Showing posts with label courts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label courts. Show all posts

Friday, April 25, 2008

Illinois Law Schools & Attorneys

The Illinois Supreme Court Rules govern who may be permitted to practice law in Illinois and before every court therein. All applicants, whether seeking admission to the bar on examination, or by motion, must meet the educational requirements specified in Rule 703. Among other requirements, Rule 703 provides, "...each applicant shall have pursued a course of law studies and fulfilled the requirements for and received a first degree in law from a law school approved by the American Bar Association."

In dissent to Rule 703, Justice Heiple famously wrote the following:

I both dissent and object to these rules because they represent an improper delegation of a governmental and judicial function to a trade association of lawyers.

The American Bar Association is a voluntary association of dues paying lawyers (currently $225 per annum) that exists for the benefit of its members. No lawyer is required to belong. Most do not. It clothes its parochial existence with an overlay of public activities and pronouncements designed to convince the general public that it is interested in the general welfare. That its primary focus is the benefit of its members, however, is beyond question. That the American Bar Association is a trade association warrants neither commendation nor condemnation. As a trade association engaging in improving the status of lawyers and lobbying Congress and the State legislatures, it is on a par with any other trade association. It is decidedly not, however, an arm of the State of Illinois nor of this court.

It is improper for this court to assign and delegate to that organization the ultimate decisionmaking function of deciding for the State of Illinois which law schools warrant official recognition. It would be proper, of course, for this court and its Board of Law Examiners (now, Board of Admissions to the Bar) to consider and weigh the evaluations of the American Bar Association in considering which law schools are to be approved. The work of the American Bar Association in evaluating law schools could be considered as relevant evidence in that regard. No objection could be raised to that procedure.

This court, however, has no right to delegate its decisionmaking function to the American Bar Association, the Teamsters Union, the Republic of Uganda or any other such body or group. If the rule asserts a valid principle of law, then this court could as well assign all of its decisionmaking functions to others who might be considered experts in their field.

It is the Illinois Board of Admissions to the Bar--a public body, rather than the American Bar Association--that approves the colleges and universities at which applicants are required to complete at least 90 semester hours of acceptable college work before pursuing a course of law studies. The Board also reviews for acceptability the quality of preliminary, college, and legal education of applicants who received their legal education and law degree in foreign countries.

There are currently a mere 9 law schools approved by the American Bar Association in the State of Illinois; and if you aren't able to personally attend classes in Chicago, Champaign, DeKalb, or Carbondale, you may be out of luck, because, as a matter of policy, the American Bar Association does not approve distance education programs in law.

This policy is at odds with those who believe that distance education programs in law can offer the same level of quality and education as can traditional programs. The University of London, in England--the country upon who's tradition our legal system is based--as well as many others, offer a similar degree in law, without discrimination between traditional and distance education students; and these degrees are considered perfectly normal and acceptable for the purpose of practicing law in the United Kingdom and other common law counties.

In California, a public body known as the Committee of Bar Examiners, has approved a number of law schools not approved by the American Bar Association, including distance education programs (Some of these are computer based, and some are otherwise.) While a graduate of one of these programs may be permitted to practice law in California, according to Rule 703, they won't be permitted to do so in Illinois. In addition, if you're thinking about enrolling in the University of London's distance education program in law, or any other program in a foreign country, know that the Illinois Supreme Court Rules require you to also have been practicing law actively and continuously for at least five of the last seven years before admission here.

Consider the ongoing promotion of the Illinois Virtual Campus service and the fact that Abraham Lincoln never attended a law school approved by the American Bar Association.

Here are some questions for readers to answer in their comments:

1. Does the Illinois Supreme Court's delegation, and the American Bar Association's refusal to approve distance education programs in law, (a) limit the number of law schools in Illinois, (b) limit the number of licensed attorneys in Illinois, (c) drive up the cost of either due to limited supply in the face of constant demand, or (d) none of the above? Does the current arrangement make Illinois less competitive in the area of legal education?

2. Do you believe that the current arrangement best serves the interests of (a) current attorneys, (b) the public at large, (c) both, or (d) neither?

3. Do you believe that distance education programs in law can offer the same quality and education as traditional in-classroom programs? How does this affect your opinion on the Illinois Virtual Campus service currently being offered by the University of Illinois?

4. Should (a) the Illinois Supreme Court amend Rule 703 to read "law school approved by the Board of Admissions to the Bar" rather than "law school approved by the American Bar Association", (b) the American Bar Association start approving distance education programs in law, (c) something else, or (d) none of the above?

Read more...

Sunday, March 23, 2008

DC vs. Heller

I watched C-Span's America and the Courts last night and listened to some of the oral arguments in this case. The case is a challenge of DC's gun control laws. So the only reason this is here is whether or not any of you thinks what a ramification of say a ruling against DC gun laws would have towards any local gun control legislation in the state. I could especially refer to gun control legislation in Chicago.

Here's more information for those of you who are following this US Supreme Court case.

Read more...

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

My day as a Cook County juror

Today my number came up. I was summonsed to Cook County's 2nd District Circuit Court in Skokie to serve as a juror. Luckily for me, the courthouse is just ten minutes from my home, so I left Morton Grove at 8:45am. Then the nightmare began. Traffic was backed up on Old Orchard Road, and it took me ten minutes just to get into the multi-level parking lot. Skokie, except at Christmas time near the big mall there, is not known for traffic jams.

The courthouse has three entrances, but the one on the east end was closed, which left the north and west entrances for the poor souls like myself waiting in the cold. After waiting five minutes in line on the north end, I noticed a lot of people heading west. The line was shorter there, but still, it took me 30 minutes to get inside. My Cook County taxes, and they are quite high, were at work. Well, not really.

Like an airport, it's a requirement for those entering the building--employees and attorneys excepted--to walk through a metal detector, which is why I didn't wear a belt, bring my iPod, and I left my house keys in my car. Empty out those pockets!

Of course if lawyers and coutroom workers had to wait in line, not only would have that east entrance have been open, there would be no lines at all.

I finally made it into the juror room, where we were greeted by video featuring Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans, a former Chicago mayoral candidate, and an explanation of what can a juror can expect--sans the half hour waiting in line in the cold--by a mustachioed Lester Holt--probably recorded about ten years ago when he was still with CBS 2 Chicago. Holt's with MSNBC now. I wonder if he knows his video is still being shown to potential jurors?

Then we waited...waited...waited....and we were excused for lunch. When I got back, there was a much shorter line this time--I was stuck outside for just five minutes--it was back to the juror room. And another hour and ten minutes of waiting.

At 2:40pm, about forty other prospective and I were sent a courtroom. Sixteen were called by name to sit in the jurors' booth--and I was one of them.

Each one of us were asked a whole bunch of questions. I can't get into the details, but at the end of the first round, and one sidebar, I was excused.

The case I would've heard? Well, all I'm going to say was that it was a criminal trial.

There was not a long line to leave the courthouse. But I'm $17.20 richer for the experience.

Related Marathon Pundit posts:

Something else for Obama to be silent on: Chicago will have the nation's highest sales tax

Palatine wants to secede from Cook County

To comment on this post, please visit Marathon Pundit.

Read more...

  © Blogger template The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP