represented Cook County Public Defender Edwin A. Burnette in his efforts to hold on to his job after the Cook County Board proposed to dismiss him.

Hooks was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1981. He has served as an officer in the United States Marine Corps, retiring from the reserves as a lieutenant colonel in 1995.

Allen F. Murphy appointed to Carmody vacancy

The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin reported in its July 3 issue that Cook County Assistant State's Attorney Allen F. Murphy has been appointed to the Third Subcircuit vacancy created by the April death of Judge Thomas F. Carmody, Jr.

The Law Bulletin reports that Murphy has been working in the gang crimes unit since early 2005. He was admitted to the practice of law in 1991.

Murphy's appointment will begin on July 21 and will expire on December 6, 2010.

Your Witness: Lawyers share tales of cross exams

1. Thomas Anthony Durkin ● 2. Don H. Reuben ● 3. Robert F. Coleman ● 4. R. Eugene Pincham ● 5. Sam Adam ● 6. Robert W. Tatum ● 7. Charles B. Sklarsky ● 8. Gordon B. Nash, Jr. ● 9. Michael W. Coffield ● 10. George N. Leighton....

This is not a random list of prominent Chicago lawyers. These are some of the chapter authors in a new book, Your Witness: Lessons on Cross-Examination and Life from Great Chicago Trial Lawyers.

Lawyers Steven F. Molo and James R. Figliulo collected and edited these essays, along with Chicago Tribune reporter Maurice Possley, credited by Molo and Figliulo as the project's managing editor "who took what were sometimes well intended but hurried writings of busy trial lawyers and transformed them into the smooth prose that grace these pages." Chicago lawyer Scott Turow provides a foreward.

This is the kind of book that you can open to any random page and start enjoying. That's what I did after the publicist for the Law Bulletin Publishing Company was kind enough to send me a copy.

At first I thought the book skewed too heavily toward criminal cases -- especially criminal cases in Federal Court -- but that was a consequence of where I jumped in... and also of the fact that more criminal cases come to trial than civil ones. Most of the stories about civil cases have to do with the skewering of expert witnesses. I never did tote up figures to determine how many stories dealt with criminal cases and how many with civil cases.

11. James S. Montana, Jr. ● 12. Marc W. Martin ● 13. Peter C. John ● 14. Patrick A. Tuite ● 15. Walter Jones, Jr. ● 16. Chris Gair ● 17. James R. Figliulo ● 18. Donald G. Kempf, Jr. ● 19. Dan K. Webb ● 20. Lorna Propes ● 21. Terence F. MacCarthy....

And these are, for the most part, stories. Each of the authors is trying to convey something of the art of cross-examination as he or she has learned it, by trial and error, but the lessons are all framed by or conveyed in stories. In a "cautionary note" at the front the volume, Messrs. Molo and Figliulo warn that all the stories in the book are "based on real-world trial experience, but as with most good stories, they all may not be entirely precise." Some stories, they add, may "have gotten better with age." In other words, it is just possible that a few of these stories might not hold up... exactly... under vigorous cross-examination. It doesn't matter. It doesn't detract one little bit from the reader's enjoyment or the value of the lessons conveyed. (And some authors seem to have dug out actual transcripts from the trials about which they write.)

Many of the stories included in Your Witness are what might be called "war stories," the kinds of stories that lawyers of all stripes tell over lunch or at cocktail parties. But the authors here are big-time, successful lawyers and this makes their stories that much more entertaining and useful. Two of the chapter authors, Michael Coffield and Don Hubert, passed away during the preparation of the book; a third, Judge Pincham, died after the book went to press. Messrs. Molo and Figliulo estimate that the lawyer-authors of these chapters aggregate roughly 1,600 years of trial experience. These are stories that will teach the reader many things -- even readers who aren't trial lawyers.

Most of the authors write about themselves -- their own successes (and failures). This is as it should be: You will not often find many shrinking violets in any group of trial lawyers. Many, as was famously said of Theodore Roosevelt, want to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. But several of the authors include appreciations of other trial lawyers they have seen in action. Pay particular attention here. In a setting like this, the authors have no motive to bestow false praise.

22. Thomas M. Durkin ● 23. Charles W. Douglas ● 24. James D. Montgomery ● 25. Robert A. Clifford ● 26. William J. Kunkle ● 27. Edward L. Foote ● 28. Michael T. Hannafan ● 29. Michael J. Morrissey ● 30. C. Barry Montgomery ● 31. Jo-Anne Wolfson....

Your Witness will be of interest to people outside Chicago, too. Even though all of these lawyers are... or were... based in Chicago, several of the tales are set in other jurisdictions, such as Judge Leighton's story of a federal habeus corpus proceeding in Oxford, Mississippi in the late 1950s. You may find Judge Leighton's account of his conversation with the U.S. Marshal on that occasion particularly powerful; I thought it conveyed the essence of that time and place in a third of a page.

32. Matthias A. Lydon ● 33. Steven P. Handler ● 34. Richard A. Halprin ● 35. Thomas M. Crisham ● 36. Michael D. Monico ● 37. Steven F. Molo ● 38. Donald Hubert ● 39. Raymond J. Smith ● 40. Jeffrey E. Stone ● 41. Robert L. Byman ● 42. Philip S. Beck....

