DOCKETTH

E

The Official Publication of the Lake County Bar Association • Vol. 23, No. 6 • June 2016

LCBA Advocates for

Access to Justiceat Courthouse

A publication of the

300 Grand Avenue, Suite AWaukegan, Illinois 60085

(847) 244-3143 • Fax: (847) 244-8259www.lakebar.org • info@lakebar.org

THE DOCKET EDITORIAL COMMITTEEHon. Daniel L. Jasica, Co-editor

Jeffrey A. Berman, Co-editorHon. Michael J. FuszDeborah L. Goldberg

Hon. Charles D. JohnsonKevin K. McCormick

Hon. Raymond J. McKoskiTara H. Ori

Tracy M. PoulakidasStephen J. RiceNeal A. Simon

Hon. James K. SimonianMichael S. Strauss

Rebecca J. Whitcombe

STAFFChristopher T. Boadt, Exec. DirectorVirginia M. Elliott, Assistant Director

ContentsTHE DOCKET • Vol. 23, No. 6 • June 2016

To place an ad or for information on advertising rates, call (847) 244-3143. Submission dead-line: first day of month preceding the month of publication. All submissions must be made in electronic format (high resolution PDF or JPG format at a resolution of 300 pixels per inch or more.) See www.lakebar.org/html/docketRates.asp.

The Docket is the official publication of the Lake County Bar Association, 300 Grand Avenue, Suite A, Waukegan, Illinois 60085 (847) 244-3143, and is published monthly. Subscriptions for non-members are $45.00 per year.

Reproduction in whole or part without permis-sion is prohibited. The opinions and positions stated in signed material are those of the au-thors and not necessarily those of the Associa-tion or its members.

All submitted manuscripts are considered by the Editorial Board. All letters to the editor and articles are subject to editing. Publications of advertisements is not to be considered as an endorsement of any product or service adver-tised unless otherwise stated.$1.75 per word (Rate for LCBA Members)

$2.75 per word (Rate for Non-Members)

$3.50 per word (Rate for LCBA Members)

$4.50 per word (Rate for Non-Members)

Classified AdvertisingStandard

TextBoldText

Classified Advertisement may contain as many words, numbers, symbols and boldface type.

$600 per issue (Full Color)$750 per issue (Full Color)Back Cover

Inside Front orInside Back Cover

Full Page1/2 Page

1/4 Page1/8 Page

ADSIZE

ONEISSUE

6ISSUES

12ISSUES

$70$120$175$295

$65$110$160$270

$60$100$145$245

Color ad rates: add $199 per issue to theabove stated rates, excludes cover ads.

Advertising Rates

FEATURES 4 Access to Justice

Resolution 12 Concussions Not Limited

to Football Field BY JENNIFER L. ASHLEY

16 When Judges Were Judges: Theophilus W. Smith

BY HON. RAYMOND J. MCKOSKI (RET.)

20 More is Less (Confusion): Offer Letters-At-Will or Fixed Duration and the Implications of Each

BY RICHARD N. KESSLER

COLUMNS 2 The President’s Page LCBA Advocates for

Access to Justice at Courthouse

BY DONALD J. MORRISON

6 The Chief Judge’s Page Partners in Justice BY CHIEF JUDGE JORGE L. ORTIZ

8 LC Bar Foundation Progress Report on

the Russell V. Ray Bar Building

BY MELANIE K. RUMMEL PRESIDENT

10 Docket Editorial Board Letter from the Outgoing

Co-Editor of The Docket BY MICHAEL S. STRAUSS

22 The Meeting Minutes April 21, 2016 BY BRIAN J. LEWIS

24 Restaurant Review Josh’s Hot Dogs BY MICHAEL S. STRAUSS

LCBA EVENTS 7 Calendar of Events 19 Renew Your Membership 23 The Grapevine Back LCBA Annual Golf Outing

The Docket2

One of the LCBA’s primary missions is to enhance access

to justice for the people we serve. This includes our individual clients, pro se litigants, and all others that utilize the Lake Coun-ty judicial system.

Certainly, the LCBA has a proud tradition and reputation for enhancing access to justice by working closely with Prairie State

Legal Services and en-couraging our members to provide pro bono legal ser-vice to those who cannot otherwise afford adequate representation. Further-more, the LCBA recognizes the efforts of the Lake County Public Defender’s Office, private attorneys, and other individuals and organizations by awarding Access to Justice awards on a yearly basis.

In addition to pro-moting and recognizing those who provide pro bono representation to indigent clients, access to justice also requires having adequate courtrooms, facilities, and technology. The current facilities and technology at the Lake County Courthouse simply do not and cannot provide adequate and dignified access to justice for Lake County residents.

For example, Court-room 105A is a former storage closet that is now being used for prove-up hearings in divorce cases. That means that every person going through a divorce in Lake County

will use that courtroom at least once throughout the divorce proceedings. Courtroom 105A does not satisfy the Illinois’ stan-dards for a courtroom, and it is so small that it poses a serious safety and security concern for judges, liti-gants, attorneys, and court personnel.

Recently, Chief Judge Ortiz received a com-plaint from a woman from Libertyville who was finalizing her divorce at a prove-up hearing in 105A. She brought her parents with her to provide support for her on one of the most difficult days of her life. Due to limited capacity in the courtroom, her parents were not allowed inside the courtroom during the hearing. This Lake County resident and her parents were denied the public’s

right of access to court-rooms guaranteed and consistently reaffirmed by our United States Supreme Court. Clearly, Courtroom 105A does not provide ade-quate and dignified access to justice to the people we serve.

There are several other examples of deficiencies in the courtroom facilities at the Lake County Court-house that inhibit ade-quate and dignified access to justice. These include lack of adequate facilities for worker’s compensation proceedings, bankruptcy proceedings, Grand Jury proceedings, probate and arbitration proceedings, and attorney conference rooms to hold attorney/client privileged communi-cations.

As most of you know, construction has begun on

LCBA Advocates for Access to Justice at Courthouse

President’sPage

The

BY DONALD J.MORRISON

2016-17 OFFICERS & DIRECTORS

Donald J. MorrisonPresident

Jennifer J. HoweFirst Vice-President

Brian J. LewisSecond Vice-President

Richard N. KesslerTreasurer

Stephen J. RiceSecretary

Shyama S. ParikhHon. Daniel B. Shanes

Patricia L. CornellJoseph M. FuszTara R. Devine

Torrie M. Newsome

June 2016 3

the new criminal courts tower project. The original design for the criminal courts tower, as presented to the LCBA, would have addressed and eliminated all of the above obstacles to adequate and digni-fied access to justice for the people we serve. The original design also would have centrally located all criminal courtrooms in a facility close to the jail, which would have promot-ed safety and efficiency in transporting inmates to criminal courtrooms.

Unfortunately, the LCBA’s Board of Directors recently learned that the Lake County Board has either already decided, or is contemplating, shelling two of the floors of the new criminal courts tower, in addition to eliminating one of the floors contemplat-ed in the original design. Shelling two floors will mean that for an unfore-seeable number of years in the future, two of these floors will remain vacant. Shelling these two floors would result in the above obstacles to adequate and dignified access to justice not being addressed. In addition, criminal court-rooms will be spread across the entire courthouse complex.

In addition to inade-quate courtroom facilities, the existing courthouse case management system was implemented more than 20 years ago and utilizes outdated tech-nology unable to provide courthouse officials with the proper tools to effec-tively manage cases. It also

fails to provide the public with access to courthouse records. In 2016 in Lake County, Illinois, our mem-bers and the people we serve deserve better.

