The Bar News

Illinois Supreme Court Amends Rule to Allow Newly-Admitted Attorneys to Participate in Pro Bono Pilot Program

Marybeth Stanziola — Thu, 28 May 2026 15:24:06 +0000

The Illinois Supreme Court announced today amendments to Supreme Court Rule 795(d)(14) which will permit newly-admitted attorneys to participate in a pro bono pilot program to earn Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) credit. With this amendment the Court hopes to address unmet legal needs in the state and help foster a career-long commitment for new attorneys to pro bono service.

Under the pilot program, which began on July 1, 2025, an attorney may earn one MCLE credit hour for every two hours of pro bono participation in Illinois Free Legal Answers, up to five credits per MCLE reporting period. The amendment to the language of Rule 795 will now permit newly-admitted attorneys who have not yet entered their first two-year MCLE reporting period to participate in the pilot program.

The amendment to Rule 795 is effective July 1, 2026. The amended Illinois Supreme Court Rules can be found here.

The amended rule was proposed by the Supreme Court Executive Committee on the Practice of Law (Executive Committee). Formed in 2023, the Executive Committee is charged with making recommendations on issues impacting the practice of law and unmet legal needs in Illinois.

(FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: James Brunner, Public Information Officer of the Illinois Supreme Court at 217.208.3354 or jbrunner@illinoiscourts.gov)

Member Appreciation & Recognition Reception in Lisle - May 14, 2026

Marybeth Stanziola — Wed, 27 May 2026 18:54:59 +0000

On May 14, 2026, ISBA friends and colleagues gathered at the Morton Arboretum, 4100 Illinois Route 53, in Lisle, IL, for the annual Member Appreciation and Recognition Reception. The 2025-26 ISBA Award Recipients were honored.

PC: ISBA

Illinois State Bar Association Among First to Launch Legal AI Member Benefit, Selects SimpleDocs

Marybeth Stanziola — Wed, 27 May 2026 18:25:56 +0000

ISBA members will receive discounted access to an award-winning Legal AI platform for contract drafting, review, and negotiation.

Miami, Florida – May 28, 2026 — The Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA) and SimpleDocs today announced a strategic initiative to help Illinois attorneys responsibly adopt practical Legal AI technology built specifically for transactional work.

As part of this member benefit, ISBA members will receive exclusive access to a complimentary 30-day trial of SimpleAI, along with preferred member pricing that includes a 25% member discount.

The initiative represents one of the first member benefit programs of its kind between a state bar association and a Legal AI platform provider focused on making professionally designed, accessibly priced Legal AI tools available to attorneys of all practice sizes, including solo practitioners and smaller firms.

As AI adoption accelerates across the legal industry, attorneys face growing pressure to evaluate and implement new technologies. However, many general-purpose AI tools lack the legal context, workflow integration, and practical safeguards required for day-to-day legal practice.

Unlike general-purpose AI tools, SimpleAI was designed specifically for legal workflows and contract work inside Microsoft Word. The platform combines AI-powered drafting, review, redlining, and playbook functionality with access to contract precedent and market-standard language powered by Law Insider’s contract intelligence infrastructure.

SimpleAI helps attorneys:

Review agreements more efficiently
Identify legal and business risks
Compare language against preferred standards and playbooks
Accelerate drafting and redlining workflows
Improve consistency across routine contract work

Adopted by thousands of legal professionals worldwide, SimpleAI supports solo practitioners, in-house legal teams, and law firms seeking practical AI tools that improve efficiency without disrupting existing legal workflows.

Customers using SimpleDocs and SimpleAI include solo practitioners, general counsel offices, and law firms, as well as organizations such as Pierson Ferdinand LLP, Herbalife, Mitsubishi, and the University of Texas at Dallas.

SimpleAI was vetted and adopted by the ISBA Steering Committee on Artificial Intelligence for its usability, practical legal application, high standards of data privacy and security, and strict policy against training AI models on customer contract data.

“One of the main goals of the ISBA AI Steering Committee has been to identify high-quality AI tools for inclusion in the ISBA member discounts program,” said Aaron Brooks, Chair of the ISBA AI Steering Committee. “We look for providers that add real value to attorney workflows while demonstrating strong transparency around confidentiality and security. SimpleDocs checks those boxes well, and we are proud to work with their team. Personally, I’ve been using the SimpleAI platform for several months, and it has become a regular part of how I work.”

The new member offering reflects ISBA’s broader commitment to helping attorneys navigate the rapidly evolving intersection of law and artificial intelligence through practical education, responsible adoption guidance, and member-focused technology initiatives.

For SimpleDocs, the collaboration marks the beginning of a broader effort to work alongside bar associations and legal organizations seeking to responsibly expand access to Legal AI tools across the profession.

“Most attorneys are not looking for abstract AI experimentation — they want practical tools that help them review, draft, and negotiate contracts faster and more consistently inside the systems they already use,” said Preston Clark, CEO and Co-Founder of SimpleDocs.

“SimpleAI was built specifically for legal workflows inside Microsoft Word, grounded in contract precedent, standards, playbooks, and negotiation context. We’re excited to work with ISBA to help make this technology more accessible to attorneys across Illinois.”

As part of the rollout, ISBA and SimpleDocs will also collaborate on educational programming, including CLE content, product demonstrations, and practical guidance focused on responsible AI adoption within legal practice.

Availability

ISBA members receive:

A complimentary 30-day trial of SimpleAI
Exclusive preferred member pricing
A 25% member discount on SimpleAI subscriptions
Access to CLE programming and educational resources focused on responsible AI adoption

Additional information about member access, pricing, CLE programming, and product demonstrations is available at: www.simpledocs.com/isba

About the Illinois State Bar Association

The Illinois State Bar Association is the premier legal association in Illinois, serving attorneys, judges, and legal professionals through education, advocacy, and member services designed to support the legal profession and improve the administration of justice.

About SimpleDocs

SimpleDocs is an AI-native contract automation platform built for in-house legal teams and law firms. The platform combines AI-powered drafting, redlining, review, configurable playbooks, Market Standards powered by Law Insider, and contract intelligence tools that help organizations manage agreements from first draft through negotiation, execution, and post-signature governance.

By combining advanced AI with customer policies, negotiation precedent, market standards, and repository intelligence, SimpleDocs enables faster, more consistent, and more defensible contract decisions across every stage of the contracting lifecycle.

Illinois Supreme Court Seeks Applicants for Illinois State Public Defender Commission

Marybeth Stanziola — Wed, 27 May 2026 16:10:49 +0000

The Illinois Supreme Court invites applications from individuals interested in serving as an appointed member of the Illinois State Public Defender Commission (Commission). The Commission plays a vital role in overseeing and supporting the Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD), ensuring the delivery of quality legal representation to those in need throughout Illinois.

Public Act 104-0300, also known as the Funded Advocacy and Independent Representation or “FAIR” Act was signed into law in August 2025, creating a new statewide oversight structure for the delivery of indigent defense services. The FAIR Act was developed following a 2021 report from the Sixth Amendment Center, which evaluated Illinois’ approach to public defense and concluded that the current system fails to meet its constitutional obligations due to overwhelming caseloads, insufficient funding and resources, and lack of statewide oversight and independence.

The FAIR Act establishes an independent State Public Defender Commission on July 1, 2026, to oversee the Office of State Public Defender, which becomes effective on January 1, 2027. The Commission will be comprised of 11 members, with three members appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court, four members appointed by the Governor, and four members appointed by the Legislature.

Together, the OSPD and the Commission will:

set standards for attorney workload, training, and resources, free of judicial and political influence;
appoint Chief Public Defenders; • assess each counties’ need for additional resources;
distribute supplemental state funds to counties’ public defense offices; and
gather, analyze and release data.

Persons appointed to the Commission must have significant experience defending indigent clients in criminal or juvenile proceedings, and must also demonstrate a commitment to public service, a strong understanding of the legal system, and a willingness to contribute to the ongoing improvement of public defense in the state.

If you are interested in being considered for a Supreme Court appointment to these important positions, please submit a resume, letter of interest and supporting materials to Kahalah Clay at kclay@ilosps.gov by 5 p.m. on June 30, 2026.

More information about the FAIR Act and the State Public Defender Commission can be found here.

(FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: James Brunner, Public Information Officer of the Illinois Supreme Court at 217.208.3354 or jbrunner@illinoiscourts.gov)

Beyond Compliance: Strategic Trade Advisory in 2026

Marybeth Stanziola — Wed, 27 May 2026 14:32:35 +0000

Beyond Compliance: Strategic Trade Advisory in 2026

Live Webcast

Tuesday, June 16, 2026

11:00 a.m. – 12:35 p.m.

1.50 hour MCLE credit

Learn how to thrive in a world where policy volatility, economic realignment, and global uncertainty are reshaping the expectations placed on legal advisors. Rather than revisiting compliance basics, our panel of presenters discuss how you can elevate your position into the role of strategic business partner that helps clients anticipate emerging litigation risk, seize growth opportunities, and navigate the shifting terrain of international trade with confidence. Gain rare insight from a sitting judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade as he offers an unparalleled window into emerging case trends and judicial reasoning that will shape 2026–2027. Listen as a seasoned business attorney translates real‑world client experiences into actionable strategies for turning tariff pressures, supply‑chain restructuring, and market diversification into competitive advantages. Adding a macro‑level perspective, a global compliance strategist connects trade policy shifts to financial, operational, and geopolitical realities facing internationally active companies. Designed for trade practitioners, corporate counsel, and business attorneys, this program equips you with the framework, foresight, and advisory tools needed to expand your practice beyond compliance and deliver high‑value strategic guidance in a rapidly evolving global marketplace. Register here.

What’s Said to AI May Not Stay in AI

Marybeth Stanziola — Tue, 26 May 2026 14:28:17 +0000

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the legal profession has been colored by early missteps: spectacular hallucinations, unvetted filings, and judicial sanctions. But when used prudently, AI can (and will) help lawyers deliver better work faster and at lower cost. The question is not whether Illinois lawyers may use AI, but how they can do so while honoring confidentiality, preserving work-product protection, and avoiding privilege pitfalls. In his May Illinois Bar Journal article, “What’s Said to AI May Not Stay in AI,” Jake A. Leahy examines the ramifications of various kinds of AI use by attorneys and their clients, who regularly paste sensitive facts into consumer chatbots without realizing those conversations are not privileged and may be discoverable.

Read, "What’s Said to AI May Not Stay in AI," in the May Illinois Bar Journal.

Simmons Hanly Conroy Proud Gold Sponsor of Alton Firefighters Local 1255 Third Annual Golf Tournament

Marybeth Stanziola — Tue, 26 May 2026 13:30:45 +0000

ALTON, Ill. – Simmons Hanly Conroy, a national leader in the legal representation of mesothelioma patients and their families, was proud to support the Alton Firefighters Local 1255 Third Annual Golf Tournament as a Gold Sponsor.

The tournament took place on May 8, 2026, at Woodlands Golf Club, and was organized as a four-person scramble and welcomed golfers of all skill levels for a day of friendly competition, contests, prizes, and community camaraderie. All proceeds benefited Alton Firefighters Local 1255 and their continued service to the community.

"Simmons Hanly Conroy has deep roots in the Alton community, and supporting the men and women of Alton Firefighters Local 1255 is something we are truly proud to do," said Simmons Hanly Conroy Managing Partner Laurence V. Nassif. "Our firefighters put their lives on the line every day to keep our community safe, and we are honored to show up for them as part of our ongoing commitment to the people of Alton."

This marked the third year the tournament brought together golfers and community supporters in celebration of the Alton Fire Department's dedication and service.

About Simmons Hanly Conroy LLP

Simmons Hanly Conroy is one of the nation’s largest mass tort law firms, dedicated to helping victims of mesothelioma and asbestos-related cancers. Other primary areas of litigation include prescription opioids, sexual abuse, pharmaceutical, consumer protection, environmental, and personal injury. The firm's attorneys have been appointed to leadership in numerous national multidistrict litigations, including prescription opioids, Vioxx, Yaz, Toyota unintended acceleration, BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, DePuy Pinnacle, Uber Rideshare sexual assault, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Norfolk Southern East Palestine train derailment, social media adolescent addiction, hair relaxer products injury, and the Volkswagen emission scandal. The firm also represents small and mid-size corporations, inventors and entrepreneurs in matters involving business litigation. Firm attorneys’ passion for improving the lives of asbestos victims and their families extends to the firm’s contributions to mesothelioma cancer research and ongoing support through initiatives including the firm’s annual Miles for Meso 5K race and fun run/walk. Firm offices are located in Alton, Illinois; Boston; Los Angeles; Miami; New York City; San Francisco; and St. Louis. Read more at www.simmonsfirm.com.

Justice Elizabeth Rochford Announces Notice of Vacancy for Resident Circuit Judge in Kane County

Marybeth Stanziola — Tue, 26 May 2026 13:28:03 +0000

Justice Elizabeth Rochford of the Supreme Court of Illinois has begun an application process for a Resident Circuit Judge vacancy in the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Fourth Subcircuit. The vacancy will be created by the upcoming retirement of Judge Susan Clancy Boles on July 31, 2026.

Under the Illinois Constitution, judicial vacancies are filled by Supreme Court appointment. The application process will lead to full Court approval.

Notice of the vacancy will be posted at the Kane County Courthouse. The application form and instructions may be obtained by visiting the Illinois Supreme Court’s website at: www.illinoiscourts.gov and following the instruction in the latest news scroller announcing the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit vacancy. Please submit application and supporting documents to Stacie Ryan at sryan@illinoiscourts.gov.

Deadline for submission of an application is June 15, 2026, at 5 p.m.

The person selected to fill the vacancy will serve until the first Monday in December following the November 2028 general election.

To be eligible for consideration for appointment, the applicant must be a lawyer licensed to practice law in Illinois and a resident of the Sixteenth Circuit. Any candidate seeking appointment to this vacancy shall, at the time of appointment, reside within the Subcircuit No. 4 boundaries. See 705 ILCS 35/2f-9. A map of the subcircuit boundaries can be found here.

(FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: James Brunner, Public Information Officer of the Illinois Supreme Court at 217.208.3354 or jbrunner@illinoiscourts.gov.)

Thomas M. Lynch Reappointed to a 14-Year Term as United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Northern District of Illinois

Marybeth Stanziola — Tue, 26 May 2026 13:20:12 +0000

Chief Judge Michael B. Brennan announced that the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has reappointed Bankruptcy Judge Thomas M. Lynch to another 14 year term when his current term expires on January 1, 2027. Judge Lynch is a bankruptcy judge for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and his office is located in the Stanley J. Roszkowski U.S. Courthouse. Chief Judge Brennan commented that the bar and the public were surveyed extensively and that Judge Lynch is highly regarded as a judge.

Judge Lynch was initially sworn in as a bankruptcy judge in 2013. He received his undergraduate degree, summa cum laude, from the University of Dayton, a masters degree from the University of Chicago, and his law degree from Northwestern University School of Law. Before his appointment he was an adjunct member of the Northwestern faculty and taught at the National Institute for Trial Advocacy. He also was counsel at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP in the business litigation department.

Quick Takes on Illinois Supreme Court Opinions Issued Thursday, May 21, 2026

Kelsey Jo Burge — Fri, 22 May 2026 14:35:34 +0000

Leading appellate attorneys review the four Illinois Supreme Court opinions handed down Thursday, May 21.

People v. Marshall, 2026 IL 132129

By Benjamin Lawson, Third District Appellate Court

Per curiam

The defendant challenged his pretrial detention. While his case was pending, he pled guilty, received a sentence of probation, and was released from custody. His challenge to his pretrial detention was therefore rendered moot, and the appeal was dismissed.

Jimmie Masrhall, the defendant, was accused of aggravated battery and detained pending trial in Livingston County. He filed a motion seeking to be released under Supreme Court Rule 604(h)(2), and his motion was denied. The defendant appealed that decision claiming, for the first time on appeal, that the State had failed to prove he committed a detainable offense. The appellate court found he had waived the issue by failing to raise it in the trial court and affirmed his detention.

Before the Supreme Court, the State asserted that the defendant’s claim was moot, since he had pled guilty and been released on a sentence of probation. The defendant contended that the “public interest” exception to the mootness doctrine applied. The public interest exception arises when (1) the issue presented is of a public nature, (2) an authoritative determination is desirable for the future guidance of public officers, and (3) the issue is likely to recur.

The Supreme Court found that the law surrounding the review of pretrial detention claims, including whether those claims have been waived, is “not presently in disarray.” It also found that these issues “have not evaded judicial review,” and it declined to invoke the public interest exception to render an advisory opinion. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

People v. Carroll, 2026 IL 131360

By Benjamin Lawson, Third District Appellate Court

Majority written by Justice Cunningham, joined by Justices Neville, Overstreet, Holder White, Rochford, and O’Brien.

Justice Tailor took no part in the decision.

Summary

Clarifies the forfeiture standard in the context of postconviction petitions. The appellate court found that the defendant’s claims had been forfeited on appeal because they were known to him at the time and could have been raised. However, the standard for forfeiture is whether the facts establishing the claim appear in the record, not whether the defendant knew them at the time of the appeal, and in this case the facts did not appear in the record. Nonetheless, the Court found the claims raised by the defendant were not meritorious. The defendant was unable to demonstrate prejudice resulting from any of his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and his claims of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel did not show she rendered unreasonable assistance.

In March of 2020, the defendant, Roger Carroll, Jr., was convicted of murdering Bonnie Woodward and sentenced to 65 years’ imprisonment. The evidence at trial established that Woodward disappeared on June 25, 2010, from her workplace, a nursing home. She was seen that afternoon with a white male near her pickup truck. Her coworkers stated they had seen an unfamiliar gray Chevrolet Malibu in the parking lot.

Woodward’s 17-year-old stepdaughter, Heather, was also reported missing, and on July 3, 2010, Heather appeared alone at the local public library. She told police she had been staying with the defendant, his wife, Monica, and their son, Nathan. Police interviewed the defendant, and he consented to have his car searched. Fingerprints were recovered from the exterior driver’s door of Woodward’s truck, and analysts matched a fingerprint and a palm print to the defendant. A search warrant was issued for the defendant’s home, and police recovered multiple firearms, including a Stoeger Couger 9mm handgun. However, no evidence linking the defendant to Woodward’s disappearance was recovered from either the property or the defendant’s car.

On September 29, 2010, while the defendant’s property was being searched, police placed the defendant in a squad car and interviewed him for about three hours. They then transported him to the police station to memorialize the interview and record the conversation that occurred in the squad car. A transcript of the interview was presented to the jury. During the interview, the defendant explained that Heather had been staying with his wife’s parents about three hours south, and that he and his son, Nathan, had driven back to their home on the day Woodward disappeared. They then did some yard work and went out to dinner. The defendant stated he knew Heather through church and that she had stayed with his family beginning on June 17, 2010, but he denied knowing Woodward or speaking to her.

The investigation then stalled for nearly 8 years.

In early 2018, the defendant was involved in a domestic battery incident involving his wife, Monica. Monica reported the defendant attacked her in their home, striking her repeatedly in the neck and face with a Taser. During the attack, she reported that he said, “I have killed for you,” and “I am a monster.” The defendant was located in the woods near his home, where he had attempted to commit suicide by overdosing on insulin.

Nathan was granted immunity from prosecution, and he testified at the defendant’s trial that in 2016 he knew Heather through a church group. He was 16 years old at the time. He never met Woodward, but the defendant described her as a bad person who was “mean and aggressive and abusive” toward Heather. The defendant stated that Woodward needed to “go away and never come back.”

On June 25, 2010, Nathan and the defendant drove by Woodward’s workplace and noted she was at work. The defendant then drove back to their home where he showered, shaved, dressed, and loaded a handgun. He then drove away in his gray Chevrolet Malibu. Nathan, meanwhile, prepared a tent in the yard away from the house. The plan was to tell Woodward that Heather was staying in the tent to lure Woodward inside.

