There’s still time to bid on an array of items at the Illinois Bar Foundation’s Gala-Palooza silent auction. The silent auction is part of the IBF’s virtual Gala, which is held over three days to raise funds for colleagues in need and to support civil legal aid throughout the state of Illinois.

Illinois attorneys now have a convenient online portal that simplifies and centralizes recordkeeping for continuing legal education (“CLE”) credits. Using the online system unveiled by the Illinois Supreme Court and the Court’s Minimum Continuing Legal Education (“MCLE”) Board today, attorneys can easily view their credits earned from accredited courses and qualifying bar association meetings, as well as other details about those CLE credits. The new portal is available here.

As with any new technology, the use of biometrics comes with complications. If it is suspected that the device has been used to commit a crime, law enforcement is authorized to apply for a warrant to search the device. If the device is protected by a biometric feature, the government will seek authorization to compel the owner to unlock the device. In his October Illinois Bar Journal article, “I Can’t Quite Put My Finger on It,” Thomas A. Drysdale asks whether a person can be compelled to provide a biometric feature to unlock a device and finds that, due to the constitutional protection against self-incrimination, courts have struggled to find an answer. Drysdale examines the constitutional implications of compelling biometric features, compares differing judicial opinions, and provides background information for the Illinois practitioner approaching the issue.

The Illinois State Bar Association’s Board of Governors approved three new Professional Conduct Advisory Opinions on September 25 during its regularly scheduled Board meeting. The opinions address an attorney’s duty to disclose confidential information about a client’s fraud to third parties in an effort to prevent, lessen, or rectify the fraud; a lawyer’s responsibility to hold funds whose ownership is disputed until the dispute is resolved; and the ethical Rules that do not bind an attorney to continue proceeding with an appeal of a court’s decision appointing a guardian for a client who currently lacks mental capacity, in the manner discussed between the lawyer and the client previously, when the client had adequate mental capacity.