Author Archive for: omar.uddin@isbamutual.com

Claims involving special defendants, such as municipalities, mass transit companies, school and port districts, are subject to a special one year limitations period. Certain claimants, including policemen, firemen, and guardsmen, must make claims for death benefits within a year of death. In some cases, a special notice requirement is also imposed, as early as six months from the triggering event. This article reviews the main instances of these special limitations periods.

One of the cardinal rules of malpractice avoidance is to always be cognizant of any statute of limitations that applies to your clients’ potential actions and to timely file their claims.

(Marconi & Langs)  For the past several years, Illinois Attorney General (“IAG”), Lisa Madigan, and the State of Illinois have conducted a campaign against companies that purport to assist distressed homeowners and debtors in dealing with their debt situation.1 The primary weapons in the IAG’s arsenal are two statutes: the Mortgage Rescue Fraud Act, 765 ILCS 940/1 et seq. (eff. Jan. 1, 2007) (“MRFA”); and, the Debt Settlement Consumer Protection Act, 225 ILCS 429/1 et seq. (eff. Aug. 3, 2010) (“DSCPA”).

However, in both the MRFA and the DSCPA there are exclusions for attorneys. The Acts apply to statutorily defined “distressed property consultants” or “debt settlement services”, respectively. The MRFA excludes “attorneys licensed in Illinois who are engaged in the practice of law”. The DSCPA excludes “attorneys licensed, or otherwise authorized, to practice in Illinois who are engaged in the practice of law.” 765 ILCS 940/5; and 225 ILCS 429/10.

The purpose of both of these exclusions is to allow attorneys who provide bankruptcy or other traditional legal services to debtors to continue taking retainers. However, some attorneys saw this as a loophole that would allow them to provide mortgage relief or debt settlement services and still take an up-front fee, contrary to either statute’s otherwise clear prohibition.

The danger that attorneys will be caught in the cross-fire in this war between the IAG and debtor assistance companies was highlighted in this space with regard to the MFRA.

(Marconi & Langs)  The Illinois Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in Reliable Fire Equip. Co. v. Arredondo, 2011 Ill. LEXIS 1836 (Ill. Dec. 1, 2011). The opinion enforced prior precedent that an employer’s legitimate business interest should be considered in deciding whether a restrictive covenant should be enforced, but it rejected the previously set “tests” and “formulas” employed by Illinois appellate courts in determining whether a legitimate business interest exists. Illinois lawyers should carefully consider the Supreme Court’s decision and reconsider their previous opinions to clients regarding the enforceability of certain covenants.

(Marconi & Langs)  Effective September 1, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court has amended Rule 1.15 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct respecting the safekeeping of client funds deposited in trust accounts. As professional fiduciaries, attorneys have long been required to keep their clients’ funds separate from their own. Now, the Supreme Court has limited the options for accounts to hold client funds, imposed new record keeping requirements on attorneys, and now requires banks to notify the ARDC when client accounts are overdrawn.