When the defendant returned home, Nathan heard eight or nine gunshots. When Nathan went outside, he saw feet clad in white sneakers and the lower part of human legs wearing tan “scrub pants.” The defendant then scooped up the body with a front loader and dumped it in a large brush fire Nathan had previously lit on the defendant’s instructions. Nathan saw Woodward’s phone in the defendant’s hands, took it, smashed it, and threw it into the fire. The two of them then burned the clothing they had been wearing and went to dinner.

For the next several days, Nathan and the defendant continually stoked the fire. After it burned out, the defendant scooped up the ashes with a tractor and dumped them into a creek behind the house.

Following Nathan’s confession, police went to the home with Nathan in 2018. There, they discovered a 9mm cartridge, a shell casing, and a projectile located in the area where Nathan said Woodward had been murdered. A forensic scientist with the Illinois State Police testified the projectile and shell casing had been fired from the Stoeger Couger handgun taken from the defendant’s residence. Police also located 27 bone fragments. No DNA analysis was performed on most of the bones, though the parties stipulated that the FBI determined they were “thermally altered bone fragments.” Two bones were subjected to DNA testing, but neither was a match to Woodward.

Amy Hart, a fingerprint expert with the Illinois State Police, testified that she had been sent 12 fingerprint “lift" cards, and she was able to match one fingerprint and one palm print from the lift cards to the defendant. She testified that she later made an additional eight identifications, six of which belonged to the defendant. On cross examination, counsel attacked the reliability of fingerprint analysis in general and Hart’s analysis in particular. Hart admitted she could not tell the age of the prints and did not know where the prints were taken from.

Woodward’s coworkers were called to testify. One coworker, April Cathers, testified she saw Woodward sitting in her truck with a man standing outside her door with his hands on the driver’s side door. She observed a gray Chevrolet Malibu in the parking lot but was unable to identify the defendant from a photo lineup. Another coworker, Wanda Bausily, stated she saw a man standing next to Woodward’s truck as she was leaving work on June 25, 2010, and she identified the defendant in court as the person she saw that day. At the time she was interviewed she was unable to identify the defendant from a photo lineup.

A jury found the defendant guilty of first-degree murder, and the defendant appealed, arguing his trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance for stipulating to the bone fragments’ DNA results, failing to move to strike Bausily’s in-court identification of the defendant, and failing to redact passages of his September 29, 2010, interview with police. The appellate court affirmed the defendant’s conviction.

On June 23, 2022, the defendant filed a postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel’s (1) failure to move to suppress his September 29, 2010, interview; (2) stipulation to the bone fragment evidence without having the fragments radiocarbon tested for age; (3) failure to interview Woodward’s coworkers; (4) failure to make the lack of DNA evidence against the defendant a central theme of the defense; (5) failure to file a motion for change of venue based on unfavorable pretrial publicity; (6) failure to use a fingerprint expert to attack the reliability of fingerprint evidence; and (7) failure to interview a news reporter about a news article stating that the man seen in the parking lot of Woodward’s workplace was a smoker.

The defendant asserted that these claims could not have been raised on direct appeal because they were not part of the trial record. He attached numerous documents, including his own affidavit, relating to each of the seven claims. His affidavit claimed that he had been questioned on September 29, 2010, without being allowed to speak to his attorney despite requesting to speak to a lawyer and having retained an attorney. He also provided an affidavit from his attorney. His affidavit further asserted he asked his trial counsel to perform radiocarbon dating on the bone fragments to determine their age, and he included documents showing he purchased the property in 1995. He also included an affidavit from an expert in radiocarbon dating stating that two bone fragments taken from the property possessed sufficient radiocarbon for testing and that one of the bone fragments more likely than not came from a species that died between 1996 and 1998.

The defendant’s affidavit claimed he urged trial counsel to introduce testimony from some of Woodward’s coworkers to undermine the in-court identification of the defendant by Bausily. He also stated that trial counsel failed to review all the test samples of DNA, and that counsel had failed to argue at trial that he had been excluded as the source of any of those DNA samples. His affidavit claimed he had numerous conversations with counsel about changing the trial venue, and he attached multiple newspaper articles discussing the case. The defendant’s mother provided an affidavit asserting she, too, had spoken with trial counsel but counsel told her they might receive another “unknown trial judge with more conservative views” than the judge presiding over the case at the time.

The defendant’s affidavit described hiring a fingerprint expert to challenge the State’s fingerprint evidence, but the expert was never called to testify. He included a copy of a check for $2,000 payable to the expert. The defendant also attached a 2013 news article referring to an unknown suspect seen in the parking lot as “a smoker,” and the defendant stated he was not a smoker.

The circuit court dismissed the defendant’s petition at the second stage, finding that claims (3) through (7) relied on information “known or readily available to” the defendant and trial counsel at the time of trial. It found those claims were forfeited. The circuit court denied the first two claims on their merits, finding they failed to set forth a substantial showing of a constitutional violation.

The defendant appealed, arguing the circuit court erred in dismissing his petition. He also claimed that postconviction counsel had a conflict of interest because his postconviction counsel was the same attorney as his appellate counsel. He also argued that postconviction counsel had provided unreasonable assistance in failing to properly present his claims.

The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that all of the defendant’s claims, including claims (1) and (2), were forfeited. It also rejected the defendant’s assertion that postconviction counsel had a conflict of interest because the underlying claims lacked merit. Finally, it held that the defendant was unable to demonstrate prejudice based on postconviction counsel’s alleged errors in presenting his claims.

The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, which first found (as the State conceded on appeal to the Supreme Court) that the defendant’s claims were not forfeited. The facts supporting the defendant’s claims did not appear on the face of the original appellate record. They required substantiation by affidavits and other evidence, including a lengthy affidavit from the defendant himself, who did not testify at his trial. The Court held that it was irrelevant that these facts were “known” by the defendant at the time of his direct appeal. Instead, the question was whether the facts appeared on the face of the original appellate record, and here they did not.

Turning to the merits of the defendant’s claims, the Court first found that the defendant’s counsel’s decision not to seek suppression of the September 29, 2010, interview was a matter of trial strategy, since in that interview the defendant repeatedly denied involvement in Woodward’s disappearance and made no inculpatory statements. Additionally, the trial’s outcome would not have been affected by filing such a motion. Therefore, the defendant suffered no prejudice from his attorney’s failure to file it.

Next, the Court found the defendant could not establish prejudice based on his counsel’s failure to seek radiocarbon testing. While the defendant’s expert might have excluded 2 bone fragments from the group of 25 untested bone fragments, his testing showed nothing about the majority of the bone fragments and would have done nothing to affect the remaining evidence of the defendant’s guilt.

