Protecting Wealth and Assets in a Litigious Society

December 2012
Newsbriefs
Dedicated to improving the quality of life in our community by inspiring excellence in the practice of law
Protecting Wealth and Assets in a Litigious Society
How to protect assets and wealth -- not only a
client’s, but also the attorney’s -- was on the agenda
as the Northwest Suburban Bar Association held its
annual Fall Dinner Meeting Nov. 7.
The event was held at the Fox and the Hound
eatery in Schaumburg. Many attendees took full advantage of the chance to have fun, as they played free
pool and ping pong, mixing conversation and cocktails with a competitive spirit.
Michael Rothmann, who co-chaired the event
with Kenneth Apicella, welcomed the crowd and
informed members of upcoming events, including
the annual Holiday Party on Dec. 6. He’s also training to run a marathon, proceeds of which will benefit
children with terminal diseases. “I’d appreciate any
donations,” he said, adding, “I’ve never run a marathon before!”
Attorney William A. Ensing presented the
CLE program on asset and wealth protection. Ensing’s law firm, based in Lake Forest, concentrates on
structuring integrated and comprehensive business
succession, estate and wealth protection plans. Strategies that range from the simple to the complex help
clients all over the world protect wealth from estate
transfer concerns
and events that
Issue Features: generate liability.
These strategies
are employed
President’s Page
3
both domestically
Table of Contents 5
and internationally and include
Board Meeting
24
offshore eleHighlights
ments.
Bulletin Board
27
He formerly
worked at the
Calendar 28
Northern Trust
Company, in
Chicago.
NSBA member William Ensing was the presenter at the Fall Dinner Meeting held at Fox
and the Hound in Schaumburg.
“No heckling,” he told the group. “I say that
tongue in cheek, because I know there are a lot of
litigators in the audience.”
And we are a litigious society, he said, with
93% of all attorneys located in the United States and
97% of all lawsuits filed in this country. In a recent survey, participants rated filing a lawsuit as the
second fastest way to strike it rich. The lawsuit was
ranked behind winning a lottery and ahead of receiving an inheritance.
Wealth protection planning is “organizing
wealth ownership to protect and shelter assets and
wealth from risks to which they are subject,” he said.
Effective, comprehensive coverage protects wealth
from all possible threats, using the best of entities, which would be methods of ownership such as
corporations, limited liability companies and limited
partnerships); agreements (document options such
as trusts, operating agreements and more); and legal
systems (such as favorable jurisdictions).
“We’re trying to frustrate the creditors and
then frustrate them even more,” he said. “But at the
end of the day, we want to control the end game. We
want to make sure the jurisdiction where the ultimate
fight will take place will be beneficial to our clients.”
Continued on Page 6
Newsbriefs - 3
Newsbriefs - 2
mu • tu • al
President’s Page
by: Neil H. Good
[myoo’choo el] adj. -
The 2012 election is finally over. It looks like ObamaCare is going to survive, so I reviewed the congressional
abstract. (That link is http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bdwIbe::|/home/LegislativeData.php?n=BSS;c=111|.)
1 held in common 2 for each other 3 shared
This printed out a 74-page abstract of the act. I thought I would try to find the sections of the Act that would
apply to small- and medium-size law firms.
It’s our relationship with you.
ISBA Mutual - More Than A Definition
Held In Common - ISBA Mutual Insurance is structured without
shareholders and is entirely owned and governed by its policyholders.
For Each Other - By serving our owners and leadership, we serve our
clients. The client’s best interest is in our best interest because we are
one and the same.
Shared - Every insurance company shares risk with its insured, but we
share our policyholders’ goals and have returned over $11.3 million in
dividends to our policyholder ownership since 2000.
ISBA Mutual Insurance has been exclusively serving
Illinois lawyers and law firms since 1988.
ISBA Mutual was formed twenty-three years ago through the efforts of
Illinois lawyers banding together to help one another by establishing our
own insurance company. Our company has grown to be one of the most
significant providers of malpractice insurance for lawyers in Illinois.
Professional
Liability Insurance
Newly Licensed
Attorney Program
Risk Management
Surety Bonds
Rated “A” Excellent by
A.M. Best
Endorsed by Illinois State
Bar Association
Over $11.3 Million in
Policyholder Dividends
Since 2000
We specialize in professional liability insurance written specifically and
exclusively for the needs of Illinois attorneys. It’s our only business.