While each of the authors is focusing on the technique of cross-examination, the book is not repetitive. Sure, the standard rules are set out many times -- but then the authors tell you why it didn't make sense to follow this rule or that one in a particular case. In Your Witness you'll learn, for example, never to ask a question on cross to which you don't know the answer... unless the answer doesn't matter... or unless the possible reward of securing Answer A outweighs the risk of obtaining Answer B. Many of the writers stress that cross-examination is an opportunity for the lawyer to tell the client's story through a witness -- but to do this the lawyer must be the focus of the jury's attention, not the witness. A variety of entertaining suggestions are offered as to how this may be done. One overriding lesson is presented: This is art, not science.

This isn't a book that a lawyer will have in the briefcase during trial... but it may be on the table by the bed at home as the fully prepared lawyer looks for inspiration for the witnesses to be crossed tomorrow....

43. Anton R. Valukas ● 44. Patricia Bobb ● 45. Allan A. Ackerman ● 46. Thomas M. Breen ● 47. Vincent J. Connelly ● 48. Manuel Sanchez ● 49. William J. Martin ● 50. Thomas A. Demetrio

Another note at the beginning of Your Witness advises that the "authors' royalties, less expenses, are being donated to The Chicago Bar Foundation, the charitable arm of the Chicago Bar Association." That's not the only reason to buy Your Witness, but if that helps you make that decision, that's all well and good, isn't it?

A million lawyers in U.S.? But that's not the news

Debra Cassens Weiss reported yesterday on the ABA Journal website, Law News Now, that there are a million lawyers in the U.S. -- but -- who'd have believed it? -- there are twice as many artists.

Law News Now links to article in the Washington Post about a new study released by the National Endowment for the Arts which reports that nearly two million people identify themselves as "artists." The NEA says that "artists are one of the largest classes of workers in the nation, only slightly smaller than the U.S. military’s active-duty and reserve personnel (2.2 million). Artists now represent 1.4 percent of the U.S. labor force."

The NEA study, entitled Artists in the Workforce, is available as a .pdf document. According to the study, as of 2000, more than one-fifth of the nation's 2,000,000 artists live in the Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Washington, or Boston metropolitan areas. That works out to 64,800 artists in the Chicago Metropolitan Area as of 2000, broken down as follows:

Artists -- 1,080
Announcers -- 1,335
Architects -- 8,320
Fine Artists, art directors & animators -- 7,230
Dancers and choreographers -- 610
Designers -- 26,440
Entertainers & performers -- 895
Musicians and singers -- 4,845
Photographers -- 4,150
Producers and directors -- 4,065
Writers and authors -- 5,830

Sudoko derails Australian drug trial

In Illinois, jurors may be permitted to take notes at trial as authorized by 705 ILCS 315/1(b).

Jurors in Australia can take notes, too. Counsel trying a drug conspiracy case in the courtroom of Sydney District Court Judge Peter Zahra thought the jurors hearing the case were quite "diligent" because they seemed to be taking "copious amounts of notes."

Then someone noticed that some of the jurors weren't just writing horizontally... they were writing vertically, too.

It turns out, according to the linked BBC News article, that five of the jurors were working Sudoku puzzles while the evidence was being presented. One juror told the Australian Associated Press that the puzzles "helped keep her 'mind busy' as she listened to" the testimony. "Some of the evidence is rather drawn out, and I find it difficult to maintain my attention the whole time," she said.

Judge Zahra has dismissed the jury in the three month drug conspiracy trial, a trial that, the BBC noted, had cost Australian taxpayers over a million Australian dollars ($945,000 U.S.). The trial will begin again in a couple of weeks.

James N. O'Hara appointed to fill Henry vacancy

Chicago solo practitioner James N. O'Hara ran unopposed for the Henry vacancy in the 14th Judicial Subcircuit in the February primary. He would have taken office in December. The Supreme Court, however, has appointed O'Hara to the seat to which he will soon be elected.

The appointment is effective June 16.

Can a lawyer drop off a computer for ecycling?

I've written twice now about the City of Chicago recycling facility which takes, among other things, consumer electronics for ecycling.

City residents can take their old computers there and expect that the machines will be disposed of responsibly. The City may even make a buck or two from reducing the computer to its component parts and selling the more valuable parts.

But can a Chicago lawyer take his or her obsolete computer there for ecycling?

Machines from one's office are not supposed to be dropped off there, and there are services which will -- for a fee -- pick up used computers at an office and supply documentation, for each machine, that the hard drives have been responsibly destroyed.

But what about the laptop? The computer in the home office that is used for additional work on nights and weekends? It contains confidential client information... and opinion is pretty unanimous that a machine like this can not simply be put out with the trash....

In a March 2005 article that appeared in Wisconsin Lawyer, Ross L. Kodner and Courtney G. Kennaday wrote:

Tossing [your old computers] in a Dumpster® seems wasteful; also, much of this equipment is considered hazardous to the environment and must be managed and disposed of in compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. You might try to sell old computers for a few cents on eBay or donate them to charity.

Any of these disposal choices could cost you your law license.