The defendant’s claim that one of Woodward’s coworkers may not have seen the defendant was of little evidentiary value where it did not contradict the testimony of Bausily, who testified she did see the defendant. Nor did it call into question Bausily’s in-court identification of the defendant as the person she saw. The Court concluded there was no reasonable probability this evidence would have affected the outcome of the trial, and the claim therefore failed to set forth a substantial showing of a constitutional violation.

The Court found that the defendant’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to review all the test samples of DNA material retrieved by law enforcement where the State never introduced any DNA evidence at trial, and the jury was well aware there was no DNA evidence tying the defendant to Woodward’s disappearance.

The defendant’s assertion that his counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a change of venue was plainly shown to be a matter of trial strategy by both his own and his mother’s affidavits.

The Court was unable to conclude that calling an additional fingerprint expert would have altered the outcome of the trial where the defendant’s counsel extensively cross-examined the State’s fingerprint witness and argued in both opening and closing arguments about the unreliability of fingerprint evidence.

Finally, the Court found that defense counsel’s failure to follow up on a news article describing a suspect seen in a nursing home parking lot had similarly little effect on the case, and it was unlikely to change the result of the trial.

The Court concluded that each of the defendant’s seven postconviction claims failed to satisfy the standard for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel, and the circuit court did not err in dismissing the postconviction petition. The Court further held that the defendant’s postconviction counsel did not render an unreasonable level of assistance since counsel shaped the seven postconviction claims and properly framed them for the circuit court’s consideration.

People v. Collins, 2026 IL 131300

By Benjamin Lawson, Third District Appellate Court

Majority written by Chief Justice Neville, joined by Justices Overstreet, Holder White, Cunningham, Rochford, O’Brien, and Tailor.

Summary

Holds that the State is precluded from re-trying the defendant for unlawful use of a weapon after he was acquitted under the same facts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon following a severed trial.

Terry Collins, the defendant, was arrested and charged with two counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW), possession of a firearm without a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card, and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (UPWF). The AUUW charge (Count I) alleged the defendant “knowingly carried” a firearm at a time when he had not been issued a valid FOID card. The UPWF charge alleged the defendant “knowingly possessed” a firearm after having been convicted of a felony.

The defendant made a motion to sever the fourth count (UPWF), and the circuit court allowed the motion. The State then dismissed one of the counts of AUUW and elected to proceed to trial on the UPWF charge.

At trial, Luke Weston, a sheriff’s detective, testified he pulled over a vehicle for following another car too closely and changing lanes without signaling. When he approached the car, the defendant, seated in the back seat, rolled down his window and Weston smelled burnt and raw cannabis. Weston searched the car and found a loaded firearm in a bag in the car’s trunk.

Weston testified that at first the defendant said he did not know there was a firearm in the car but later told Weston he owned the gun in the interest of ending the stop quickly so the driver could get to see his grandmother in the hospital. Weston confirmed with another source that the driver’s grandmother was hospitalized.

The parties stipulated that the defendant had a prior felony conviction. The defendant did not testify.

The jury returned a not guilty verdict.

The defendant filed a motion seeking to bar the State from proceeding on the other severed counts because both counts required the State to prove that the defendant knowingly possessed a firearm. The court granted the defendant’s motion with respect to the FOID count but denied it with respect to the AUUW count. The State and the defendant each moved to reconsider. The State argued the court should not have granted the motion as to either count, and the defendant argued the court should have granted the motion as to both counts. When the court denied both motions to reconsider, both sides appealed.

The appellate court affirmed the court’s dismissal of the FOID card charge, holding that the doctrine of issue preclusion barred prosecution of that charge. In a separate opinion, it also reversed the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the AUUW charge, finding that the doctrine of issue preclusion barred prosecution of that count.

The State appealed, arguing before the Supreme Court that the issue-preclusion component of the federal and state constitutions’ double jeopardy clauses did not apply when a defendant requests or consents to separate trials on related charges. The State relied on Currier v. Virginia, 585 U.S. 493 (2018), a case interpreting the federal double jeopardy clause. In Currier, a grand jury indicted the defendant on charges of burglary and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. The two charges were severed, and prosecutors proceeded to trial on the burglary charge. The jury acquitted Currier, and he filed a motion to dismiss the unlawful possession charge, which was denied. Currier appealed, and a 5-4 majority of the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant cannot claim issue preclusion to block a second trial if the parties explicitly agreed to split the charges into separate trials.

Nonetheless, the Court in Currier observed that states are free to provide greater protections to defendants via state common law, state constitutions, or state statutes.

The Illinois Supreme Court traced the roots of issue preclusion through Illinois common law, citing Hanna v. Read, 102 Ill. 596, 602-03 (1882), and finding it had been applied for more than 140 years in Illinois. The Court also pointed to section 3-4(b)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that “[a] prosecution is barred if the defendant was formerly prosecuted for a different offense, or for the same offense based upon different facts, if that former prosecution: *** (2) was terminated by a final order or judgment *** that required a determination inconsistent with any fact necessary to a conviction in the subsequent prosecution[.]”

The Court also noted that Currier commented on the propriety of states adopting laws or rules experimenting with issue or claim preclusion in criminal cases. The majority in Currier observed that “[o]n these matters, the Constitution dictates no answers but entrusts them to a self-governing people to resolve.”

Finding that Illinois recognizes the doctrine of issue preclusion as a matter of common law and as a matter of statute, the Court turned to the facts of the defendant’s case. It found that the jury had returned a general verdict in favor of the defendant, and the only issue for the jury to resolve in that case was whether the defendant knowingly possessed a gun. The jury therefore found that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed a firearm.

The AUUW count required the State to prove that the defendant knowingly carried a firearm in the vehicle. To establish that he knowingly carried a firearm in the vehicle, the State had to show he both knowingly possessed and transported the gun. Because the defendant’s acquittal in the UPWF case was based on the jury finding that he did not knowingly possess a gun, the doctrine of issue preclusion barred the State from trying to prove that the defendant committed AUUW.

The Supreme Court observed that section 3-4(b)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not mention severance. The statute includes two explicit exceptions, one if the former prosecution took place before a court that lacked jurisdiction over the defendant or the offense, and a second if the prior prosecution “was procured by the defendant without the knowledge of the proper prosecuting officer” or if subsequent proceedings invalidated, set aside, reversed or vacated the conviction. The statute’s silence on the issue of severance suggests the legislature did not intend to include severance as an exception to the doctrine of issue preclusion.

The Court also rejected the State’s claim that the defendant waived his right to assert issue preclusion. Waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and the Court held that the record did not support a finding that the defendant was aware that moving to sever would result in the loss of his right to invoke the doctrine of issue preclusion. Nor did the defendant “invite error,” since the defendant never contended the court erred. The Court found that, rather than offending “all notions of fair play” as the State claimed, allowing the defendant to claim issue preclusion simply prevented the State from obtaining a second opportunity to prove what it failed to prove in a previous trial. The Court therefore affirmed the appellate court’s decision reversing the circuit court’s order and barring the State from prosecuting the defendant for AUUW.