ISBA Mutual
Insurance Company
223 West Ohio Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Strength | Commitment | Dedication
(800) 473-4722
www.isbamutual.com
Section 1201 prohibits health plans from establishing individual eligibility rules based on health status and
related factors, including medical conditions, claims experience and medical history. It also prohibits health
plans from applying waiting periods beyond 90 days.
Section 1251 provides that nothing in the plan will require individuals to terminate current coverage under a
group plan in which an individual is enrolled on the date of enactment of the Act.
SUBTITLE E: AFFORDABLE COVERAGE CHOICE FOR ALL AMERICANS
PART I - PREMIUM CREDITS AND COST-SHARING REDUCTIONS.
Section 1421 provides a 50% tax credit for employers with 50 or less employees who offer a sponsored health
care plan. This is not offered to sole proprietors.
If your company has less than 50 employees you won’t be required to offer health insurance but you can
receive the credit if you do. If you have more than 50 employees you will face a choice between sponsoring
a health care plan for 100% of your employees or paying a $750 annual fine per employee. There are larger
fines for companies of 200 employees or more.
SUBTITLE F: SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR HEALTH CARE –INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILTY
Section 1501 requires an individual to maintain minimal essential health care coverage. The section imposes
a penalty for failure to maintain coverage except for certain low-income individuals, members of Indian tribes
and individuals who suffer a hardship. The penalty varies from $695 to $2,085, depending on the size of your
family.
(NOTE: The information on the amount of the penalties came from another website, not the Congressional
web site.)
Other parts of the Act I feel are worth noting:
The Act requires health plans to provide coverage for unmarried children until they turn age 26.
The Act requires a reduction in out-of-pocket expenses for individuals enrolled in qualified health plans whose
income is between 100% and 400% of the poverty line as set by the Social Security Administration. That
amount is $23,021 for a family of four, for 2011.
Newsbriefs - 5
Newsbriefs - 4
THANK YOU!
The NWSBA would like to thank all its members who
volunteered to work the Pro Bono Desk and as Court
Facilitator in November at the Third District Circuit
Court. Your time and effort is very much appreciated.
Pro Bono Attorneys:
Newsbriefs
Table of Contents
Editor & Chairperson:
Michael A. Meschino
Attorneys who volunteer for the Pro Bono Desk assist
pro se litigants by answering general questions regarding small claims, landlord/tenant and divorce cases.
The desk is open on Friday afternoons from 1:00 pm to
3:00 pm or until the last court call is done.
Title Page
1
President’s Page
3
Deadline to submit:
15th of the month
Advertising Rates:
Call 847-221-2601
The Court Facilitator Program benefits the attorneys
Volunteer Thank You!
4
as well as the Judges who preside over Domestic Re-
Notice: Amendment to Bylaws Vote
4
Paternity Facilitators:
attorneys who volunteer for this program are there to
Electronic Filing For Civil Cases
help settle all pending Domestic Relations cases. This
NWSBA Holiday Party Registration Flyer
9
Traffic Law Recent Cases
10
Winter Dinner Meeting Registration
11
Members in the News
12
Karen Aldrich
Steven Polachek
Sandra Coscino
Mimi Cooper
Court Facilitator Attorneys:
program takes place on Thursdays from 9:00 am 12:00 pm. We also need facilitators to assist the paternity call on Thursdays from 9:00 am - 12:00 pm.
Anthony Calzaretta
Eileen Neugebauer
Sarah Nolan
Daniel Robin
Michael Meschino
David Pinsel
Carol Grier
Patti Levinson
Legal Self Help Center
Jeanette Danicki
8
Editor’s Rant 13
During This Month 14
“IRS Practice and Procedures”
16
Do your part! Sign up for these important programs
“Considerations for Drafting a Social Media Policy”
21
and help give back to the community! For more in-
Matrimonial Law Recent Decisions
22
November Board Meeting Highlights 24
formation contact Connie Appier at the NWSBA office, 847-221-2601 or cappier@nwsba.org.
Condolences 25
NOTICE: Amendment to Bylaws Vote
A vote of the membership to adopt the proposed changes to the NWSBA Bylaws
will take place during the NWSBA Holiday Party on
December 6, 2012 at Retro Bistro.
