Practice News

The Illinois Supreme Court announced the filing of lawyer disciplinary orders on Nov. 21, 2017. Sanctions were imposed because the lawyers engaged in professional misconduct by violating state ethics law.

Asked and Answered

By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Q. I am a partner in a six-attorney estate planning firm in Dallas, Texas. For many years, our primary marketing activity has been seminars that we put on for clients, prospective clients, and referral sources. These seminars have been put on solely by our firm, or in partnership with other organizations such as nursing homes, hospitals, etc. These seminars have been free of charge. We provide a lot of value at these seminars and have been wondering whether we should charge a fee. We would appreciate your thoughts.

A postnuptial agreement is "an important and effective tool in Illinois and should not be forgotten by practitioners," writes Chicago lawyers Joshua S. Singewald and Kellie Rose Bylica in the September ISBA Family Law Section newsletter.

As in the case of any contract, a postnup must be entered into voluntarily by the parties, and the familiar contract-law protections against coercion and mistake apply, Singewald and Bylica note. And Illinois law "require[s] a full disclosure of each party's assets and liabilities for every postnuptial agreement," allowing each "to make an informed decision."

So when would a married couple use one? "[I]f one spouse intends to start a business during the marriage, the business-owning spouse may want to protect his or her business in the event of divorce," Singewald and Bylica write. "Similarly…a spouse [who] makes a substantial non-marital contribution to a marital asset," such as making the down payment on a house, might want to assure reimbursement, they write. Postnups also enable the parties to allocate debt, deal with bequests to children of previous marriages, and even "[r]evise a prenuptial agreement based on current/changed circumstances."

Learn more about postnups in the September Family Law newsletter.

Kerry Bryson of the Office of the State Appellate Defender reviews the Illinois Supreme Court ruling in the criminal case In re Jarquan B.

In re Jarquan B

In January 2015, the state filed a delinquency petition alleging that Jarquan B. committed the Class A misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass to a motor vehicle. The minor pled guilty and was sentenced to court supervision and a 30-day detention term that was stayed. Jarquan B. was advised that if he violated the terms of his supervision, he could be placed on probation or taking into custody on the stayed detention term. Due to subsequent violations, the minor was placed on electronic home monitoring and then ordered to serve time in juvenile detention.

In September 2015, the state filed a petition alleging Jarquan B. had again violated the terms of his supervision on multiple occasions after release from detention. The minor admitted the violations and was resentenced to six months of probation. He was admonished that if he violated probation, he could be sentenced to a term of detention. Almost immediately (i.e., on his way back to his residential placement facility), the minor fled from staff thereby violating his probation. Following his admission to the probation violation, the minor was resentenced to a term in the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) in April 2016.