For the past several years, the Lake County Board has authorized and spent a tremendous amount of financial re-sources on the National Center for State Courts, one of the nation’s leading technology consulting companies that specializes in helping courts design and procure modern case management systems. This company helped gather information about a system that would adequately serve the needs of the Lake County judicial system. The original plan was to use the recommendation of this leading company to send out requests for proposals to obtain com-petitive bids for procur-ing a comprehensive and modern case management system. Such a system would provide more efficient management of records, case tracking, integrated data manage-ment, and public access to courthouse records. Unfor-tunately, the County Board has either decided or is contemplating not issuing any requests for proposals to procure such a modern case management system at this time.

After the LCBA Board of Directors learned of the Lake County Board’s deci-sion to possibly shell two floors of the new criminal courts tower and not to issue RFP’s for bids for a modern case management

system, Christopher Boadt and I attended a Lake County Board Committee of the Whole meeting on May 6 and briefly ad-dressed the County Board members and the County Administrator regarding the denial of access to jus-tice to the people we serve.

After that meeting, the LCBA Board of Direc-tors adopted a Resolution relating to these issues. A full copy of this Resolu-tion can be found in this edition of The Docket. I read that Resolution in full at the Lake County Board’s meeting on May 10, and a copy of the Resolution was distributed to every County Board member and to the County Administrator.

It should be noted that Chief Judge Ortiz and the Lake County Judicia-ry are working diligently and closely with the Lake County Board and the Lake County Administrator to attempt to come to a solu-tion that will result in the same adequate and digni-fied access to justice at the Lake County Courthouse that we seek. We have urged the Lake County Board to recognize that the LCBA represents an im-portant constituency and that, moving forward, the LCBA should be involved in the process of coming to a solution of ensuring such adequate and dignified access to justice.

Also, effective June 3, 2016, I have created a new position at the LCBA entitled Courthouse Fa-cility Liaison, and I have appointed the Honorable Fred Foreman (retired) to

fill this position during my presidency. Judge Fore-man will act as a liaison between the Board of Directors of the LCBA, on one hand, and to the Lake County Board and the Lake County Administrator on the other hand. The liaison is designed to serve mostly an advisory role, but from time to time, he may take on more of an advocacy role. This position will be designed to serve the LCBA not only involving issues contained in this article, but also any other issues regarding courthouse facil-ities that could affect ade-quate and dignified access to justice for our members and the people we serve.

Thank you to all members who have taken the time to read this article and the Resolution regard-ing proper access to justice. It is very important that our members realize the issues that exist, and that they know about the efforts that the LCBA, the Chief Judge, and the Judiciary are taking to accomplish our goals. The LCBA Board of Directors will continue to keep you informed of the progress of attaining our goals. In the meantime, please contact me at don@morrisonandmorrison.com or Executive Direc-tor Christopher Boadt at cboadt@lakebar.org if you have any questions, comments or concerns about this new Resolution, or if you have any further suggestions for enhancing access to justice for the people we serve.

The Docket4

1 Whereas the Lake County Bar Association is a professional association of Attorneys and Judges in Lake County, Illinois with a membership of 1,020 attorneys, judges, and professional associates representing tens of thousands of Lake County citizens per year in legal proceedings with the mission to enhance access to justice for the persons our members serve;

2 Whereas litigants participating in domestic relations proceedings in Courtroom 105A are not afforded their right which the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed guaranteeing the public’s right of access to judicial proceedings, additionally the judges and courtroom personnel in Courtroom 105A are not afforded adequate security;

3 Whereas witnesses and law enforcement officers participating in Grand Jury proceedings are not guaranteed safety and security;

4 Whereas litigants, lawyers and witnesses participating in Workers’ Compensation hearings are required to hold confidential attorney client consultations in an open hallway and the hearings are held in a facility which does not meet the State of Illinois standards for a courtroom;

5 Whereas a decline in the number of Court Reporters is resulting in the reliance on the creation of electronic official records of court proceedings to ensure litigants have proper access to justice;

6 Whereas attorney conference rooms in the current courthouse are being used as offices for county employees resulting in attorneys being required to hold confidential attorney/client consultations in open hallways throughout the courthouse;

7 Whereas the probate and arbitration court calls are currently held in Park City Branch Court resulting in civil litigation attorneys being unable to meet their clients’ needs because they are unable to attend court hearings at the main courthouse

Resolution Regarding Providing Citizens of Lake County Proper Access to Justice

June 2016 5

and at Park City Branch Court which are often scheduled at the same time, additionally, the configuration of Courtroom B in Park City does not allow the Judge to see a witness who is testifying.

8 Whereas it would be much more productive to have all criminal courtrooms in one area of the courthouse closest to the jail to promote safety and efficiency in transporting inmates to criminal courtrooms;

9 Whereas the current courthouse is unable to meet the needs of bankruptcy meetings and hearings resulting in meetings and hearings being held in off-site facilities and/or facilities that do not meet the State of Illinois standard for a courtroom;

10 Whereas the original design for new criminal courts tower presented to the members of the Lake County Bar Association, which has been widely anticipated, would have addressed all of the above needs and concerns and would have provided adequate access to justice for the persons we serve;

11 Whereas the Lake County Board has decided or is contemplating shelling two of the floors in the new criminal courts tower which would result in the above needs and concerns not being addressed and would not provide adequate access to justice for the persons we serve; and

12 Whereas the existing courthouse case management system was implemented more than 20 years ago and utilizes antiquated technology unable to provide courthouse officials with the proper tools to effectively manage cases and fails to provide the public with access to courthouse records.

Therefore, be it Resolved that the Lake County Bar Association:1 Urges members of the Lake County Board to recognize that the Lake County Bar

Association represents an important constituency who along with their members’ clients utilize the courthouse facilities on a daily basis;

2 Urges members of the Lake County Board to decide not to shell two of the floors of the new criminal courts tower and to open those floors to address the needs and concerns above in order to provide adequate access to justice the persons we serve;

3 Urges members of the Lake County Board to procure a modern case management system which provides for a more efficient management of records, case tracking and integrated data management and for all justice partner offices to support a new integrated case management system.

Adopted this 9th day of May, 2016 Brian J. Lewis

Secretary, Lake County Bar Association

The Docket6

Law Day 2016 was observed in our courthouse on April

29. The goal of law day is to educate the community and to promote access to justice and the rule of law. This year 300 high school students from across Lake County attended events that included a CSI Task Force presentation, work-shops on Sentencing, Social Media & Internet Safety, and Pathology in the Courtroom. This year’s theme was “Miranda, … more than words,” which underscored the impor-tance of the rule of law and the courts’ role in ensuring justice. The high school students were able to learn the practical aspects of Miranda by observing a suspect’s interrogation, followed by its challenge in court. Lake County Law Day would not be com-plete without our coloring, poster and essay contests for students in kindergar-ten through eighth grade. The award winners were presented certificates of appreciation and Target gift cards made possible through the generosity of the Lake County Bar Foun-dation.

Law Day gets better each year, which is only possible because of the hard work of so many members of the bar and our other partners in justice. On behalf of the entire 19th Judicial Circuit, I want to sincerely thank all of the members of the Lake County State’s Attorney’s Office, Public Defender’s Office, Sheriff’s Department, Coroner’s Of-fice, Lake County Regional Superintendent of Schools Dr. Roycealee Wood, the Lake County Bar Associ-ation, the Lake County Bar Foundation, and all of the judges and court staff whose expert participation and support provide an invaluable education about the law and the our system of justice to the hundreds of students, teachers and parents who attend our program each year. Their dedication and participa-tion are illustrative of our shared commitment to access to justice.