Why? Because old computers are packed with confidential client information that you have an ethical duty to protect. Further, the computers undoubtedly contain sensitive firm information and software licensed to your firm or organization (for which you have specific obligations under end-user license agreements). Giving away control of and access to old computers - through the Dumpster approach, an eBay sale, or a charitable donation - can lead to malpractice claims and ethical violations at worst and serious embarrassment at best. There could even be claims for violating HIPAA (for disclosing employee or client healthcare information) and Sarbanes-Oxley (for giving away corporate documents that you must maintain).

An article posted on the ABA Legal Technology Resource Center also cites "Federal Trade Commission's Disposal Rule (16 CFR Part 682) on June 1, 2005, [which] says that companies disposing of computer equipment need to take steps necessary to remove personal or financial information from the machines."

Both of these articles offer advice for lawyers on "file shredding" programs that will do more than just delete programs. But Kodner and Kennaday warn that, "given enough time and money, someone probably could find a way to recover at least some of your data, no matter what you do." Paranoid? Read some of the hard drive disposal suggestions made by ABA members on Solosez, an electronic mail discussion list that the ABA offers for solo and small firm practitioners.

Both articles encourage ecycling -- but recommend that file shredding software be employed before dropping the old machine off. But, says the ABA article, "The surest way to prevent information on the hard drive from falling into the wrong hands is to remove it entirely from the computer. This way the outside shell of the computer can be thrown out but the sensitive information can be retained." Old hard drives should be labeled and stored.

City ecycling dropoff a good idea

I suppose this will have to replace the incandescent
bulb as the symbol for a good idea, right?

Last month I mentioned that I'd found, on line, a location in the City of Chicago where, it seemed, residents could drop off ecycling -- old computer components, VCRs, and other electronics.

The ecycling facility was supposed to be at 1150 N. North Branch Street (two blocks east of the Kennedy Expressway at Division Street).

But I hadn't gone. I couldn't vouch for it. The posted hours are limited:

• Tuesday (7:00 am - 12:00 pm)
• Thursday (2:00 pm- 7:00 pm)
• The first Saturday of every month (8:00 am - 3:00 pm)

Today, however, was the first Saturday of the month and I had the opportunity to check the place out.

I can now vouch for the place. It's there.

They took my stuff.

They didn't charge me.

That's a good thing.

I did learn that the facility can not accept stuff from a business. This strikes me as strange. It seems to me that the City can make money from ecycling electronics. Why should it matter whether the printer was in an office or in someone's den at home? (Whether a lawyer can drop off an old computer containing client information is something that will have to be addressed in a separate post.)

Anyway, here is a list of what the Chicago facility will and will not take:

Accepted Materials (please drop off):

antifreeze unused/expired medications used motor oil old gasoline oil-based paints paint thinners aerosol paints and pesticides herbicides insecticides pesticides

lawn chemicals solvents drain cleaners cleaning products pool chemicals hobby chemicals mercury compact Fluorescent lamp and light bulbs computers cell phones

Unaccepted Materials (do NOT drop off):

agricultural waste smoke detectors farm machinery oil fire extinguishers appliances

explosives fireworks business/commercial sector waste institutional waste medical waste

Dona nobis pacem

Marcus Tullius Cicero, one of the most famous lawyers in history, was proscribed and murdered in the turmoil of the dying years of the Roman Republic. He did not submit to servitude, and he was denied peace.

But it can't hurt to ask: I would like a double helping of peace, please; hold the servitude.


------------------------------------------------------------
This globe is one of literally hundreds to be posted today by bloggers around the world as part of a "Blogblast for Peace." You can read all about it here.

Don't take your ecycling to Chicago Best Buys (yet)

One hundred seventeen Best Buy stores in eight states are to begin "a free program that will offer consumers a convenient way to ensure millions of obsolescent TVs, old computers and other unwanted gadgets don't poison the nation's dumps," according to AP Business Writer Michael Liedtke's story posted this morning on Yahoo! News.

Unfortunately, none of the Best Buy stores involved in the pilot program are in the Chicago area.

Lietdke writes, "Depending on how the test goes, the nation's largest electronics retailer may expand the recycling program to all of its 922 stores in the United States." Even with only a small percentage of the chain's stores participating in the pilot program, Liedtke says this test "is believed to be the most extensive free electronics recycling program to be offered by a major retailer so far."

Under the pilot program, consumers would be able to bring in "computer processors, computer monitors and televisions with screens up to 32 inches" but not "console televisions, air conditioners, microwave ovens and other large appliances." According to Lietdke's article, all Best Buy stores, even in the Chicago area, already accept "some electronics waste — such as cell phones, empty ink-jet cartridges and worn-out batteries."

Truly out of this world parachute drop

Over the weekend, NASA's Phoenix lander successfully touched down on the arctic plains of Mars.

At left is an artist's depiction of how the landing may have looked.

We're used to artists' depictions. There were NASA-provided animations of stage separations and, later, landings back when Walter Cronkite and Jules Bergman were holding up plastic models in front of the camera to illustrate their points.

But behold something new -- and truly out of this world:

This is no artist's depiction: This is an actual photograph of the Phoenix lander descending toward the Martian surface, an image captured from Martian orbit by a different satellite.

Memorial Day Parade in Norwood Park

Scenes from today's Norwood Park Memorial Day Parade.

