ISBA Young Lawyers Division - Day at the Races

The ISBA Young Lawyers Division is Sponsoring a Day at the Races at Arlington Race Track:
It is a Networking and Social Event, Co-Sponsored with the Northwest Suburban Bar Association which benefits of go towards the Illinois Bar Foundation/YLD Children’s Assistance Program. **IBF/YLD Children’s Assistance Fund is a 501(c)(3) charitable entity**

When: Saturday, September 20, from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Where: Arlington Park Racecourse, Miller Party Deck. Arlington Hts, IL.

Tickets are available online at https://secure.isba.org/sections/yld/races.html and at 11:30 a.m. at the Grandstand Entrance (east Side off of Wilke Road Entrance) at the ISBA Ticket Booth.
NOTE: That there are a limited number of tickets and there is a possibility of the event being sold out.

Tickets include the following: admission; daily racing guide; private party deck; soft drinks, beer, wine and appetizers from 12:30 - 3:30 p.m.

Cost: $50.00 per person (Children 4 - 17 must have a ticket. Please contact Meghan O'Brien for child ticket prices)

NIU Post-Bar Exam Event

Just a reminder for all those out there - NIU is holding a post-bar exam event at Dave & Busters at 1030 N. Clark Street, Chicago IL from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. to celebrate and congratulate all the graduates who are taking the Illinois Bar exam today.

Please stay tuned.

Please excuse the lack of posts recently, my wife and I are in the process of selling our current house and buying a new one. We've been really busy the last couple of weeks negotiating contracts and packing all of our stuff in boxes. We close on August 15th. Please stay tuned, however, because I have a couple of good posts in the works.

Any new contributors out there please contact me for instructions to begin posting.

Thank you.

Law Blog featured in ISBA Bar News

Maybe "featured" is too strong of a description, but if you turn to page 28 of the most recent ISBA Bar News, you will see our three inches of text in the far right hand column.

Hopefully this will help us pick up some contributors.

Court supervision for minors

As of January 1, 2008, drivers under the age of 18 are ineligible for court supervision unless they make a personal appearance in court with a parent or guardian and agree to complete a traffic safety course. Judges have the authority to waive the appearance of the parent or guardian upon a showing of good cause by the defendant. 730 ILCS 5/5-6-1(m).

I have had this situation arise twice in the past month. Both times my clients agreed to take the traffic course to get supervision, but neither ASA (Kane and DuPage) asked if my clients' parents were present (they were). I just learned about this parental appearance requirement when I got back to the office and looked up the statute relating to the traffic school requirement.

Duke won a lawsuit because it has a bad football team

From the Sports Law Blog:

The University of Louisville sued Duke for breach of contract after the Blue Devils opted out of the final three games of a four-game football series after Louisville demolished Duke 40-3 in the first game. Apparently, Duke waved the surrender flag to avoid more embarrassments.

The case, University of Louisville v. Duke University, sought $450,000 in damages. The amount was derived from a contractual cancellation penalty of $150,000 per game if the nonbreaching party is unable to schedule a replacement game with a “team of similar stature." Louisville, of course, had a duty to mitigate its damages by trying to find a "team of similar stature." It claimed it could not.

It is in interpreting "team of similar stature" where Duke's lack of success helped. Judge Phillip J. Shepherd agreed with Duke’s argument that its team was so bad (6-45 over the past 5 years) that finding a replacement team of "similar stature" should not have been difficult. At oral argument, Duke persuasively asserted that this is a threshold that could not be any lower.

Louisville did find substitute teams and the court rejected the claim that the term "similar stature" was ambiguous. According to the court's ruling, finding a replacement of similar stature literally meant that any NCAA Division I team would suffice – including those in the Football Championship Subdivision (formerly known as Division I-AA.) Therefore, the court granted summary judgment for Duke.

Imagine, however, if Duke was a more competitive football team. Then the substitution clause would be more difficult to fulfill. Or, in a legal nightmare scenario, imagine that Duke's football team was as good as its men's basketball team! Needless to say, situation would be far more difficult.

Property owner has to pay twice for subcontractor's work.

Under the mechanics lien act, it is the property owner's duty, before making any payments, to require the general contractor to provide a sworn written statement listing all subcontractors and amounts due or to become due to each of them. 770 ILCS 60/5(a). If a subcontractor's name is omitted from the sworn statement, or if the subcontractor claims he is owed a different amount than is listed in the statement, the subcontractor must give the owner written notice of its claim no later than 90 days after its completion of the contract. 770 ILCS 60/24(a).

When an owner is notified of a subcontractor's claim, either by way of the sworn statement or through the subcontractor's claim for lien, the owner must retain from any money due to the contractor an amount sufficient to pay the subcontractor. 770 ILCS 60/27. If, after receiving notice that a subcontractor is owed, an owner pays a contractor and does not retain sufficient funds to pay a subcontractor, such payment shall be considered illegal and made in violation of the subcontractor's rights, and the owner will have to pay twice.

That is what happened to the University of St. Francis in Joliet in the case Weather-Tite, Inc. v. University of St. Francis, et al. In that case, the general contractor on a residence hall remodeling project submitted its final bill showing it was owed approximately $450,000, $130,000 of which was owed to a subcontractor. St. Francis paid the general contractor the whole $450,000. The general contractor's bank seized the funds to partially satisfy a debt the contractor owed to the bank. The subcontractor never got paid.

Because St. Francis had notice of the subcontractor's claim by way of the general contractor's sworn statement, and because St. Francis did not set aside the subcontractor's payment, the court found that St. Francis' payment of the subcontractor's $130,000 to the general contractor violated the mechanic lien act. The court also found that the subcontractor still had a valid and enforceable mechanics lien. The subcontractor was then granted summary judgment in its attempt to foreclose upon that lien. So, St. Francis will end up paying the $130,000 subcontractor bill twice.

The case does not address the proper remedy, if any, that St. Francis has against the general contractor. Any ideas?

BREAKING NEWS: The Big Ten Network is coming to Comcast

The two media powerhouses have finally inked a long-term agreement which will give the Big Ten Network its own channel on Comcast cable. Under the terms of the agreement, Comcast will initially launch the Network as part of its expanded basic level of service starting on August 15th, well before football season. The way I read the press release, this means that it will not be an upgrade, but rather available to all basic cable subscribers.

A tip of the hat to my dad for pointing this one out. It will be much easier for me and him to discuss basketball games next season now that I will actually be able to watch the games.

Why can't we get Wisconsin law licenses without taking their bar like Wisconsin law students do?

From the National Law Journal:

A Wisconsin federal judge has granted class status to a group of law school graduates who have earned law degrees outside that state and want the same right as Wisconsin law school graduates to practice in the state before passing a bar exam. However, shortly after granting class status, the Judge also dismissed the case on other grounds.

Christopher Wiesmueller, a graduate of Oklahoma City University School of Law who served as the original plaintiff as well as the lawyer on the case, said in an interview that he will appeal the dismissal to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Wiesmueller sued on the basis that a rule allowing only graduates of Wisconsin's two law schools to practice law before passing the bar exam was a violation of the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause.

I know at least one of our Law Blog colleagues is licensed in Wisconsin. He, of course, is probably rooting against this lawsuit as it will maintain the exclusivity of his dual licensure. I, on the other hand, am rooting for this lawsuit so that I can add an asterisk to my name on the letterhead without taking another bar exam.

Full article here.