However, in order for access to justice to be truly realized, courts must adapt to societal chang-es and emerging trends, and they must modernize their physical and virtual

infrastructure. In keeping with the Illinois Supreme Court’s Access to Justice initiatives, we now provide interpreters in civil matters and continually strive to improve the services we provide at the William D. Block Memorial Library and the 19th Judicial Circuit Center for Self-Rep-resentation. But true and meaningful access to jus-tice also includes providing safe and appropriate facil-ities, modern technology and state-of-the-art case management.

Lake County’s justice system has long been laboring with an antiquat-ed circuit clerk’s records management system known as CRIMS. CRIMS has never been, nor was it ever intended to be, a case management system. For over two years, the court,

circuit clerk’s office, state’s attorney’s office, public defender’s office, sheriff’s department, and county administrator’s office have worked on developing the system requirements and implementation proposals necessary for a modern case management system. We were guided through an all-encompassing and thoroughly vetted pro-cess by two experts from the National Center for State Courts, which has extensive experience in the procurement and imple-mentation of court/clerk case management systems. The time is long overdue for Lake County to acquire and implement a true case management system that will enable the court and justice agencies to operate more efficiently, to proper-ly capture and report data,

Partners in Justice

Chief Judge’sPage

The

BY CHIEF JUDGEJORGE L. ORTIZ

June 2016 7

and to provide the public the kind of technological access and resources it deserves.

Construction of the Court Tower continues, and progress is much more visible with the Washing-ton Street bridge being “unskinned” and a new tunnel now in operation. We will soon see much more construction ac-tivity above ground. The new court facility should afford us the opportunity to provide courtrooms and ancillary spaces in keep-ing with our modern day requirements and needs. Court facilities must be safe, open to the public, and they must foster great-er operational efficiency and allow for all court pro-ceedings to be heard and held in an appropriate and dignified setting. Unfortu-nately, the court has been informed that the county intends to “shell” two floors in the new Court Tower. Doing so will squander our once-in-a-generation opportunity to significantly improve operational ef-ficiency. Failing to com-plete the Court Tower as originally designed would mean that we would be unable to properly accom-

modate court calls, some of which are currently being heard in unsafe and inadequate rooms that do not even meet the mini-mum courtroom standards promulgated by the Illinois Supreme Court. It wouldn’t even provide enough courtrooms for the num-ber of judges we currently have. Even the ability to transport prisoners safely and efficiently would be compromised. In short, our justice system’s present, let alone future needs would not be met.

The court is grateful to the county board for committing substantial re-sources to the construction of the Court Tower, as well as for its continued support of our entire justice system. The court has long been committed to working collaboratively with the county and all of its justice partners in our shared mission to provide the highest quality of service and justice for the citizens of Lake County. And now another committed justice partner has added its voice to the discussion. The Lake County Bar Asso-ciation, with 1,000 plus members, who represent clients in our courthouse

on a regular basis, deserves to have a voice in these matters—the outcome of which will shape the administration of justice in Lake County for years to come. The eloquent and forceful Resolution read by Interim President Donald Morrison at the county board meeting on May 10, 2016, is hopefully a first step toward the kind of inclusiveness and collabo-ration which are indispens-able if we are to provide true and meaningful access to justice for all. The 19th Judicial Circuit is thankful for the Lake County Bar Association’s support and looks forward to continu-ing to work together with the county and all of our justice partners, including the bar, to ensure that the people of Lake County are

provided the best technol-ogy, facilities and justice system possible, meeting all of our present and fu-ture needs.

June 10Young & New Lawyers

SeminarPrimo, Gurnee

July 15Annual Golf Outing

Thunderhawk, Beach Park

September 9Shred Event

LCBA, Waukegan

Calendar ofEvents

The66

Register for these eventson-line at: www.lakebar.org

The Docket8

Yes, the Bar Foun-dation’s efforts to remodel the Rus-

sell V. Ray Bar Building into the facility you may have seen pictured in our artist’s renderings contin-ue apace. The Facilities Committee, composed of Carl Marcyan, Rick Lesser, Mike Ori, Carey Schiever, Don Morrison, Keith Grant and me, and the Bar Foundation Board, have been working hard to fundraise and get firm cost estimates so that the reality matches our expectations.

The Foundation has engaged Bellisario Prop-erty Consultants to do design development and construction documents with detailed specifica-tions. This will give us a firm idea of the total cost of the project. The Foun-

Progress Report on the Russell V. Ray Bar Building

BY MELANIE K. RUMMELPRESIDENT

Board of Trustees

Melanie K. RummelPresident

Carey J. SchieverVice President

Joann M. FratianniSecretary

Mark B. PeaveyTreasurer

Carlton R. MarcyanImmediate Past President

Michael G. NerheimMichael J. WallerMarjorie I. SherBrian J. WancaPhillip A. Bock

Fredric B. LesserScott B. Gibson

Steven P. McCollumJennifer J. Howe

VISIONARYPatrick A. Salvi,

Salvi Schostok & Pritchard, PC

The Ray Trust

CORNERSTONEAnonymous (#1)

Anonymous (#2)

Riewer & Collins, LLC

Lesser, Lutrey, Pasquesi & Howe LLP

Scott B. Gibson

Morrison & Morrison

Dudley & Lake

Brian Wanca

STEWARDMelanie & Michael Rummel

Grund & Leavitt

SENIOR PARTNER

Hon. Mary Seminara Schostok

Hon. Fred & Stephanie Foreman

Kenneth J. & Bobbie R. Glick Trust

Carl & Ana Marcyan

Keith & Mary Grant

Schiff Harden LLP

Schlesinger & Strauss

BARRISTER

Collen Chandler, VennWell LLC

COUNSELOR

Richard Kessler

Joann M. Fratianni & Louis G. Atsaves

Chicagoland Agency Services

Thank You Donors!

June 2016 9

dation Board approved $21,150 for this phase of the development. Once the Facilities Committee receives and reviews these documents, making any revisions it deems neces-sary, its recommendations will come before the Bar Foundation for approval. We are projecting that we will have the drawings

and cost estimates by Friday, June 10, right on target with our projected schedule.

Our fundraising efforts have thus far been hugely successful. To date, we have pledges totaling $444,650! These individu-al pledges will all be paid within a five-year period. Thus far we have collected

$267,150 of that pledged amount.

But we anticipate that the total project will cost more than the amount that has been pledged thus far. For this reason, fundraising will remain a focus of the Foundation and the Facilities Com-mittee. Once we have the actual cost estimates from

our architect, we will have a better idea of our final fundraising goal.

There are still naming opportunities for contrib-utors—opportunities to become an indelible part of the Lake County Legal Community. Please join your friends and col-leagues in making a dona-tion or a pledge today.

The Docket10

Seven years ago, Steve Rice convinced (tricked) me into join-

ing the Docket Editorial Committee as a Co-Editor/Co-Chair along with Rebec-ca Whitcombe. Thank you to Steve for doing this as it allowed me to meet and really get to know some truly amazing Lake County Bar Association members, and to even learn that some judges are not as scary as I had once thought! As I wrote several years ago in an edition of The Docket, it was truly an honor to work alongside Rebecca and to learn from her. Rebecca stepped down a few years back and Judge Daniel Jasica replaced her as the Co-Editor/Co-Chair. It has been a privilege to also work with Judge Jasica and learn from him as well.