There's probably a story behind how the Rosemont Police came to provide the honor guard for this Chicago neighborhood parade... but I don't know it.

And what's a parade without bands? Here's the Lincoln Park High School Band.

The band stopped to salute the Eshoo home.

This is the band from Kelvyn Park High School.

Taft High School was represented by its Junior Naval Officers Reserve Officers Training Corps.

And it wouldn't be a Memorial Day Parade without plenty of Scout groups.

These are Cub Scouts from Immaculate Conception Grade School, but every neighborhood school was represented.

This was a float offered by the Girl Scout group from the Presbyterian Church of Norwood Park.

These are the Girl Scouts from Immaculate Conception Parish.

And then came the antique cars. Lots and lots of cars.

And an odd thing on Memorial Day in Chicago: The weather was both warm and dry. Of course, rain was forecast....

-----------------------------------------------------------------
For more parade photos, see this post on page two.

Wilson selected as Associate Judge in DuPage

Karen M. Wilson has been selected as an Associate Judge for the 18th Judicial Circuit (DuPage County), the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts has announced.

Wilson is a 1987 graduate of the University of Wisconsin. She received her law degree in 1991 from DePaul University in Chicago.

Wilson has been most recently affiliated with Smith, Rickert & Smith, a firm with offices in Downers Grove and River Grove. According to the Smith, Rickert website, Wilson also worked as a DuPage County Assistant State's Attorney for eight years.

David Cook is surprise winner on "Idol"

But only because the votes in Michigan and Florida weren't counted.

Markers to honor the dead past at Lincoln Park

Many Chicagoans know that Lincoln Park was once a cemetery. Most, probably, don't know that it still is.

Pamela Bannos, a senior lecturer at Northwestern University, has explored the transition of the Chicago City Cemetery into today's Lincoln Park and her findings are published, on the Internet, as the "Hidden Truths" project. In today's Chicago Tribune Robert Mitchum reports about the project and, in particular, how today Bannos "will place six historical markers at significant sites around the park, like the Couch Tomb, a huge mausoleum too expensive for the city to relocate, and Potter's Field, the burial ground for the city's poor that now lies beneath the baseball fields along LaSalle Drive."

The Couch Tomb is not the only gravesite that wasn't moved. Whether because of incomplete record keeping or because of the loss of records in that unfortunate incident with Mrs. O'Leary's cow (or Pegleg Sullivan, depending on who you talk to these days), it appears that many bodies were not relocated. One page on Ms. Bannos' site documents where bodies have turned up unexpectedly. (Run your mouse over the yellow dots on the linked map to see details.) The Tribune article says that Bannos' work shows that the remains of as many as 12,000 Chicagoans may still lie beneath today's park.

It is not known how many of them still vote.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Map & photo combination obtained from the Hidden Truths website.

Facebook adopts plan to protect young users

In cooperation with the District of Columbia and 49 states, including Illinois, Facebook says it will work "to protect Facebook’s under-18 users by enforcing and enhancing tools such as those for verifying a user’s age or issuing a warning when a young user is about to disclose personal information to an unknown adult." The linked post on the Tribune's Eric 2.0 blog lists "the safety features and privacy initiatives Facebook will continue and enhance" pursuant to this agreement:

• Age and identity identification tools;

• Automatic warning messages when a child is in danger of giving personal information to an unknown adult;

• Restricting the ability of users to change their listed ages;

• Aggressive response to remove inappropriate content and groups from the site;

• Safety and privacy guidelines that third party vendors and developers are required to adhere to as part of Facebook’s Terms of Service;

• Immediate severance of links to pornographic websites;

• Immediate removal of Facebook Groups dedicated to incest, pedophilia, cyber-bullying and other topics that violate Facebook’s Terms of Services;

• Immediate investigation of Facebook users who violate the Terms of Service, and expulsion of those individuals that violate the safety or privacy of other users;
  

• Prominent display of privacy information and safety tips; and
  

• Require users under 18 to affirm they have read Facebook’s safety tips when they sign up.

I remain skeptical. But rather than try and explain again what makes me nervous about Facebook, let me direct you to this very funny, if a tad rude, video I've posted on Page 2.

Do not ask for whom the (Weather) Bell tolls

Bank of America finished its digestion of LaSalle Bank this week. The Dutch company (ABN AMRO) that bought out LaSalle Bank in the early 90's -- and thereafter swallowed up other Chicago institutions like Talman-Home Savings and Bell Federal Savings -- sold LaSalle to Bank of America. That's the Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America, y'all.

Bank of America says it wants to be involved in Chicago, and, for starters, it has assumed sponsorship of the Chicago Marathon. So that's encouraging.

But do not ask for whom the Bell tolls (at the Weather Bell corner, Monroe and Clark)... it tolls for thee, local ownership.

Chicago attorney seeks relief from sanctions order

A Chicago attorney is seeking to vacate a discovery sanction of more than $29,000 by U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of Philadelphia. And, in light of the sanctions, the attorney, Joseph Ziccardi, is also seeking to withdraw from his representation of Aaron Wider, the CEO of HTFC Corp.