A hard copy version will be available for review at the Association office.
The vote will take place prior to the Awards program which is scheduled to begin at 6:00 PM.
Production Editor: Julie Barth
Fall Dinner Meeting: Protecting Wealth & Assets
Gilbert Schumm
Ari Trubitt
Brad Chelin
Greg Martucci
lations cases. In addition to assisting pro se litigants,
Published by: NWSBA
Pub Trawlers Page
26
Bulletin Board
27
Northwest Suburban Bar Association
Executive Committee
President: Neil H. Good
Executive VP: Michael A. Meschino
First VP: William F. Kelley
Second VP: Ronald F. Wittmeyer
Treasurer: Nichole M. Waltz
Secretary: Jay A. Andrew
Executive Director: Julie Barth
Board of Governors
Kenneth C. Apicella
Rafi R. Arbel
Anna Markley Bush
Miriam E. Cooper
Allen S. Gabe
Colin Gilbert
Andrew Haber
Michael Lightfoot
Gary Newland
Maxwell Petersen
Nicholas Richardson
Michael Rothmann
Immediate Past President:
Donald J. Cosley
Association Attorney: John Zelenka
Calendar 28 Parliamentarian: Robert Irsuto
ASSOCIATE EDITORS:
Need Help?
Call
1-800-LAP-1233
Lawyers Assistance Program
Sami Azhari
Maria Jensen
Susan Kamman
Michelle Burbach
Tina Serio
Newsbriefs - 7
Newsbriefs - 6
Continued From Page 1
Mr. Ensing covered a number of scenarios
showcasing the limits to liability insurance. One
involved a man who planned a trip to Alaska -- on a
plane that had no insurance when being flown outside
the 48 contiguous states. A second involved a client
receiving a business-related delivery at his home on a
Saturday. The Fed Ex driver jumped out of the truck
onto a skateboard, fell, and became a quadriplegic.
The client’s homeowner’s insurance wouldn’t cover
the accident because it was business-related and the
business’ umbrella policy wouldn’t cover it because
the accident happened at the client’s home.
In protecting assets, protective barriers need
to be established before creditors attack, Ensing said.
“We find that most of the time, people own assets
personally. If you own it, they can take it. If you
don’t own it, they can’t take it.” He pointed out real
estate developers typically form a new company or
subsidiary for each new project. “They don’t want to
affect the viability of all the companies if you run into
problems with one,” he said. “You want to make sure
assets are segregated. The rule is, don’t own assets
personally and separate dangerous and safe assets.”
He explored alternatives for ownership of assets, including limited partnerships, corporations and
limited liability companies, and warned attendees that
“not all jurisdictions create LLCs equally.”
He also covered document options and agreements and how they can be used to protect assets. “I
stay awake nights drafting documents,” he joked. And
Ensing also discussed jurisdictions, and whether to be
based in the United States or go offshore. Picking the
right jurisdiction is as simple as saying, “This agreement shall be governed by the laws of (the desired
jurisdiction),” he said. Would attorneys choose the
creditor-friendly United States or a debtor-friendly
jurisdiction, he asked. All that’s meant by “offshore,”
is to be outside the home jurisdictional boundary, he
said. Among the agreements, vehicles and entities
employed by his firm in wealth protection planning
are opportunity shifting, domestic and foreign asset
protection trusts, various irrevocable trusts, limited
partnerships, foreign entities, both foreign and domestic limited liability companies, and domestic and
offshore life insurance planning.
He discussed a number of details in protecting
assets, as well as scenarios that could endanger assets,
plus some other financial ramifications that could affect clients.
“If you don’t talk to clients about asset protection,” he told attendees, “I think it’s malpractice. I
really do.”
Ensing maintains the principal office of Ensing Law Firm, Ltd, in Lake Forest. As the company’s
brochure indicates, the firm specializes in “orchestrating peace of mind in a litigious society.”
Ken Apicella, NWSBA Board Member and Din-
Left to right: Phil Tarallo, NWSBA President
ner Committee Co-Chair, enjoys some billiards
Neil Good, Joel Weiner and John O’Brien.
during the cocktail hour.
Left to right: Judge Arthur Janura (Ret), Richard
Board Mem-
Thomas Hanen (left) with Michael Minton.