I have made the deci-sion to step down as the Co-editor/Co-chair and this June edition of The Docket will be my last in this position. It has been hard work, but I did the best I could at all times for the Lake County Bar Association’s members. I kept what I thought were the interests of the mem-bers always at the fore-front. I am stepping down

because I firmly believe that in volunteer organi-zations, leadership should always rotate to allow other qualified people to serve. In this case, there is a very deserving person seeking this position.

The Editorial Com-mittee is made up of an un-believable group of people. The Committee Members are comprised of Jeffrey A. Berman, Ann Buche Conroy, Judge Michael Fusz, Deborah Goldberg, Judge Charles Johnson, Kevin McCormick, Ret. Judge Raymond McKoski, Tara Ori, Tracy Poulakidas, Stephen Rice, Judge James Simonian, and Rebecca Whitcombe. I would be remiss if I did not men-tion former Committee Members, such as Judge Mitch Hoffman, Judge Dan Shanes, Daniel Sean Pat-rick Lacy, Timothy Storm, and Rachel Heyman. The Committee Members vol-unteer to do this and put in hours of work each month for the betterment of our Bar Association. And, while they do not seek the lime-light, neither do they get the credit they so justly de-serve for the work that they do on behalf of all of us. They all truly deserve your

thanks for the time and effort that they have put in. I applaud them all and cannot thank them enough for all they have done for me and for the entire Lake County Bar Association. I would also like to thank Chris Boadt, Virginia Elliot, and all of the Lake County

Bar staff for all their work and support.

Jeff Berman will be taking over as Co-editor/Co-chair with Judge Jasica. I know that they will con-tinue to do an excellent job and that The Docket will continue to grow.

Letter from the Outgoing Co-Editor of The Docket

DOCKETEditorial Committee

BY MICHAEL S. STRAUSS

The Editorial Committee of The Docket wish-es to acknowledge and thank Michael Strauss for his leadership, scholarship, and friendship over the last 7 years, in which he has served as a Co-editor of The Docket. Michael has been instrumental in leading many of the recent improvements to the quality of articles and to the readability and appearance of The Docket. He has always been a strong voice in support of our mission to provide LCBA members with a professional, relevant publication. We thank him for all he has done. When you see Michael in the first floor hallway, the courthouse lobby, or at an LCBA event, please express your apprecia-tion to him. Thank you, Michael.

June 2016 11

The Docket12

Interestingly enough, concussions aren’t limited to sports related trauma. In fact, 20% of all concussions are the result of car accidents. Every year, approxi-mately 280,000 people in the U.S. are diagnosed with a motor vehicle induced concussion. Among all age groups, motor vehicle crashes were the third overall leading cause of a traumatic brain injury (14%).1 Fur-ther, automobile accidents are the number one cause of concussion-related fatalities for youth aged 15-24 years.2 Concussions aren’t only the result of serious car

1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Report to Congress on mild traumatic brain injury in the United States: steps to prevent a serious public health problem. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2003.

2 Center for Disease Control and Preven-tion (CDC), National Center for Injury Prevention & Control, Division of Unin-tentional Injury Prevention. Traumatic Brain Injury & Concussion, TBI: Get the Facts, January 22, 2016.

crashes. Even accidents at lower speeds can cause a serious head injury requiring medical attention.

With increased concerns being paid to the long-term effects concussions, football players now rou-tinely receive medical attention following a blow to the head, and must be cleared before they can return to the game. However victims who suffer head injuries in car accidents may not immediately seek or receive

care. Often the effects of a head trauma aren’t apparent right away, leading to a delay in treatment.

Whether you’re an athlete in-jured on the field, or a victim of a car crash, it’s important to understand the facts about concussions.

WHAT IS A CONCUSSION, HOW IS IT DIAGNOSED, AND HOW IS IT TREATED?

A concussion is a mild form of traumatic brain injury that is usually caused by a blow to the head, a fall,

Concussions Not Limited to Football Field

BY JENNIFER L. ASHLEY

Concussions have been all over the news lately. In particular, lawsuits against the NFL, along with the new Will Smith movie “Concussion” have started a national dialogue on contact sports and their impact on the brain.

Jennifer L. Ashley is a partner at Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard P.C. She concentrates her practice in the areas of personal injury and products liability. Throughout her career, Ms. Ashley has successfully tried over 100 auto accident cases to jury verdict.

June 2016 13

• irritability• problems with concentration• sensitivity to light and noise

Concussions are typically associated with normal neuroimaging studies, such as MRIs and CT scans. As such, concussions are usually injuries no one sees, which makes them harder to prove. Conventional neuroimaging contributes little to concussion evalua-tion and management. A 2015 Canadian study found that neither CT scans nor MRIs of the brain are needed in the vast majority of concussions. That Canadian

study found that neuro-imaging was normal in 78% of cases of children and adolescents with sports-related concus-sion.4

THE DANGERS OF REPEAT CONCUS-SIONS.

It’s important to know that after a con-cussion the brain is more sensitive to dam-age. So while you are recovering, be sure to avoid activities that

might injure you again. In rare cases, concussions cause more serious problems. Repeated concussions or a severe concussion may lead to long-lasting prob-lems with movement, learning, or speaking. Because of the small chance of serious problems, it is important to contact a doctor if you or someone you know has symptoms of a concussion.

Whether you’re an athlete who sustains a head in-jury in a football game, or a passenger who was injured in a car accident, the effects of a concussion should not be minimized. Brain injuries can have life-long lasting, and sometimes fatal consequences. Similar to past NFL players who have been injured and are suing the NFL, car accident victims can seek legal action to recover damages for concussions sustained on the road. Con-sulting with a personal injury lawyer who is familiar with the short- and long-term effects of concussions following any type of accident is important to ensure the best result in your matter.

or another injury that jars or shakes the brain inside the skull. Concussions are often the result of a motor vehicle accident. Although in the past concussions were mostly ignored, based upon what we know now, even a minor concussion can temporarily damage certain brain functions connected with memory, reflex control, speech, balance, and coordination.

Your brain is a soft organ that is surrounded by spinal fluid and protected by your hard skull. Normal-ly, the fluid around your brain acts like a cushion that keeps your brain from banging into your skull. But if your head or your body is hit hard enough, your brain can crash into your skull and become injured.

WHAT ARE THE SYMPTOMS OF A CONCUSSION?

You don’t have to pass out or lose con-sciousness to have a concussion. Some people will have obvious symptoms of a concus-sion, such as passing out or forgetting what happened right before the injury, but others won’t. Loss of consciousness is believed to occur in less than 10% of concussions.3 Some people may also have cuts or bruises on the head or face from the trauma to the head, but most will have no visible signs of a brain in-jury. Because of the lack of physical evidence, proving a claim in court has proven difficult.

Concussion symptoms usually appear shortly after the trauma, sometimes lasting days, weeks, or even a year. The most common symptoms of a concussion are:

• confusion• loss of memory• headache• dizziness• ringing in the ears• nausea or vomiting• slurred speech• fatigue• loss of consciousness

“Whether you’re an athlete who sustains a head injury

in a football game, or a passenger who was injured in a car accident, the effects of a concussion should not be

minimized.”

3 Cantu RC (1998). “Second-impact syndrome”. Clinics in Sports Medicine 17 (1): 37–44. doi:10.1016/S0278-5919(05)70059-4. PMID 9475969.