Wider apparently made a shambles of his deposition. Over 12 hours of testimony, on two different days, Wider 'dropped the F-bomb' 73 times and was, according to the sanctions order, otherwise hostile and uncooperative. Ziccardi is faulted by the court for failing to rein his client in or, if that proved impossible, failing to adjourn the deposition.

Debra Cassens Weiss also has a post about this on ABAJournal.com. I saw a reference to this story earlier this week in the print edition of the ABA Journal.

Read the entire lengthy order imposing sanctions here.

Usually, lawyers are cautioned against coaching their witnesses in depositions; the witness is supposed to testify, not the lawyer. But this was apparently a case where the witness wasn't testifying -- and the court determined that the lawyer should not sit idly by while the client berated and abused his interrogator. The court found that the lawyer's failure to attempt to assert control made the lawyer complicit in the client's out-of-control conduct.

Philadelphia judge ousted for old conviction

Martha Neil reports in a May 6 article on ABAJournal.com about Deborah Griffin, a Philadelphia municipal judge, who has been removed from office because of an old criminal conviction.

Read the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion here.

When she applied for admission to the Pennsylvania bar in 1988, Griffin failed to disclose that she'd pled guilty two counts of a federal indictment charging her with using a false social security number in a number of credit card applications and on an employment application. She did no jail time as a result of these convictions, but she did receive probation and she was ordered to pay restitution. Griffin's failure to disclose this conviction led to her being suspended from the practice of law in 1994 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Griffin, 535 Pa. 590).

Griffin was subsequently reinstated to the bar and then, in 2001, elected to the bench. She was retained for a second six year term in a November 2007 municipal election.

In the linked opinion, Pennsylvania's highest court removed Judge Griffin from the bench because it found her 1984 conviction to be for an "infamous crime" under Article II, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which provides, "No person hereafter convicted of embezzlement of public moneys, bribery, perjury or other infamous crime, shall be eligible to the General Assembly, or capable of holding any office of trust or profit in this Commonwealth."

The current ABAJournal.com article and a March 5 post by Debra Cassens Weiss report that Griffin claimed that she'd not disclosed her conviction in her original bar application because she thought her "record had been expunged."

After her law license was suspended, though, she presumably knew that this was not the case. Nor do I know whether the convictions to which Griffin pled guilty could have been expunged or, if so, under what circumstances. Nothing in the ABAJournal.com stories, or in the published court opinion, or in the AP account of the matter indicates whether Griffin ever sought a pardon.

Top ten questions about MCLE

This is a reprint, with the author's permission, of an article by Lee Goodman that I saw in Monday evening's Law Bulletin. Goodman is the president of Professional Education Resource Corporation, which offers approved Illinois MCLE courses online at mentorCLE.com.

A bit of confusion has arisen about the new Illinois MCLE requirements. This is not surprising, considering this is the first year that Illinois lawyers will be required to comply with all the new rules governing MCLE. Nevertheless, attorneys need to understand the rules, because failure to comply with the rules can have serious consequences, including the possible loss of one’s law license. This article answers ten of the questions attorneys ask most frequently about the MCLE rules.

Q) How many ethics courses do I have to take?
A) You do not have to take any ethics courses. You only have to take four hours of “professionalism” courses, which can cover topics such as diversity, Alternative Dispute Resolution, law practice management, and other topics, including ethics.

Q) So I need four hours of professionalism credits?
A) You need at least four hours of professionalism, but all 20 of your hours can be professionalism courses if you want, or any number between 4 and 20.

Q) Can I get credit for in-house training at my law firm?
A) You can get credit for some in-house training, but each training session must be individually registered and approved by the MCLE board. The mere fact that your firm may have registered as an “approved provider” is not sufficient.

Q) Can I take a course more than once?
A) There is no limit on how many times you can get credit for taking the same course, but you must wait 12 months between each time you take a course if you want to get credit for it more than once.

Q) Do I need to take courses from “approved providers?”
A) No. The term “approved providers” is misleading. It mostly has to do with how long the provider has been in business. What is important is whether the course is approved, not whether the provider is. You can get credit for courses that are offered by providers that are not “approved providers”, so long as the courses have been individually approved by the MCLE board. Note: The MCLE Board’s website lists courses by the date they were originally approved. Courses that are offered multiple times, including online and recorded courses, can be approved for multiple years, so you may have to look for them in lists from prior years. If you have any questions about whether a course has been approved, the MCLE board recommends that you contact the course provider.

Q) Do all of the courses offered by “approved providers” comply with the Illinois MCLE rules?
A) No. Some of these providers are offering courses that may not meet the requirements of the Illinois MCLE Board. Courses offered by “approved providers” are only presumptively approved, and they may not actually qualify for credit. This applies both to “approved providers” that are located outside Illinois and those that are based here. Make sure every course has been individually approved or meets the requirements for approval.

Q) Can I get credit for self-study?
A) Yes. For example, you can take all of your courses online or on pre-recorded tapes. You cannot, however, get any credit for reading law reviews, books, articles, courses, or any other written material.

Q) How else can I get credits?
A) You can get credit for writing published articles and for certain types of teaching. But be careful – the rules are a bit tricky, and they are not obvious. For example, you can get credit for teaching at a law school if you are a part-time faculty member, but not if you are full-time. And you cannot get credit for giving a speech at a law school.