Nelson & presenter William Ensing.
ber and Dinner
Committee CoChair, Michael
Rothmann with
NWSBA Treasurer,
Nichole Waltz.
Save the Date:
The Next Dinner Meeting
is scheduled for
Janurary 24, 2013
Fedor Kozlov attends his first NWSBA
Joseph Longo and Mitchell Cohen have
Dinner Meeting. Fedor is one of our
a friendly game of ping pong before the
newest members.
meeting.
Past President (and Packer
Backer) Scott Barber, with
Board Member Gary Newland.
Newsbriefs - 9
Newsbriefs - 8
Illinois Supreme Court Issues Order to Allow
Electronic Filing in All Civil Cases
By: Michael Rothmann
On October 24, 2012 the Illinois Supreme
Court issued order M.R. 1218, setting forth the “Electronic Record Standards and Principles,” effective
January 1, 2013. Courts must elect to make the electronic record the official court record to be approved
by the Supreme Court. Some of the standards include
that the Clerk must be able to print court papers on
demand and that documents received in paper form
must be scanned. Additionally, all judges must have
the hardware to view the electronic documents and
submit their decision on any issue raised in the documents electronically.
Illinois Supreme Court order M.R. 18368 (effective January 1, 2013) further sets forth “Electronic
Filing Standards and Principals,” which superseded
the e-filing pilot program for commercial cases.
Under these new standards, any electronic document
submitted to the clerk shall be deemed filed unless
specifically rejected. Filings will be allowed until
midnight on the filing deadline. It does not allow
for weekend filings. E-filers will need to register to
file electronic documents. The system will have a
link to convert documents to PDF form. The filings
must be converted in PDF form from the original
word processing program, rather than via scanning.
Documents filed electronically must be no less than
12 point font, footnotes 10 point; pages - 8.5 by 11
inches; side margins 1 in.; and the top right 2 in. x 2
in. corner of the first page of each pleading must be
left blank for the clerk stamp. Documents unable to
be converted to this format, (blueprints, large maps)
can be filed conventionally. A party filing evidentiary
materials, must attach an index listing each item. All
confidential or sealed documents should be filed conventionally. If no court order is already entered for
allowing the document to be filed under seal, a motion should be filed electronically asking for leave to
file documents under seal. The Court cannot charge
any additional filing fees or engage in fee sharing
arrangements with the e-filing vendor. However, the
e-filing vendor will be allowed to charge fees for providing electronic filing services. Also, in situations
where a party wishes to file a document which contains multiple signatures (i.e. settlement document)
some of which are from non-parties or unregistered
users, the e-filer must obtain each signators’ approval
to file the document electronically and must retain the
document with original signatures for at least 1 year.
In addition, Illinois Supreme Court order
M.R. 3140 (effective January 1, 2013) amended rules,
requiring parties and attorneys to include on the appearance form and all pleading an email address for
service of documents (Rule 11 (d)) and allowing for
serving documents, other than process and complaints
via email to the designated email address of record
for the attorney or party (Rule 11 (b)(6)).
In meetings I had with Circuit Court Clerk
Dorothy Brown and Judge Evans and in attending the
last Cook County Board’s budget meeting for the next
year, the Clerk, the Court and the County Board are
excited to be implementing this new program. One of
the hurdles to be overcome is making sure each Judge
has the necessary hardware to use and access electronic documents. It will require a total revamping
of the Clerk’s office and a retraining of many clerks.
Hopefully this program will be implemented expeditiously, as it will make filings easier and decrease line
times. Another benefit I hope will be implemented,
(which is a personal pet peeve), is to allow Judges to
advise litigants that Court is cancelled electronically,
so that we suburban attorneys do not have to drive to
Chicago only to learn of the cancellation when we get
to the courtroom.
ATTORNEYS!