4 Ellis MJ, Leiter J, Hall T, McDonald PJ, Sawyer S, Silver N, Bunge M, Essig M. Neuroimaging findings in pediatric sports-re-lated concussion. J Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, June 2, 2015; DOI: 10.3171/2015.1. PEDS14510.

The Docket14

SEEKING COMPENSATION IN COURTIt is my goal to have more jurors, judges and auto

insurance adjusters understand concussions and to take them seriously. It is usually objectively difficult to prove a concussion occurred. When an accident victim states that he or she is having difficulty concentrating, has a headache, or feels dizzy, that person is report-ing symptoms that cannot be observed by another. Someone with a concussion can appear fine and have normal x-rays and MRIs. This makes it difficult to get the adequate compensation that the victim of a con-cussion deserves.

If you have been injured in an accident, it is crucial that you pursue the compensation that you deserve for the pain and symptoms that you have en-dured due to a concussion. Football players have final-ly gotten to be heard and have been successful in suing the NFL and getting appropriate settlements. Accident victims should also be able to seek legal action to hold the driver who hit them responsible for causing them a concussion.

Online Document Review

815-356-7777

DataCull.com2600 Behan Rd, Crystal Lake, IL 60014+1.815-356-7777info@DataCull.com

Offered by LCBA Associate Member: Sigmund Technology Group

Do you have electronic documents as part of discovery that need

to be searched, coded, organized then produced?

$29 / $99• Online data hosting $29/Gb a month• Secure access from any web browser• 10 User license included• One time data upload/processing fee of $99 per Gb• ‘Get Started’ training included• Excellent Service & Support

Ann Buche ConroyThank you for 19+ years of service to the Docket Editorial Committee. Your dedication, articles and proper English grammar will be missed!

June 2016 15

The Docket16

tled in Edwardsville, Illinois, in 1816.4 A natural born pol-itician, he lost a bid to become Illinois Attorney General in 1820, but was elected to the state senate as a democrat in 1822.5 At this time he led an organization advocating for a new state constitution that would legalize slavery.6 As editor of the party’s pro-slavery publication, he exhib-ited his nasty temper by trying to horsewhip the editor of a newspaper opposed to slavery.7 In 1825, the democrat controlled legislature elected Theophilus an associate justice of the Illinois Supreme Court. 8 Although his true

ambition was to serve in the United

4 Judging Lincoln, supra note 2, at 52.5 1 Historical Encyclopedia of Illinois:

Biographical, Memorial, Illustrative 489 (Newton Bateman, Paul Selby, and J. Seymour Currey eds., 1920).

6 Id; see also Charles R. McKirdy, Lincoln Apostate: The Matson Slave Case 46 (2011) (stating that State Senator Theoph-ilus Smith “became one of the leaders of the movement to amend the Illinois consti-tution to legalize slavery in the state”).

7 Lincoln Apostate, supra note 6, at 47.8 Id. at 46-47.

Born in New York City in 1784, Theophilus prepared for the bar by serving as a law clerk to Aaron Burr.2 Unfor-tunately, his association with attorney Burr educated him in the political, social, and moral ways of Tammany Hall.3 After admission to the New York bar in 1805, Theophilus practiced law in the state until he headed west and set-

1 Judge John Pearson was the first circuit judge to sit in Lake County. He convened court in Burlington (Libertyville) in April 1840. John J. Halsey & C. Chamberlain Tracey, A History of Lake County Illinois 74 (1912). The impeachment proceeding against Judge Smith is reported in the Journal of the Senate of the Eighth General Assembly of the State of Illinois, Appendix: Records of the Senate as a Court of Impeachment in the Trial of the Honorable Theophilus W. Smith (1833). See infra, notes 15-21 and accompanying text.

2 Susan Krause, Judging Lincoln: The Bench in Lincoln’s Illinois 52-53 (2002).

3 See Reg Ankrom, Stephen A. Douglas: The Political Apprenticeship, 1833-1843, at 144 (2015) (stating that Judge Smith “[t]rained in the art of political intrigue in Tammany Hall”).

When Judges Were JudgesTheophilus W. Smith

BY HON. RAYMOND J. MCKOSKI (RET.)

Today, most Illinois judges lead fairly sedate personal and professional lives. But that has not always been the case. Take Judge Theophilus W. Smith, for example: he was the second circuit judge to sit in Lake County and the first Illinois judge to

be impeached.1

Hon. Raymond

J. McKoski

(ret.), a retired

Lake County

Judge, serves

as an adjunct

professor at The John Marshal Law

School.

June 2016 17

dants for trespass, set excessive bail for the defendants, and upon the most “trifling pretext” continued the cases from court session to court session to keep the defen-dants incarcerated; (4) jailed a Quaker for failing to re-move his hat when taking the juror’s oath; (5) suspended a lawyer from practice for suggesting that his client con-sent to the opposing party’s motion for a change of venue from Judge Smith; and (6) prejudiced Madison County by rendering an opinion from the bench on a controversy between the Madison County treasurer and sheriff before a case was filed.16

Judge Smith could not resist resorting to his “Tam-many Smith” persona during the month-long impeachment trial. He directed one of his agents to collect the senators’ notes from their desks at the conclusion of each day’s proceedings. This information “enabled [Smith] and his counsel to direct their arguments and evidence to better advantage.”17

Highlights of the trial included the outstanding summations of the lead House Manager, Benja-min Mill, and two of the defense counsel, Thomas

Ford and Sidney Breese. Mills spoke extemporaneously, holding only a few “straggling notes“ and demonstrated “great power, force, beauty, and brilliancy.”18 When he arrived at the crescendo of his argument, he put down his notes, took off his coat and rolled up his sleeves. After Mills “excoriated Smith most unmercifully,” the senate adjourned for dinner. On his way out of the church where the impeach-ment trial was being held, Judge Smith approached Mr. Mills in the “most friendly manner,” shook Mill’s hand and “exclaimed: ‘Mills, what a glorious speech you have made.’”19

States Senate, he accepted the judicial post.9 From 1827 to 1835, Judge Smith not only served as a supreme court justice but also served as the circuit judge for the ten counties in southern Illinois that comprised the Second Judicial Circuit.10

Theophilus was not cut out to be a judge. “Neither his temperament nor his inclinations suited him well for judicial office.”11 His complex, convoluted, and laborious schemes to advance himself or tear down others earned him the nickname “Tammany Smith” while he served as a state senator.12 The state senator’s Machiavellian mind-set continued when he took a seat on the state’s highest court. As described by one of his judicial colleagues, Smith “was delighted with the mis-haps alike of friends and enemies; and was ever chuckling over the defeat or the blasted hopes of someone.”13 So, it is not surprising that the residents of the Second Judicial Circuit distrusted and disliked Judge Smith to such an extent that by “popular demand”14 the Illinois House of Repre-sentative voted articles of impeachment against him in 1832.15

The impeachment articles charged the judge with misconduct on and off the bench. The House of Repre-sentatives alleged that Judge Smith (1) permitted his son to sell the office of circuit clerk of Madison County; (2) appointed circuit clerks without requiring them to post bond; (3) commenced an action against several defen-

“Theophilus W. Smith was

the second circuit judge

to sit in Lake County and

the first Illinois judge to be

impeached.”