Q) What if I have more credits than I need?
A) You can carry over excess credits into the next two-year reporting period. Up to a maximum of 10 hours can be carried over from one reporting period into the next. No professionalism credits can be carried forward to satisfy the professionalism requirement, but they can be carried over as general credits.

Q What happens if I don’t get my credits on time?
A) If you miss the deadline for getting your credits, you have to pay a late fee to the MCLE board. The fee starts at $100 and goes up the longer you wait. If you wait too long, you can lose your law license. If this happens, your malpractice insurance may lapse. Even if you later get your credits and have your license restored, there may be a gap in your insurance coverage. In addition, if you lose your license, you cannot be listed as “of counsel” to a firm. You may also be disqualified from doing other work, such as serving as an arbitrator in mandatory arbitration.

The MCLE rules may seem a bit confusing at first, but Illinois’ MCLE rules allow attorneys many options, so it should be relatively easy to find a way to get the credits you need. A very broad range of courses are permitted both for general and professionalism credits, so lawyers should be able to find courses that are of interest to them, either in areas they practice in or in areas they would like to learn about. Lawyers are also allowed to take courses that are presented in a number of different ways, such as recorded video and online courses. This is particularly helpful to attorneys whose schedules make it difficult for them to attend live seminars or who might live in areas where few seminars are available. And the MCLE Board has made allowed a large number of providers to offer courses, so a great selection of courses is available.

Judge Pearson sues the pants off Washington D.C.

Speaking of "frivolous" lawsuits, you may remember Judge Roy Pearson, the Washington, D.C. administrative law judge who filed suit when a dry cleaners in his neighborhood lost the pants to his $1,100 suit.

His suit demanded $67 million for the lost pair of pants -- later reduced to $54 million -- and the outrageous nature of these demands, coming as they did from someone in judicial office, sparked national publicity, fanned by 'tort reform' groups. The hostile publicity got truly shrill and impassioned when it was revealed that Judge Pearson turned down a $12,000 settlement offer from the Korean family that ran the dry cleaners.

Less well publicized, of course, was the outcome of such a ridiculous suit. Late last June, District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff entered the following order: "Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. takes nothing from the defendants, and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung are awarded the costs of this action against the plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr."

And Judge Pearson lost twice: Around the time he lost his suit against the cleaners, he also lost his job. He was not reappointed to his District of Columbia post.

And now Judge Pearson is back in the news: He's sued to get his job back. And guess who's calling attention to his latest legal maneuvers?

The linked story on CNN.com quotes Darren McKinney of the American Tort Reform Association -- not Pearson, the alleged subject of the story -- of whom McKinney says, "He lost his job because he proved he did not have the legal requirements to fill the job, namely a judicial temperament."

You'll remember the American Tort Reform Association. That's the group behind the Judicial Hellholes report. (My prior post about ATRF's designation of Cook County as a "Judicial Hellhole" is here.)

The CNN story isn't about a man who may have issues over and above losing his job. It's about scaring the public into believing that we are suffering an epidemic of "frivolous" lawsuits. The public identifies, understandably, with the Korean family working hard to build a business -- and fears that their business or their homes or their savings may be next to be wiped out by a "frivolous" lawsuit.

Except that it didn't happen. And no one, except maybe Mr. Pearson, seriously thought it would. But, oh, is his story useful for pushing an agenda....

City bags the blue bag; a fairy tale ends

We bought the blue bags at Casa Leyhane; we used them. We put them out faithfully each week and watched the massive gears smash and grind our fragile blue bags in with the coffee grounds and food scraps and all the other household garbage.

I wanted so hard to believe that, somehow, our recyclables were really reclaimed from the waste stream.

I clapped and clapped and clapped, hoping that Tinkerbell would make it.

But I can not really claim surprise that the City of Chicago has just bagged the blue bag program.

And -- here in the 41st Ward -- what has the City replaced the blue bag program with?

Nothing. As the map shows, some areas of the City will be receiving "blue carts" that will be picked up by separate trucks every two weeks. A few areas already have them. But there's not even -- you should pardon the expression -- a roll-out date set for the 41st Ward.

And what should we do in the meantime? In the linked Tribune article, Laurie Cohen and Kristen Kridel report that Streets and Sanitation spokesman Matt Smith says that if residents "still choose to put their recyclables in blue bags, the city's private waste contractors will be required to recycle the contents."

On the other hand, according to the same Tribune article, "city officials said that within three months, they will end their contracts with Allied Waste Transportation, the politically connected company that has operated the sorting centers since 2003."

I can't clap any more.

Years ago, the 41st Ward was used as the proving grounds for a "blue bin" recycling program, similar to one that many suburbs have used. Glass and plastics and aluminum -- or at least the little aluminum that escaped the attention of foragers who were engaged in their own private recycling programs -- were collected on a separate truck. Compliance rates were high. Residents could see whether their neighbors were putting recyclable stuff in the open blue bins as they walked down the streets -- there aren't as many alley pickups here in 41 as there are in other wards -- and peer pressure helped ensure greater compliance.

So we proved that urban residents could and would recycle... and then we got the blue bags.

The map shows centers where recyclables may now be delivered, if you want to burn your own gasoline at $4 a gallon to take them. Many schools and churches already have paper or other recyclable collections.