NEED HELP WITH CASELOAD, BUT CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE
AN ASSOCIATE RIGHT NOW?
northwest suburban bar association
2012
2012
HOLIDAY PARTY
Honorees:
The Honorable Judge Kay Hanlon, “2012 Judge for the Third District”
The Honorable Judge Sharon Sullivan, “2012 Judge for the Second District”
Susan Castans, “Friend of the Bar”
Anna Markley Bush, Esq. “Pay-It-Forward”
Ronald F. Wittmeyer, Esq., “Excellence in Public Service”
Date:
Time:
Place:
Price:
Thursday, December 6, 2012
5:00 pm Cash Bar - 6:00 pm Dinner
Retro Bistro
1746 W. Golf Road
Mt. Prospect, IL
$65 per person (includes one drink ticket; beer or wine only)
($50 - 3rd District Courthouse Employees)
$75.00 Per Person after November 29, 2012
THE 2012 HOLIDAY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
will donate a portion of the proceeds from ticket sales to:
THE NWSBA THIRD MUNICIPAL DISTRICT LEGAL SELF HELP CENTER
Name _________________________
Telephone __________________________
EVENT SPONSORS:
Method of Payment: ___ Visa ___ MasterCard ___Check
™
Credit Card #
_________________________
SLOGAN # 2
3-Digit Security Code:__________
Expiration Date ______________________________
Call Donnalyn M. Vojta for help. Ms. Vojta is excellent at research
and pleadings and has 13 years of experience in primarily family law.
She is also available to cover routine court matters. Hourly rate for
research, pleadings and court appearances is $45.00. Call her or
email her at (847) 682-6884. donnalyn@vojtalaw.com
™
____________________________________________________________
Billing Address For Credit Card
Mail to: 800 E. Northwest Hwy. #502 Palatine, IL 60074
Tele: 847-221-2601
Fax: 847-221-2844
™
12.6.12
LOGO BAR #
©
© 2006
Our Success Is Our People
Page 6
Our Success Is Our People
2006
Newsbriefs - 11
Newsbriefs - 10
Traffic Law Recent Cases & Cases of Interest
By: Thomas Moran, Co-Chair
pursuant to 625 ILCS 5/6-303. The suspension
Rescission of Summary Suspension
resulted from a previous arrest for DUI. At the time
of Defendant’s arrest for DUI, Defendant was a first
In People v. Elliott, 2012 IL App (5th) 100584, ___
time offender for purposes of 625 ILCS 5/11-501.1
N.E.2d ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, Defendant was arrested
and was eligible to obtain a Monitoring Device Driv-
and charged with the offense of driving on a suspend-
ing Permit (MDDP). Defendant was subsequently
ed driver’s license pursuant to 625 ILCS 5/6-303.
convicted of driving while her license was suspended
The suspension resulted from a previous arrest for
and sentenced to one year of Probation and thirty
driving under the influence. The defendant received
days in the Boone County Jail.
Northwest Suburban Bar Association’s
Winter Dinner Meeting
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Michael Rothmann & Kenneth Apicella, Co-Chairs
Mobile Phone Forensics:
Obtaining and Using Evidence From IPhones, Blackberries, Androids, etc.
Presenter: Jeffrey L. Hartman, CEO of eDiscoveryLabs
the above ticket for driving on a suspended license
while his petition to rescind his summary suspension
Defendant appeals alleging that the State was com-
was still pending. That petition was granted and an
pelled to establish that she was not operating a ve-
Social Media Discovery
order of rescission was granted.
hicle pursuant to an MDDP. The Appellate Court
Presenter: Tiffany Ferguson, Pugh, Jones & Johnson
affirmed the trial court holding that the State does not
The following month, the defendant was found guilty
have to prove Defendant was not driving on a MDDP
of driving while suspended, because he was in fact
or was eligible for a MDDP.
2 Hours of General Credits
Time:
suspended on the date of the occurrence.
5:30 PM - Cocktails (Cash Bar)
6:30 PM - Dinner & Presentation
Place:
Defendant appeals arguing that the subsequent rescis-
Ram Restaurant & Brewery
700 N. Milwaukee Ave., Wheeling, IL
sion of the summary suspension essentially cancels
the suspension in its entirety retroactively, thereby
Price:
$40 Members and $80 Non-Members
making the citation for driving while suspended void.
RSVP:
by January 17, 2013
After January 17, 2013: $50 Members and $90 Non-Members
The Appellate Court agreed and reversed the trial
court’s finding arguing that a rescission is an attempt
to erase an act or contract from its inception as the
NAME: _____________________________________
summary suspension was rescinded in this case. The
PAYMENT OPTIONS: VISA___
citation for driving while license suspended could not
stand.