9 The Political Apprenticeship, supra note 3, at 144.10 See Journal of the Senate of the Eighth General Assembly of

the State of Illinois, Appendix: Records of the Senate as a Court of Impeachment in the Trial of the Honorable Theophilus W. Smith 3 (1833) (hereinafter “Records of the Senate as a Court of Impeachment”) (identifying Judge Theophilus W. Smith as an associate justice of the Illinois Supreme Court and the presiding judge of the Second Judicial Circuit); Speech of Thomas Ford, in Defence of the Hon. Theophilus W. Smith, Before the Senate of Illinois, Sitting as a Court of Impeachment, January 29 & 30, 1833 (1883) (copy on file with author) (identifying the counties of Madison, St. Clair, Monroe, Randolph, Washington, Clinton, Bond, Fayette, Montgomery, and Shelby, as constituting the second judicial circuit).

11 Lincoln Apostate, supra note 6, at 47.12 Id.13 Thomas Ford, 1 A History of Illinois: From Its Commencement

as a State in 1818 to 1847, at 220 (1854).14 Id. at 166-67 (“Numerously signed petitions from the people

were sent up to this legislature, praying the impeachment of Theophilus W. Smith...for oppressive conduct and misdemean-ors in office.”).

15 Lincoln Apostate, supra note 6, at 47.

16 Records of the Senate as a Court of Impeachment, supra note 10, at 9-14.

17 A History of Illinois, supra note 13, at 167.18 3 Chicago Historical Society’s Collection: The Edwards Papers

366-67 (E. B. Washburne ed., 1884) (Annotation to a Letter of George Forquer to Ninian Edwards (Sept. 20, 1828)).

19 Id. This magnanimous act of Judge Smith brings to mind Governor Rod Blagojevich’s offer to shake the prosecutor’s hand during his criminal trial in federal court in Chicago. See Bob Sector & Jeff Coen, Blagojevich Testimony Ends, Chi. Trib., June 7, 2011, available at http://articles.chicag-otribune.com/2011-06-07/news/ct-met-blagojevich-testimo-ny-0608-20110607_1_federal-prosecutor-federal-charges-ar-guments (“Rod Blagojevich stepped from the witness stand Tuesday and extended his hand to the federal prosecutor who had spent three days grilling him on charges he abused his power as governor.”).

The Docket18

ments,” dignity, and honor.29 The grand jury of Lake County and the grand jury of DuPage County also issued resolutions exclaiming the virtues of the retiring judge.30 These resolutions were designed to counter what the lawyers and grand jurors’ believed was an unfair attack levied against Judge Smith by the State Register and Chicago Democrat.31 But there is another reason why the lawyers praised Judge Smith. Simply put, in the lawyers’ collective opinion Smith was much more palatable than his predecessor, Circuit Judge John Pearson.

Judge Pearson presided over the northern Illinois counties as a circuit judge from May 1837 until Novem-ber 1840.32 Judge Pearson’s selection by the legislature proved “very distasteful” and “unpopular” with Chicago lawyers.33 First, the lawyers resented the fact “that a Judge from the Wabash country should have been selected to preside over a Bar whose brightest lights were emigrants from the Eastern States.” 34 Second, the lawyers disliked Judge Pearson’s “elaborate, burdensome, and perhaps somewhat arbitrary system of rules for the guidance of lawyers transacting business in his court,” which the judge implemented to expedite his heavy caseload.35 Fi-nally, and probably most importantly, Judge Pearson had a penchant for getting into disputes with members of the bar. In the most significant run-in, the judge refused to sign a bill of exceptions necessary for the losing party to appeal the judge’s decision. The judge refused even after the Illinois Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus ordering the judge to sign the document.36 And when the prevailing lawyer presented the judge with a copy of the writ of mandamus, Pearson fined him $20.00, which caused an uproar in the courtroom.37

Thus, the “brightest lights” of the legal profession in northern Illinois were pleased when Judge Smith re-placed Judge Pearson. After his retirement, Judge Smith remained in Chicago. He died on May 5, 1846.38

Future Illinois Governor Thomas Ford and future Illinois Supreme Court Justice Sidney Breese, thought so highly of their closing arguments in defense of Judge Smith that they arranged for the publication of their remarks in pamphlet form.20

Whether it was the note scavenging, the eloquence of defense counsel, a lack of evidence, or purely po-litical considerations, no article of impeachment re-ceived the necessary two-thirds vote to convict Judge Smith. The three charges upon which a majority of the senators voted to convict (12 in favor, 10 opposed) con-cerned the appointment of clerks without the posting of a bond, the commencement of an action for trespass, and the suspension of an attorney for suggesting that his client not object to a change of venue from Judge Smith.21

In 1835, the legislature relieved the supreme court justices of their duty to preside in the circuit courts.22 But in 1841, the legislature reinstated circuit riding duties.23 After his failed lobbying effort against the adoption of the 1841 law, Judge Smith was assigned to preside over the Seventh Judicial Circuit, which was about as far as one could get from Edwardsville.24 The Seventh Circuit in-cluded Lake, McHenry, DuPage, Cook, Grundy, Will, and Iroquois Counties.25 Judge Smith conducted his first cir-cuit court session in Lake County at Little Fort (Waukeg-an) on October 20, 1841,26 and resigned from the supreme court fourteen months later, on December 26, 1842.27 As fully explained in his resignation letter, Judge Smith left office because of his “feeble physical condition” which “all his physicians agree[d] had its origin in the severe mental labour” required of the judge. 28

His short stint as a trial judge in northern Illinois apparently gained the judge the admiration of the lawyers practicing before him. Upon the occasion of his retirement, the “Gentlemen of the Bar of the Counties of Lake, DuPage, and the City of Chicago” adopted separate resolutions complementing the judge on his kindness, courtesy, impartiality, ability, promptness, “legal attain-

20 Speech of Thomas Ford, supra note 10; Speech of Richard M. Young, in Defence of the Honorable Theophilus W. Smith for Alleged Misdemeanors in Office, Before the Senate of Illinois, Sitting as a High Court of Impeachment, January 28, 1833 (1833).

21 Records of the Senate as a Court of Impeachment, supra note 10, at 89-91.

22 Edward C. Kramer, Address: The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois Under the Constitution of 1818, in Proceedings of the Illinois State Bar Association at its Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting 117, 119 (1911).

23 Id; Judging Lincoln, supra note 2, at 53.24 See A History of Lake County Illinois, supra note 1, at 78.25 Id.26 Id. at 79.27 Letter of Theophilus W. Smith to the General Assembly of the

State of Illinois (Dec. 1, 1842), reproduced in, Reports Made to the Senate and House of Representatives of the Thirteenth General Assembly of the State of Illinois 135-136 (1842).

28 Id.

29 The Proceedings of the Grand Juries of Lake and Du Page Counties, and of the Gentlemen of the Bar, of the Counties of Lake, Du Page, and of the City of Chicago on the retirement of the Hon. Theophilus W. Smith from the Bench of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois 4, 6 (1842) (copy on file with au-thor).

30 Id. at 4-5.31 Id. at 7. The nature of the newspapers’ attack is not described in

the grand jury or bar resolutions. Id.32 Alfred T. Andreas, 1 History of Chicago 443 (1884).The leg-

islature appointed Judge Pearson as the circuit judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit during a period in which the Illinois Supreme Court justices had been relieved of their circuit riding duties. See supra, note 22 and accompanying text.

33 Id.34 Id. at 445.35 Id. at 443.36 Id. at 444.37 Id.38 James E. Babb, The Supreme Court of Illinois, 3 The Green

Bag 217, 228 (1981).