And it appears that -- maybe -- the City has finally opened a place to accept (and responsibly dispose of) used computer equipment, video players, printers and other electronics (ecycling, it's called). The Chicago Recycling Coalition provides a link to this page on the City of Chicago website.

Clicking through the linked City site -- you didn't expect they'd come right out and tell people where this facility is, would you? -- the ecycling facility is at 1150 N. North Branch Street (two blocks east of the Kennedy Expressway at Division Street).

The facility is allegedly open for drop-offs on the following days:

• Tuesday (7:00 am - 12:00 pm)
• Thursday (2:00 pm- 7:00 pm)
• The first Saturday of every month (8:00 am - 3:00 pm)

The City site also provides a list of what it will and will not accept:

Accepted Materials (please drop off):

antifreeze unused/expired medications used motor oil old gasoline oil-based paints paint thinners aerosol paints and pesticides herbicides insecticides pesticides

lawn chemicals solvents drain cleaners cleaning products pool chemicals hobby chemicals mercury compact Fluorescent lamp and light bulbs computers cell phones

Unaccepted Materials (do NOT drop off):

agricultural waste smoke detectors farm machinery oil fire extinguishers appliances

explosives fireworks business/commercial sector waste institutional waste medical waste

The limited hours at this facility have not yet coincided with my schedule. So I can't verify that this operation really exists.

And I certainly can't promise that the City is really disposing responsibly of items that may be brought there -- although there are valuable materials that could and should be extracted from used electronics in particular. There's not enough of anything in your old VCR to take to a jeweler -- but put a few thousand of them together and there should be.

So I don't know if this is legit -- but I so want to believe.

I'll report back when I have the opportunity to check it out personally.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a mock obituary for the blue bag program at Clout City, but I first saw this story at The Sixth Ward.

What is a "soft tissue" case anyway?

That's one question. But you might ask first -- why is former Cub shortstop Shawon Dunston prominently featured here on the blog of an alleged White Sox fan?

I can tie this up, Your Honor, if you'll give me a moment.

You see, I seem to recall that Shawon Dunston went on the disabled list once, several seasons back, because, he said, he threw out his back putting an infant car seat in his car.

The point is that odd, weird, nagging injuries can happen to anyone -- and sometimes do -- with seemingly little provocation.

And, sometimes, that little provocation that leads to an odd, weird, nagging -- and painful and lingering -- injury is a little "fender bender" auto accident.

Injury does not always result from a "fender bender" -- and thank heavens this is so. Everyone who's ever driven (or been a passenger) in an automobile for any length of time is likely to have been involved in one or more of these. If these types of collisions always resulted in injury, or even if they frequently resulted in injury, we'd be a nation in neck braces.

But real, serious injury can result -- sometimes -- on occasion -- from a very minor accident. These are often called "soft tissue" injuries -- where there are no bone fractures (bones, presumably, being "hard tissues").

I will concede that serious injuries don't result as often as claimed from minor automobile collisions.

"Soft tissue" cases have acquired an unsavory reputation -- and deservedly so -- because so many cases seem to have damage claims inflated entirely out of proportion to any plausible injury.

Many "soft tissue," low impact auto cases seem to be cut from the same suspicious cloth. The medical bills aren't paid (see previous post) and even the choice of providers will raise an eyebrow: The allegedly injured plaintiff who lives and works on the West Side drives himself to the South Side to see a chiropractor -- three or four times a week -- for treatment. And why did the plaintiff chose this particular practitioner? He was referred, he'll say, by a friend. And who -- he'll be asked -- is this friend? But he won't remember the name.

But there are legitimate "soft tissue" cases -- and I would hope that lawyers, insurers, judges and jurors could keep this in mind and evaluate each such case on its merits.

It's just that, in the modern climate, legitimate soft tissue cases are prohibitively expensive to prepare and try.

But that's another story for another day.

One type of 'frivolous' lawsuit & two sets of results

Third in a series inspired by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's charges that "Illinois has one of the five worst legal climates in the nation." Prior entries here and here.

The Chamber of Commerce folks would probably agree that "soft tissue" cases are often "frivolous."

Certainly a lot of them are -- and it's nothing new. Go back and read the old Sun-Times series, "The Accident Swindlers" -- a Pulitzer finalist in 1981 for Pam Zekman, Gene Mustain, Gilbert Jimenez, Norma Sosa, Larry Cose, Patricia Smith and John White.

The insurers clamped down on these cases after the "Accident Swindlers" series; by the 1990's a couple of major insurers were suing attorneys and doctors and chiropractors on RICO theories because they thought them guilty of conspiring to fabricate or at least inflate damages in "soft tissue" cases.

But flimsy soft-tissue cases still exist. I know this because I get calls at my office at least once a month from 800 numbers asking if I'm "interested in handling personal injury cases in Illinois." (Somebody must be responding to all those lawyer commercials on daytime and late night TV.) I also know this because I sit as an arbitrator in the Cook County Court Annexed Arbitration Program several times a year and I see them.

It is well documented that lawyer-arbitrators have been more generous in these cases than juries -- yes, even in Cook County, even though the Chamber of Commerce or the American Tort Reform Foundation types are certain that the typical Cook County juror is just itching to hand out large stacks of corporate money.