In People v. McPeak, 2012 IL App (2d) 110557, ___
N.E.2d ___, ___ Ill.Dec. ___, Defendant was arrested
and charged with driving while license suspended
CHECK___
______________________________________
Credit Card No.
3-Digit Security Code
________________________________________________
Billing Address on Card
Driving While License Suspended
MC___
Mail Checks to:
Exp. Date
NWSBA
800 E. Northwest Hwy.
Suite 502
Palatine, IL 60074
Fax: 847-221-2844
Telephone: 847-221-2601
WINTER 012413
PHONE#:___________________________________
Newsbriefs - 12
Editor’s Rant
Members in the News
Joseph Longo, a Sole Practitioner in Mt. Prospect,
Illinois won an amazing victory over his former
clients, Italia Foods, Inc. Filippo Carabetta, Nicolina
Carabetta and Pietro (Peter) Carabetta in a Jury Trial
before Judge Agran that was tried on November 7 and
8, 2012. Robert Arnold represented the Defendants.
The dispute arose approximately six (6) years earlier
when Mr. Longo took the defense of the Defendants
in a case involving attorney’s fees not paid to the Law
Firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson. Hinshaw & Culbertson and 16 individual lawyers from Hinshaw & Culbertson; 10 individual lawyers from McGuire Woods,
myself and Louis Capozzoli were sued by the Carabettas for allegedly mishandling a Fair Labor Standards Act Case. Hinshaw & Culbertson had CounterClaimed against the Defendants for their attorney’s
fees. Mr. Longo was the last of several attorneys that
had represented the Carabettas throughout their malpractice lawsuit. Mr. Longo was successful in negotiating a settlement for the Carabettas with Hinshaw
& Culbertson and successfully navigating the waters
around a Sanctions Motion for False Pleadings raised
by the lawyers representing the McGuire Woods Attorneys.
Mr. Capozzoli, (whose family sponsored the Carabetta’s when they emigrated from Italy) and I had
initially represented the Carabettas and Italia Foods
in the Fair Labor Standards Act that had been filed
in January of 2002. By June of 2002 we were at a
point in the Federal Lawsuit where we tried to do
the equivalent of a 4-Way Settlement Conference.
This took place at the home offices of Italia Foods in
Schaumburg, Illinois. Douglas Werman, the attorney
who represented the thirteen Plaintiffs who had not
been paid overtime was present. Mr. Werman and
the Italia Foods Comptroller, Maria Arjmand (nees
Carabetta) went over all of the lost time that had not
been paid towards overtime. At that point, Mr. Werman correctly asserted the Statute which required
Double the Wages for violation of the FLSA and the
plaintiff’s Attorney’s Fees. This came out to a total
of approximately $53,000.00. Given that the Carabetta’s had already given myself and Mr. Capozzoli
a $5,000.00 retainer, it represented a total spending
output of $58,000.00 by the Carabettas, at that point
in time.
Instead of trying to resolve the case along those lines,
which was recommended by both myself and Mr.
Capozzoli, the Carabettas terminated our services,
and then were represented by Hinshaw & Culbertson. Hinshaw & Culbertson took depositions, filed
several motions and generated a bill of approximately
$156,000.00 before they were terminated in 2003.
McGuire Woods then took over the case until its conclusion and they billed over $130,000.00 in attorney’s
fees. In the meantime, Douglas Werman’s attorney
fees of $20,000.00 at the time of our June 2002 meeting increased to $154,000.00 at the time that the case
was resolved before Judge Kennelly in Federal Court.
The total Settlement was $185,000.00.
Mr. Longo had never asked for a retainer from the
Carabettas. He would send them Invoices and they
would pay the Invoices. At some point in time,
someone in the Carabetta family decided that enough
was enough and they stopped paying Mr. Longo the
last remaining $10,000.00 due in 2008. Additionally, Filippo Carabetta did not pay the $725.00 or so
that he still owed Mr. Longo for defense of a battery
claim.
Mr. Longo sued for not only the Invoices due but also
for aggravation and punitive damages. A six-person
jury came down with the verdict in favor of Mr.