June 2016 19

1. Log in as a Member

a. Unless you have updated this information:

i. User ID (default is your email address)

ii. Password (default is your billing zip code)

2. Click on the message banner: ***RENEW YOUR MEMBERSHIP NOW***

a. OR Go to “Manage Profile”

i. Under the heading “Invoicing, Payments & History,” Click on “Membership”

ii. Click on “Securely renew your membership now”

3. Verify Membership information

a. Click on the down arrow and select your membership level;

b. Check Box 1 if you would like to make a $50 donation to the Foundation;

c. Check Box 2 if you would like to purchase (first time) a Courthouse Access Pass; and

d. Check Box 3 if you would like to RENEW your access pass.

4. Add/ Delete Committee Membership (Scroll Down to view all)

a. Want to join a committee, click on the committees to be added to the mailing list;

b. Want to be removed from a committee, uncheck the box and you will be removed from that committee’s mailing list;

c. If you are a Lawyer Referral Service Member, your information will be listed here and included on your invoice.

5. Verify Member Information

6. Check the box if your billing information is the same or manually enter the billing information

7. Enter Payment Information

8. Click Submit Payment Securely

9. Click on View Invoice/Receipt to Print

Time to Renew Your MembershipMembership Period: July 1, 2016 - June 30, 2017

Invoice DateJune 1, 2016

The Docket20

receiving an offer of employment from another company. Hanna, in response to the tendered resignation, offered Eakins a revised contract in letter form which Eakins signed. The offer letter provided the following terms:

Base salary: $130,000Automatic bonuses: 2010 $10,000 2011 $20,000Minimum term of employment: 24 months

Fourteen months into the new employment agreement, Hanna ter-minated Eakins “for cause” citing his poor performance in the management of the plant, failing to meet forecasted shipments resulting in loss of identifi-able customers and market share and other objective shortcomings in his performance as plant manager. Eakins filed a two count complaint asserting

• The employer’s continuing obligation to pay em-ployee following termination

• Performance criteria; or lack thereof• Whether the Illinois Wage Act applies to unpaid

future wages

First, some terminology. Absent an express contrary intention, an employment agreement without a fixed duration is terminable at-will by either party. For example, hiring someone at a monthly or an-nual salary, if no duration is specified, is considered an at-will employment relationship.

THE FACTSEakins (Employee/plaintiff) was

Hanna Cylinders’ (Employer/defen-dant) plant manager pursuant to an at-will employment agreement. Eakins tendered his resignation to Hanna after

More is Less (Confusion)Offer Letters - At-Will or Fixed

Duration and the Implications of EachBY RICHARD N. KESSLER

The mantra “less is more” when drafting agreements and writing briefs is turned on its head when it comes to drafting offer letters for employment. A recent Illinois case, Eakins v. Hanna Cylinders, LLC, 2015 IL. App. (2d) 140944 illustrates what can

go awry when an employer is economical in its use of words in an offer letter and ad-dresses the following issues:

Richard N. Kessler, a former Assistant State’s Attorney in Lake County, is a member at McDonald Hopkins LLC. Richard concentrates his practice in the area of business litigation.

June 2016 21

ration and did not contain any performance criteria, the court found that the terms of the employment agreement as stated in the offer letter were an unambiguous agree-ment for a specific term of 24 months. Further, the court found that Eakins’ performance level was not among the contract’s terms or a basis for a discharge “for cause” stating:

Furthermore, even if [Eakins’] performance was poor, no performance standards were contained in the contract. To recognize this as a valid basis

for termination would transform this specif-ic-duration contract into an at-will con-tract where defen-dant would be free to terminate plaintiff whenever it felt that

plaintiff’s performance was inadequate.

Id. at ¶26. The court limited its decision to the facts that were presented, namely where the alleged breach is premised upon a failure to meet certain non-existent performance standards. Importantly, the court specifi-cally noted that had employee’s breach been premised upon a failure to perform his duties such as not appearing for work or doing nothing while at work, the fact that the agreement was for a specific duration would be of no import.

THE TAKEAWAYSThis case provides some important takeaways for

employers:

• First, an offer letter can create a binding contract, so ensure that it is carefully drafted.

• Second, if you are drafting a contract for a specific duration, always include “for cause” termination criteria such as performance metrics and other objective criteria.

• Finally, if you are saddled with a bare bones spe-cific duration employment agreement and seek to terminate an employee, be sure to document whether the employee is fulfilling his/her employ-ment duties as opposed to whether the employee is performing based upon non-existent performance criteria.

claims for breach of contract and unpaid wages under the Illinois Wage Act. Eakins asserted that the offer letter constituted an employment agreement for a minimum term of 24 months and he was due ten additional months of wages under the contract, and further the Illinois Wage Act1 entitled him to prejudgment interest and statutory penalties.

Eakins filed a motion for summary judgment on each count arguing that the offer letter was a contract for a fixed duration of two years and was not an at-will employment relationship. Hanna, six months following Eakins’ motion, filed its motion for summary judgment arguing that Eakins was terminated “for cause” based upon his breach of the employment agree-ment by failing to meet various performance standards expected of a plant manager, citing numerous objective per-formance failures. Hanna noted in its motion that Eakins admitted that his job as plant manager required certain essential duties and that he could have performed better. Notably, Hanna did not assert that Eakins failed to per-form his duties such as unexplained absences or sitting as his desk all day doing nothing.

The trial court denied Eakins’ motion as to the breach of contract claim noting that even if the contract was for a specific duration Eakins admitted he breached his duties to perform. The trial court also denied the Wage Act claim finding the Act did not apply to an employment agreement where a question existed about whether the employee was terminated for cause.2 Eakins timely appealed3 the trial court’s denial of his motion on the breach of contract and Wage Act claims.

The appellate court reversed the trial court on the breach of contract claim and affirmed the Wage Act claim dismissal. On the breach of contract claim, the court rejected Hanna’s argument that an employer is always entitled to terminate an employee “for cause” regardless of the duration of the employment contract. Accepting Eakins argument that his contract was for a specific du-

“First, an offer letter can create a binding contract, so ensure

that it is carefully drafted.”

1 Hanna filed counterclaims which are neither relevant to the is-sues addressed in this article nor which were part of the appeal.

2 The appellate court concurred with the trial court’s reliance upon Majmudar v. House of Spices, 2013 IL Ap (1st) 130292.

3 Eakins’ appeal was pursuant to a special finding by the trial court under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) which provides: “…If multiple parties or multiple claims for relief are involved in an action, an appeal may be taken from a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the parties or claims only if the trial court has made an express written finding that there is no just reason for delaying either enforcement or appeal or both.”

The Docket22

CONSENT AGENDA• Minutes from March• New Members

Unanimously passed.

DISCUSSION ITEMSTreasurer’s report

The bookkeeper we hired to assist with Quick Books has been coming on Fridays. Her assistance is helping a lot. The goal is to streamline our bookkeep-ing process so it will take less time and otherwise be more efficient.

Membership dues statements will be mailed out in about a month.

There are a few CLE programs in May – the Civ-il Trial Committee seminar (at Kenosha Country Club on May 26) and the View From the Bench.

The family law com-mittee seminar in Nashville was a huge success (again). We expect to realize a profit from the seminar (again)!

Our treasurer reported that we are in very good financial condition.

Executive Justice Council Request

At the most recent EJC meeting there was a dis-cussion about an initiative (akin to a Drivers’ License Reinstatement Program) to help reinstate drivers’

licenses to people who owe large amounts of money and would otherwise never be able to pay off their re-instatement fees and fines. This initiative is in the ear-ly stages of discussion and there will be many involved in investigating it.