I would argue that the biggest single reason for the discrepancy in damage awards is Supreme Court Rule 90: More often than not, the arbitrators hear difference evidence than the jurors. In the same case.

In arbitration, if a party complies with the notice requirement of Rule 90(c), all sorts of documents are "presumptively admissible... without foundation or other proof." But Rule 90 does not apply at trial: Medical records and bills that are automatically admitted at arbitration may never see the light of day at trial. It's pretty easy to see why a proceeding where the bills are in evidence will result in a bigger award than a proceeding where the bills are not.

In December 2003, Rule 90 was amended to require a plaintiffs to specify whether their medical bills are paid or unpaid. In general, when evidence is admitted in a personal injury suit, by testimony or otherwise, that a medical bill was for treatment rendered and that the bill has been paid, the bill is deemed prima facie reasonable. The idea is simple: People don't pay for what they don't need.

I'm guessing -- because, in my experience as an occasional arbitrator I see 90(c) packages which do not specify whether the proffered medical bills are paid or unpaid -- that defense counsel are not routinely moving to strike 90(c) packages which fail to make this clearly required delineation. The Supreme Court has stated in a number of contexts that its rules "are not aspirational. They are not suggestions. They have the force of law, and the presumption must be that they will be obeyed and enforced as written." Roth v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 202 Ill.2d 490, 782 N.E.2d 212, 215 (2002), quoting Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill.2d 204, 210, 652 N.E.2d 275 (1995). See also, P.R.S. International, Inc. v. Shred Pax Corp., 184 Ill.2d 224, 703 N.E.2d 71, 76-77 (1998), and Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill.2d 324, 775 N.E.2d 987, 991 (2002). I would therefore assume that such motions, if made, would be favorably received.

That still won't close the gap between what arbitration panels award in "soft tissue" cases and what juries award -- because the arbitrators will still see the bills, although they will feel more free to disregard unpaid bills as not "reasonable" -- but I'll bet it would narrow it. To the extent that the rule is being followed (and it is, but not always), I would venture to predict that the gap has already been narrowed from the wide discrepancies noted only a few years back.

Enforcement of the rule would surely hold down awards in many "soft tissue" cases -- the bills are seldom paid.

The point of this lengthy example is to show that rules matter. It's not that arbitrators are "liberal" and Cook County juries are not, it's that the two groups often reach different results in the same case because they consider different evidence, not because of some partisan approach. Different rules apply; different results obtain.

When the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or the American Tort Reform Foundation decries "liberal" judges, they do both the judges and the public a disservice. What these groups are really exercised about are, more often than not, rules or statutes. That should be the focus of their efforts.

But then they'd have to admit they're lobbying.

More on 'jackpot justice' and 'frivolous' lawsuits

I would like to expand upon yesterday's post about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's claims that Cook County has "the second worst legal environment in the country" and that there are "growing lawsuit abuse problems in Cook County courts."

I am not now and never have been a card-carrying member of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. Although I have worked with and for plaintiff's attorneys on occasion (some of whom were and are ITLA members), for most of my 28 years in practice, I've represented insurance companies -- a type of business particularly unpopular among many judges. So when the Chamber or some other business group claims that some judges are inclined to be unfriendly toward (pick one) doctors, businesses, insurers -- I can't say they're entirely wrong.

It is my belief, however, based on experience, that this results more in differences of approach than outcome. One judge, whom I greatly respect, and who has long since retired, was particularly not fond of insurance companies. I appeared before him many times over the years on contested motions.

Sometimes this judge would come out on the bench smiling and complimentary. He'd make a point of saying, on the record, what a fine brief I'd written, what a good argument I'd made -- and then he'd rule against my insurance company client. But, if he came out on the bench red-faced and irritated -- I had a good chance of prevailing. He might not have liked insurers generally or my clients in particular -- but he would follow the law where it led him and he'd have a reasoned explanation for any decision he made, for my client or against.

Judges who follow the law provide the best defense against real "lawsuit abuse." There can be -- and surely are -- suits that even the staunchest ITLA member would agree are "frivolous." And §§2-615 and 2-619 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure provide a quick and relatively easy means of disposing of such suits. If a case is particularly frivolous, judges may award sanctions -- monetary penalties against a party or its lawyer -- under Supreme Court Rule 137.

What non-lawyers should keep in mind in evaluating the "jackpot justice" and "judicial hellhole" claims made by business interests, is that these groups have a more expansive idea of what constitutes a "frivolous" lawsuit than just those which are subject to dismissal on motion. It's not just uninformed or "liberal" judges who let these kinds of "frivolous" suits come to trial: The most rock-ribbed, blue-blooded, conservative judge might also find herself obligated, under the law, to reject a challenge to the legal sufficiency of a certain suit -- but the Chamber would still deem that suit "frivolous." What it comes down to is this: These organizations are really more upset with certain laws themselves, rather than the way judges apply the laws.

Rather than try and construct a theoretical model of the many different kinds of law and precedents that the Chamber and its allies might consider as giving rise to "frivolous" litigation -- an essay that would be boring to read and probably inaccurate to boot -- I will try and illustrate the idea with a specific category of case... in my next post.