Longo. The verdict was as follows:
1. Compensatory Damages: $10,000.00 from all Defendants
$725.00 from Filippo Carabetta
2. Damages for aggravation: $30,020.00
3. Punitive Damages:
$20,000.00
The Carabettas had promised to pay Joseph Longo
for four years. The most recent promise was at their
deposition in November 2011. The jury was completely disgusted with the Carabettas and particularly
the testimony of Nicholina Carabetta. At one point,
Judge Agran had to tell her to “stop talking whenever
you want to and just answer the questions”.
Continued on Page 25
Newsbriefs - 13
By: Michael A. Meschino
THE ELECTION IS OVER
The election is now over and once again, a seemingly
unpopular president is reelected. Thank God we here
in Illinois will no longer be subjected to those ads
painting Marty Moylan, the present Mayor of Des
Plaines, who will now be State Senator, as the “tax
man”; or Susan Sweeney, who ran against Mayor
Moylan as a person “who hates children” and the
other inane ads that we were subjected to.
Fortunately, this was not a battle ground state so we
were not subjected to the countless negative Romney
and Obama ads that people in Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, New
Hampshire and Nevada were bombarded with from
May Through November.
The political pundits are all over the place in trying to
explain this election. Most Republicans are furious
with Mitt Romney because of the fact that he chose
Paul Ryan as his running mate and Ryan could not
even carry his Congressional District and his own
home state of Wisconsin. Democratic strategists
are touting the new coalition of Hispanics, African
Americans, young women and blue collar workers as
the coalition that put the President back in office.
Certainly, something is wrong when the former Governor of a Massachusettes gets clobbered by the President in his own home state. Additionally, picking
Marco Rubio may have secured the Oval Office for
Mitt Romney. However, I do not think that Senator
Rubio wanted to be second man on anybody’s ticket.
(Please note that Senator Rubio, the day after the
election traveled to Iowa. Was he looking for corn?).
Also two nitwits running for the Senate; Akin in
Missouri (who beat out 2 much more qualified non
Tea partiers in the primary) and some dope who put
the Who in Hoosier in Indiana ( who defeated 5 time
incumbent Richard Lugar) made abortion an issue
again almost forty (40) years after Roe v. Wade. Their
public statements on abortions could not have been
better scripted by the Obama campaign. Additionally,
telling Hispanic people to self deport themselves in
the primaries did not endear Romney to the Hispanic
voters.
Personally, I think that all of that is nonsense. I think
that there is a certain axiom of truth when Americans
approach an election that involves an incumbent
President. Incumbent Presidents, who are not challenged in the Primary or via a Third Party, usually
win Reelection.
Consider the case of Bush 41 and Bush 43. How else
can you explain that George W. Bush, who lost the
popular vote in 2000 to Al Gore, was in charge of a
system that allowed 19 terrorists to hijack 4 airplanes
and kill more Americans than at Pearl Harbor actually
won re-election in 2004? Bush garnered 14,000,000
more votes than he did in 2000 after starting a baseless expensive war in Iraq. (Remember the unforgettable slogan; “Bush lied; Soldiers Died”?) The
invasion of Iraq was premised by the Bush administration on seeking out and destroying weapons of
mass destruction. Bush even had Colin Powell telling
whoppers at the UN. Well in advance of the 2004
election it was shown there were neither weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq nor any plans to build another nuclear reactor by Saddam Hussein. However,
Bush was the incumbent.
The situation worked in reverse for W’s father. How
else do you explain how one of the most popular
presidents one year before the election, ( with a 90%
approval rating) lost to Bill Clinton and saw the
revival of a Third Party Candidacy through billionaire H. Ross Perot? People forget that Pat Buchanon
challenged Bush for the 1992 Republican nomination.
Buchanon and his campaign Manager Bill Kristol
(now Editor of the Weekly Standard) created a lot of
discontent among the Republican regulars by running
to the right of the moderate George H.W. Bush. When
Buchanon lost in the Primaries it opened the door for
the funny little Texan named Perot, whose 19% of the
electorate ruined the elder Bush’s chances.
Neither President George W. Bush, President Obama,
President Clinton, President Reagan nor President
Nixon had any substantial Primary Challengers. The
one President who also lost during this period of
time was Jimmy Carter who had been savaged in his
Primary battle with Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. Kennedy ran because he was emboldened
by Iranians taking hostages at the US embassy which
showed Carter as weak and stupid.