Professionalism: Perspectives & Perceptions

On April 27 there is a CLE program on profes-sionalism.

(Possible) September CLE on Professionalism

The Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism has ap-proached the LCBA about putting on a seminar in early September. This is targeted to “stakehold-ers and leaders in the courthouse,” which would include judges, private lawyers, state’s attorneys, public defenders, security personnel, etc. It will likely be a half-day seminar with breakout sessions and it will take place in the courthouse. The LCBA was asked to identify people who should attend to be part of this educational effort. After the program, it is hoped that those who have attended could help the LCBA develop its own program on professional-

ism and civility.An executive session

was called near the end of the board meeting. The session was conducted without Chris or Mike present.

UPCOMING EVENTS• Association Board

meeting (appoint-ment of Foundation Trustees), Thursday April 21, LCBA Office

• Ask-a-Lawyer (phone), Saturday, April 23 (morning)

• Lawyers in the Class-room, April 25 – 29

• Professionalism in the Multi-Genera-tional Workplace, Wednesday, April 27, Jury Assembly Room

• Official Court Law Day, Friday, April 29

• Swearing-in of New Attorneys, Thursday May 5, Elgin

• Coffee in the Court-

house, Friday, May 6, Jury Assembly Room

• Memorial Service, Tuesday, May 10, C-201

• Ask-a-Lawyer drop-in clinic, Wednesday, May 11, LCBA Office

• View from the Bench CLE, Friday, May

MEMBERS PRESENTMichael J. Ori President

Donald J. Morrison First Vice-President

Jennifer J. Howe Second Vice-President

Richard N. Kessler Treasurer

Brian J. Lewis Secretary

Keith C. Grant Immediate Past President

Gary L. SchlesingerStephen J. RiceShyama S. ParikhPatricia L. CornellJoseph M. FuszChris Boadt Executive Director

MeetingMinutes

The

BY BRIAN J. LEWISSECRETARY

Board of Directors’ MeetingApril 21, 2016

June 2016 23

13 (afternoon), Jury Assembly Room

• Adopt a Highway, Saturday, May 14, Meet at CVS @ Green Bay and Washington

• Foundation Board meeting, Tuesday, May 17, LCBA Office

• Membership Picnic, Tuesday, May 17, Glen Flora Country Club

• Association Board meeting, Thursday May 19, LCBA Office

• GAL (Probate) Train-ing, Friday, May 20, Jury Assembly Room

• BAIID Lunch & Learn, Tuesday, May 24, LCBA Office

• Civil Trial and Appeals Seminar, Thursday, May 26, Kenosha Country Club

• Installation Dinner, Friday, June 3, Ivan-hoe Country Club

The meeting was ad-journed at 1:25. Next Board Meeting - Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 12:00 noon.

BulletinBoard

Bar

Gorgeous office space for law or general use located walking distance to Lake County Courthouse. Available now. 2,000 square foot building with six offices, conference room, reception area and two bathrooms. Central heat and air. Parking in back. Please contact property manager at greespopovi-chlaw@yahoo.com.

DePaul University College of Law honored LCBA Member Kathleen Curtin with the 2016 Pro Bono Alumni Award at their annual Service Award Recep-tion on April 21, 2016.

***Elizabeth M. Rochford, an Associate Judge of the 19th Judicial Circuit in Lake County, has been re-elected to the Board of Governors of the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA). Elections were held in late April, and nine members of the ISBA Board of Governors were chosen this year. Three incum-bents, including Judge Rochford, were unopposed in the election, and she will serve on the Board for a second three-year term. The ISBA Board of Governors directs the operations and activities of the statewide 32,000 member organization. Judge Rochford has served on the Lake County bench since December 2012. Since her appointment, she has served in traffic and probate court in Park City and is currently assigned to the Family Division. Pri-or to her judicial appointment, Judge Rochford was in private practice concentrating in trusts and es-tates and real estate matters. She has also served as an Assistant State’s Attorney, administrative law hearing officer, and as a Commissioner of the Court of Claims. Judge Rochford is the current President of the Illinois Judges Foundation. Judge Rochford received her Bachelor’s degree from Loyola Uni-versity of Chicago and earned her J.D. degree from Loyola University School of Law.

GrapevineThe

The Docket24

I wanted to let you all in on Lake and Cook County’s newest (not so) secret. It is Josh’s and it is fantastic. They have two locations, Josh’s Hot Dog’s located

at 873 Sanders Road, Northbrook, and Josh’s On The Square, located at 740 Deerfield Road, Deerfield. The owner is Josh Kaplan. Josh grew up Deerfield in the Vienna Beef family. His father worked for Vienna Beef for 25 years. Josh remembered that he used to tell his father that his father would be delivering Vienna Beef to Josh one day. Seven years ago, Josh purchased a tired, worn out hot dog and burger restaurant in Northbrook, and created Josh’s Hot Dogs. Josh says that he only serves the highest quality food in the quick service food industry, while keeping a clean atmosphere and providing the cus-tomers with top notch customer service and I can person-ally attest to all of that that. In January, 2016, Josh opened his second venture, Josh’s on the Square in Deerfield.

Josh and his staff take tremendous pride in what they do and it is clear to the patrons of his establishments. Everything that I have had is just so delicious that it is hard to name what I would recommend without men-tioning every single item on the entire menu. To begin with, my children absolutely love the grilled cheese off

of the children’s menu. The order comes with a drink and fries for the children. I have tried many of the items on Josh’s menus. I especially recommend Nate’s Special Grilled Salami sandwich. I know that many people think that all hot dog stands are created equal. I am telling you that the grilled salami here is out of this world. For the cheeseburger aficionado, I would highly recommend the Burger Dewyze. This burger comes with bacon, bbq sauce, grilled onions, and Merkt’s cheddar cheese. Of course, you can add more to it, but it is perfect as is. Josh’s Junkwich, which is a chicken sandwich on French bread is really good as well. Frankly, everything I have tried is delicious but those are a couple of my favorites. For the vegetarians, my wife really enjoys the Veggie Burger. The salads look great as well, but with so many other options, I have not tried the salads yet.

While people clearly come to both locations for the food, one of the main draws is Josh himself and his staff. Josh treats all his customers like old friends, even if he has just met you. He will almost always stop what he is doing to sit and talk or even hug his customers. Adults and children alike love him. That said, since he grew up in Deerfield, he does personally know many of the customers. I cannot tell you how excited my children get when they know we are going to Josh’s. I just don’t know if their excitement is about the food or about seeing their “friend” Josh or both.

Josh’s Hot Dogs and Josh’s On the Square are not just run of the mill hot dog stands. They are both super friendly restaurants with terrific food. I highly recom-mend both locations and promise that you will thank me later once you try them out!

Write a review (up to 350 words) of your favorite or a new restaurant, reviews can be submitted to Jeffrey Berman at

jberman@andersonwanca.com

Josh’s Hot Dog’sRating:

RestaurantReview

BY MICHAEL S. STRAUSS

PRST STNDUS POSTAGEPAID

GURNEE, ILPERMIT NO. 208

300 Grand Avenue, Suite AWaukegan, IL 60085

Tel: 847-244-3143Fax: 847-244-8259

LCBA AnnualGolf Outing

Friday, July 15, 2015Thunderhawk Golf Club

Somethingfor Everyone!

11:30-12:30 Registration and Lunch12:30 Shot Gun Start

Post Game Reception

AwardsIndividual, Team and Sponsorship

Opportunities

Visit our website at www.lakebar.org or contact our office at 847-244-3143