Bright v. Yenchko, 2026 IL 132015

By Amanda J. Hamilton, Akerman LLP

In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Cunningham, the Illinois Supreme Court vacated the Randolph County Circuit Court’s judgment holding section 8(n) of the FOID Card Act facially unconstitutional and remanded with directions to dismiss the case as moot. The Court held that the trial court erred in applying the public-interest exception to the mootness doctrine.

Bright was charged in Cook County with felony aggravated unlawful use of a weapon on February 25, 2023. On March 24, 2023, the Illinois State Police suspended his FOID card pursuant to sections 8.3 and 8(n) of the FOID Card Act, which authorizes suspension or revocation when a person is prohibited by state or federal law from acquiring or possessing firearms.

After the felony charge was dismissed on April 20, 2023, Bright filed an administrative appeal seeking reinstatement of his FOID card. While that appeal was pending, he filed a section 1983 action in Randolph County against Yenchko, in his official capacity as Chief of the Firearms Services Bureau of the Illinois State Police, alleging that the suspension violated his civil rights. On May 31, 2023, the Illinois State Police reinstated Bright’s FOID card.

In his Randolph County complaint, Bright sought reinstatement of his card and an injunction barring future suspension. Yenchko argued that reinstatement rendered the case moot. The trial court nevertheless held section 8(n) facially unconstitutional and enjoined the Illinois State Police from enforcing it to revoke, suspend, or otherwise impair the ability of an Illinois citizen to possess firearms while under indictment for a felony offense.

On direct appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court emphasized the distinction between facial and as-applied constitutional challenges. The Court explained that Bright’s complaint pleaded only an as-applied challenge because it sought relief based on his own circumstances and requested the return of his FOID card, not invalidation of the statute in all applications. The Court held that is was improper for the trial court to go beyond the bounds of the complaint to grant relief to nonparties and to invalidate a statute and, in doing so, the trial court ignored its obligation to avoid reaching constitutional issues unless necessary to decide a case. Because Bright’s complaint was an as-applied constitutional challenge, the Court held that his case was moot once his FOID card was returned, and the trial court should have dismissed his case at that point.

Likewise, because Bright’s challenge was specific to the facts and circumstances of his case, the Court further held that the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine did not apply because it did not present “an issue of a public nature.”

Resilience and Emotional Skills for Overloaded Professionals

Marybeth Stanziola — Thu, 21 May 2026 18:03:57 +0000

Resilience and Emotional Skills for Overloaded Professionals

Live Webcast

Wednesday, June 17, 2026

1:00 – 2:05 p.m.

1.0 hour MCLE credit, including 1.0 hour Mental Health & Substance Abuse credit (subject to approval)

Get the tools you need to overcome internal barriers and excel in high-pressure environments with this informative online program. By examining the hidden costs of "perfectionism," we reveal how the relentless pursuit of an impossible standard can foster self-doubt and create significant inefficiencies in your practice. To combat these hurdles, this session also delivers a practical framework for fostering emotion regulation, enabling you to better navigate the factors that drive burnout and strife. Attendees leave with actionable strategies to manage stress and build the lasting resilience necessary for a sustainable, successful legal career. Register here.

3rd District Admission Ceremony - May 2026

Marybeth Stanziola — Thu, 21 May 2026 14:50:30 +0000

On May 6, 2026, new attorneys were admitted to practice law in Illinois across all five judicial districts. Justice Mary K. O'Brien administered the oath to 32 new attorneys during 3rd Judicial District ceremony at the Will County Courthouse in Joliet, IL.

Perry Browder, President-Elect of the Illinois State Bar Association, was the ceremony's speaker.

PC: Illinois State Bar Association

Illinois Supreme Court Disbars 3, Suspends 7 in Latest Disciplinary Filing

Marybeth Stanziola — Wed, 20 May 2026 17:09:34 +0000

The Illinois Supreme Court issued attorney disciplinary orders during its May 2026 Term of Court. Sanctions were imposed because the lawyers engaged in professional misconduct by violating state ethics law.

Disbarred

Hassan Ali Abbas, Chicago, IL

Mr. Abbas, who was licensed to practice law in Illinois in 1991, was disbarred on consent. He was convicted of wire fraud and money laundering conspiracy in a Massachusetts federal court, sentenced to 87 months in prison, and ordered to pay more than $2,000,000 in restitution.

Fredric Robert Gumbinner, Washington, D.C.

Mr. Gumbinner, who was licensed to practice law in Illinois in 1985, was disbarred. In 2023, he pled guilty to the federal criminal offense of bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds. In his guilty plea, he admitted to causing a $20,000 payment to be made to a sheriff in Virginia to induce the sheriff to appoint Mr. Gumbinner as an auxiliary deputy sheriff. In 2025, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals disbarred him based on that conviction. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and disbarred him.

Sari Ellen Karson, Rockville, MD

Ms. Karson, who was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1988, was disbarred. She was twice held in contempt by a circuit court in Montgomery County, Maryland, for violating the terms of an injunction prohibiting her from practicing law or accessing trust funds pending the outcome of criminal charges. Both the Supreme Court of Maryland and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals disbarred her based on that conduct. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline and disbarred her.

Suspended

Tod Herbert Rottman, Jr., Chicago, IL

Mr. Rottman, who was licensed in 1999, was suspended for 30 days, with the suspension stayed in its entirety in favor of a one-year period of conditional probation. He represented a client in claims against her former employer and, while the representation was ongoing, he engaged in a sexual relationship with the client.

Scott Jeffrey Sinton, Chicago, IL

Mr. Sinton, who was licensed to practice law in Illinois in 1989, was suspended for one year and until further order of the Court, with the suspension stayed in its entirety by a two-year period of conditional probation. In 2023, he pled guilty to the misdemeanor criminal offense of driving while under the influence of alcohol, and he was sentenced to 12 months of supervision, ordered to complete counseling and to attend a victim impact panel, and fined and ordered to pay court costs.

Philip Chow, Chicago, IL

Mr. Chow, who was licensed to practice law in Illinois in 1984, was suspended for one year. Over a four-month period in 2024, he intentionally used more than $11,000 he was holding in connection with his client’s sale of a restaurant to pay his law firm’s operating expenses. The suspension is effective June 9, 2026.

Warren A. Zimmerman, Land O' Lakes, FL

Mr. Zimmerman, who was licensed to practice law in Illinois in 1979, was reprimanded and suspended until he is reinstated to the practice of law by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit privately reprimanded him, barred him from accepting further appointments in that court and from serving in future appeals as appellate counsel in any capacity, and directed him to withdraw as counsel from all appeals pending in the court after he exhibited deficient and dilatory conduct in multiple appeals. The Illinois Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline by reprimanding Mr. Zimmerman and suspending him until he is reinstated to the practice of law by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The suspension is effective June 9, 2026.

The Following Orders Were Entered Before the May 2026 Term But Were Not Included in Any Prior Information Release

Nathaniel Arthur Frenkel, Chicago, IL (Order entered on March 27, 2026)

Mr. Frenkel, who was licensed to practice law in Illinois in 2015, was suspended on an interim basis and until further order of the Court. He was convicted on charges of aggravated domestic battery and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.

Augustus Sol Invictus, Orlando, FL (Order entered on April 14, 2026)

Mr. Invictus, who was licensed to practice law in Illinois in 2013, was suspended on an interim basis and until further order of the Court. He was convicted in Virginia on a felony charge of Burning an Object with the Intent to Intimidate arising from his participation in an August 2017 march on the University of Virginia campus in Charlottesville.

Adam Paul Beckerink, Chicago, IL (Order entered on April 20, 2026)

Mr. Beckerink, who was licensed to practice law in Illinois in 2006, was suspended on an interim basis and until further order of the Court. He was charged by superseding indictment with the first-degree murder of his wife by throwing her down a stairwell in the couple’s condominium building and with making false statements to investigators.

First District Appellate Court Introduces New Clerk and Chief Deputy Clerk

Marybeth Stanziola — Wed, 20 May 2026 16:18:18 +0000

Following the retirement of First District Appellate Court Clerk Thomas D. Palella on April 30, 2026, the First District has announced the elevation of Tina Schillaci and Lisa Franklin to the roles of Clerk and Chief Deputy Clerk, respectively.

Tina Schillaci was promoted to Clerk of the First District Appellate Court, effective May 1, 2026. Ms. Schillaci began her career in public service 27 years ago in the Domestic Relations Division where she became a trained mediator and worked as a case manager. She began her employment as a law clerk in the Chancery Division in 2008 and later worked as a law clerk on the Appellate Court. She was the Administrative Attorney in the Clerk’s Office from 2013 until 2017, when she was promoted to Chief Deputy Clerk. She is the first female to serve in the position of Clerk of the First District Appellate Court.

“My appointment as Clerk of the First District is a tremendous honor and I look forward to continuing to serve the court in this new role. I am grateful to the Justices of the First District for their continued confidence and support,” Ms. Schillaci said. “I am also excited to have Lisa Franklin as the Chief Deputy Clerk. Her knowledge of court rules and procedures will help ensure that the Clerk’s Office will continue to run efficiently.”

Ms. Schillaci received her Bachelor of Arts degree from University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign and Juris Doctor degree from University of Illinois Chicago (formerly John Marshall Law School).

Lisa Franklin has been promoted to Chief Deputy Clerk. Ms. Franklin earned a Bachelor of Arts with a double major in English Literature and Communications from Blackburn College and a Master of Arts in Journalism from DePaul University. She is a graduate of Whitney Young High School and Edison Gifted Children’s Center. Ms. Franklin began working for the Clerk’s Office in 2013 and was promoted to Division Clerk two years later. She was promoted again in 2021 to Supervisor. Ms. Franklin is the first female African American Chief Deputy Clerk in the First District Appellate Court.

The First District Appellate Court is located in Chicago and hears cases appealed from trial courts in Cook County. Appeals enter the clerk’s office, where deputy clerks assign each filing schedules and actively monitor and review cases as they progress through record preparation, motions, briefing, and oral arguments. After the court has heard an appeal, the clerk’s office issues the court’s decision and tracks all post-decision activity.

(FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: James Brunner, Public Information Officer of the Illinois Supreme Court at 217.208.3354 or jbrunner@illinoiscourts.gov.)

2026 IJA/ISBA Spring Seminar

Marybeth Stanziola — Tue, 19 May 2026 19:57:46 +0000

The Illinois Judges Association (IJA) and Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA) hosted the IJA/ISBA Spring Seminar 2026 on May 12, 2026, at the Old State Capitol Historic Site in Springfield, IL.

Attendees joined the Hon. Raymond J. McKoski for an in-depth look at David Davis, the man behind Abraham Lincoln’s political ascent. The complimentary programming explored their lifelong bond and saw how Davis used his influence to shape Lincoln’s presidency. The program also included a look at new treatments for osteoarthritis pain and an overview of retirement benefits and insurance updates for judges.

Presented by the Illinois State Bar Association and Illinois Judges’ Association.

PC: ISBA

Croke Fairchild Duarte & Beres Welcomes Joshua Abern to Chair Private Client Services and Family Enterprise Practices

Marybeth Stanziola — Tue, 19 May 2026 15:49:04 +0000

CHICAGO, May 19, 2026 – Croke Fairchild Duarte & Beres (“CFDB”) today announced that Joshua Abern has joined the Firm as a Partner and will chair its Private Client Services and Family Enterprise practices, further strengthening CFDB’s private client capabilities for ultra-high-net-worth clients and multigenerational family enterprises. CFDB continues its growth as one of the nation’s largest and fastest-growing certified women-owned law firms.

Abern concentrates his practice in trust and estate planning and administration, business succession planning, trust and estate litigation, income taxation, philanthropic matters, and the creation and operation of family offices. He combines deep technical experience in tax, trust, and estate law with operational leadership and strategic judgment, offering clients practical guidance across complex family, business, investment, and philanthropic structures.

Abern most recently served as Chief Executive Officer of a family office supporting an ultrahigh-net-worth family, as well as its business interests and philanthropic activities. In that role, he coordinated legal, financial, administrative, investment, and advisory functions, bringing an operator’s perspective to complex family enterprise matters.

Prior to that position, Abern spent nearly a decade as General Counsel at another family office serving two ultra-high-net-worth families. He advised on ownership structures, philanthropic entities, regulated private trust companies, and investment vehicles, while helping principals and advisors translate sophisticated planning objectives into practical execution.

“Josh’s arrival represents an important expansion of CFDB’s platform for families, founders, family enterprises, and closely held businesses,” said Patrick Croke, CoFounder and CEO of Croke Fairchild Duarte & Beres. “He understands not only the legal and tax issues that matter to these clients, but also the operational, governance, and interpersonal dynamics that make this work so important. We are thrilled to welcome him to the Firm.”

180 N. LaSalle Street • Suite 3400 • Chicago, IL 60601 “Josh brings a rare combination of technical legal excellence and hands-on family office leadership,” said Lisa Duarte, Partner and Co-Chair of the Management Committee at Croke Fairchild Duarte & Beres. “His experience advising ultra-high-net-worth families, overseeing sophisticated investment and ownership structures, and helping families preserve and transition wealth across generations will meaningfully enhance our ability to serve our existing family office and private client base.”

Earlier in his career, Abern practiced law with several firms in Chicago, where he focused on trust and estate planning, tax strategy, corporate transactions, and litigation. He earned his LL.M. in Taxation from Northwestern University and his J.D. from Loyola University Chicago. His technical background and pragmatic approach enable him to advise clients on complex investment structures, succession planning, trust and estate administration, fiduciary disputes, and family enterprise governance.

“CFDB’s entrepreneurial culture and sophisticated client base make it an ideal home for a practice focused on families, family offices, and family enterprises,” said Josh Abern. “I am excited to work with my new colleagues to help clients navigate complex legal, tax, governance, and succession issues with judgment, discretion, and practical execution.”

About Croke Fairchild and Point of Difference Strategies

A full-service law firm, Croke Fairchild Duarte & Beres (“CFDB”) is home to a diverse team of trusted advisors valued for their legal skill, intellectual curiosity, and commitment to pragmatic solutions. The Firm advises entrepreneurs, investors, growth-stage companies, family offices, family businesses, and Fortune 500 companies, and is one of the largest and fastest-growing certified women-owned law firms in the nation. CFDB is a member of the National Association of Minority and Women-Owned Law Firms (NAMWOLF).

CFDB’s lobbying and government affairs partner is Point of Difference Strategies. Point of Difference Strategies is a lobbying firm in Illinois, with offices in Chicago and Springfield. Specializing in strategic advice, advocacy and relationship management, Point of Difference Strategies offers top-tier government affairs and lobbying services at federal, state, and local levels. Point of Difference Strategies proudly serves a diverse client base, including local governments, trade organizations, Fortune 100 companies and non-profits. Point of Difference Strategies is the largest wholly Latina-owned lobbying firm in Illinois. For more information, visit www.podstrategies.com.

Simmons Hanly Conroy Marks 15 Years as ADAO's Longest-Running Sponsor

Marybeth Stanziola — Tue, 19 May 2026 15:28:35 +0000

ALTON, Ill. – For the 15th consecutive year, Simmons Hanly Conroy has renewed its platinum sponsorship of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), reaffirming a partnership that has made the firm the nonprofit's longest-running corporate supporter.

Simmons Hanly Conroy is widely recognized as one of the nation's largest mass torts firms and a leader in the legal representation of mesothelioma patients and their families. The renewed sponsorship reflects the firm's ongoing investment in the fight to eliminate asbestos exposure and secure justice for the community it serves.

The ADAO is an independent global nonprofit working at the intersection of public health, policy and victim advocacy. The organization educates communities about the risks of asbestos exposure, advocates for a comprehensive federal ban on the substance, and defends the civil rights of those whose lives have been upended by asbestos-related illness.

Simmons Hanly Conroy Chairman John Simmons called the continued partnership a natural extension of the firm's core mission. "The ADAO is doing irreplaceable work, from driving policy change at the federal level to providing real support to families navigating devastating diagnoses," he said.

ADAO Co-Founder Linda Reinstein echoed that sentiment. "Simmons Hanly Conroy's commitment goes beyond a check. It represents a shared determination to protect people from a preventable killer, and that kind of sustained, meaningful partnership is what allows us to do this work year after year."

The 2026 sponsorship is already making an impact. It helped power Global Asbestos Awareness Week, observed April 1–7, a coordinated international effort to spotlight the continued health threat posed by asbestos and strengthen cross-border partnerships in the push for a global ban. Looking ahead, the funding will also support the ADAO's flagship Asbestos Awareness and Prevention Conference, set for September 25–26 in Washington, D.C.

Beyond the conference circuit, the sponsorship fuels year-round ADAO programming across three key areas:

Public and medical education: expanding knowledge about asbestos-related diseases, early detection strategies and emerging prevention research.
Policy advocacy: using evidence-based approaches to drive asbestos exposure prevention efforts and advance meaningful policy change.
Community building: creating space for patients and families to connect, share experiences and access information about treatment and support resources.

Simmons Hanly Conroy also drives fundraising through its Miles for Meso program, a series of 5K races and community fun runs held across Illinois, Washington, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and beyond. Launched in 2009, the events have collectively raised more than $977,500 for mesothelioma research and advocacy.

That figure is part of a broader story. Combined with contributions through the firm's charitable foundations, Simmons Hanly Conroy has directed more than $20 million toward cancer research initiatives across the United States.

About Simmons Hanly Conroy LLP

Goods? Services? Both?

Marybeth Stanziola — Mon, 18 May 2026 14:48:04 +0000

In his May Illinois Bar Journal article, “Goods? Services? Both?,” William G. Beatty discusses the fine lines between the sale of goods and the sale of services. Deciding where the lines fall becomes critical in determining the respective rights of buyers and sellers. Courts tend to rely on fact-intensive circumstances and look to the definition of “goods” under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Beatty also notes that while the term “services” is not specifically defined in the UCC, it includes rules that apply to “hybrid transactions,” which blend the sale of goods with the sale of services. In his article, Beatty provides an in-depth discussion of such hybrid transactions.

Read, "Goods? Services? Both?," in the May Illinois Bar Journal.

What’s New in Illinois Mental Health Law?

Marybeth Stanziola — Mon, 18 May 2026 14:40:08 +0000

What’s New in Illinois Mental Health Law?

Live Webcast

Wednesday, June 3, 2026

11:00 a.m. – 12:20 p.m.

1.25 hours MCLE credit, including 1.25 hours Mental Health & Substance Abuse credit (subject to approval)

This program provides a comprehensive examination of the major legal developments shaping Illinois mental health law over the past two years, integrating both legislative action and judicial interpretation. Mental health lawyers, disability law attorneys, and criminal justice practitioners who attend this online seminar will explore newly enacted statutes, amendments, and shifting policy priorities alongside the most influential appellate court decisions that have clarified, expanded, or constrained existing legal standards. Together, these perspectives offer a clear understanding of how evolving laws and case rulings are transforming clinical practice, patient rights, and procedural obligations across the state’s mental health system. Register here.

Introducing the New ISBA American Express® Business Card

Marybeth Stanziola — Thu, 14 May 2026 17:13:20 +0000

Take advantage of this NEW beneﬁt! Support your practice with a business card created exclusively for ISBA members. Earn up to 5% Cash Back Rewards on ISBA purchases, with no annual fee or foreign transaction fees, and access trusted American Express® beneﬁts to help you manage expenses and grow your business.*

Plus, get this Limited-Time $500 Cash Back Bonus when you spend $5,000 in the ﬁrst 90 days.*

Learn More

*Program offer terms and conditions apply. This Card is issued by Celtic Bank.