Continued on Page 15
Newsbriefs - 15
Newsbriefs - 14
During This Month........
By: Joseph C. Morton
Professor Emeritus, Northeastern Illinois University
(December) in 1864 President Abraham Lincoln met,
for the third straight day, with two nearly-hysterical,
persistent women who pleaded with the President to
pardon and set-free their husbands who were among
the some 214,000 Confederate soldiers imprisoned
during the bloody Civil War. As Lincoln later wrote,
“at each of the interviews one of the ladies urged that
her husband was a religious man.” Finally, on the
third day, the President compassionately pardoned
and set-free the two husbands and then said to the
grateful, but weeping wives, in what the Washington
Daily Chronicle” characterized as “The President’s
Last, Shortest and Best Speech”, “You say your
husband is a religious man; tell him when you meet
him . . . that in my opinion, the religion that sets men
to rebel and fight against their government, because,
as they think, that government does not sufficiently
help some men to eat their bread on the sweat of other
men’s faces, is not the sort of religion upon which
people can get to heaven”.
most cases, not the result of a premeditated plan to
rid the country of “blue bellies”, but was due, in large
part, to the lack, on the part of the Confederates, of
food, proper shelters, medical doctors, nurses, and
medical supplies and medicines. Even so, the camp
commandant Captain Henry Wirz was one of the few
Confederate officials or military officers to be tried
at war’s end for, what would be called today, “crimes
against humanity” or simply the coldhearted, barbaric
killing of captured enemy soldiers. Although probably innocent of actually or deliberately killing anyone
himself, Wirz appears to have been the scapegoat for
revenge-minded northerners who blamed the South
for the blood-bath of the “War of the Rebellion”.
Wirz was found guilty of, in what was probably a
“kangaroo court” trial, unnecessary cruelty and murder of military combatants and hanged on November
10, 1865. His last words were reported to have been
that he was innocent of all charges of cruelty and
murder.
The treatment (all-too-often the ill-treatment) of military prisoners), which prompted these two Confederate wives to travel to Washington to plead in person
with the President, was well beyond indifference,
repulsive, and shocking. It is perhaps not too farfetched, in some cases, to compare the mistreatment
of Civil War prisoners (especially in the infamous
Confederate prison at Andersonville, Georgia) with
the gross inhuman treatment of Jews and Gypsies by
the Nazis during WWII. Altogether, Union soldiers
died at an alarming rate of something over 15% in
Confederate prisons. It has been documented that
of the over 45,000 union prisoners held at Andersonville, over 13,000 (approximately 35%) died of
unnecessary exposure, disease (often preventable or
inadequately treated), and malnutrition. However,
unlike the Nazis’ “final solution”, the high mortality
rate among Union prisoners at Andersonville was, in
It should be remembered that conditions in Northern
military prisons were not much better than those of
the Confederacy. In such Union prison camps as
those in Alton, Rock Island, Springfield, and Chicago
IL and Johnson’s Island, Ohio (where the husbands
of the two petitioning wives were held), Confederate
prisoners died at a rate of 12% and at the notorious
Elmira Prison in NY the death rate was over 20%.
The audacious petitioning of two devoted Confederate wives saved, from what might have been at least
ill-treatment or even a lingering death as military prisoners, two Confederate soldiers who were spared the
all-too-often inhumane treatment endured by military
prisoners in both the North and the South.
Crystal Lake resident Joseph C. Morton is Professor Emeritus at Northeastern Illinois University and
author of The American Revolution and Shapers of
the Great Debate at the Constitutional Convention
of 1787. demjcm@comcast.net
Editor’s Rant Continued From Page 13
The first incumbent President to lose a reelection
bid in the twentieth century was William Howard
Taft. This was an unusual circumstance where Taft
was not beaten by Woodrow Wilson but by the ego
of Theodore Roosevelt, his predecessor and former
best friend. Roosevelt instituted the Bull Moose
Party after he had lost the Republican Nomination
in 1912 to William Howard Taft. Taft and Roosevelt
split the Republican vote and went down to defeat.
Wilson won re-election in 1916 without any Primary
challenge. However, it was another close election
similar to the one that we just went through. Republican Nominee Charles Evan Hughes actually went
to bed on election night thinking that he had won the
election. However, the State of California went for
Wilson and so did the Presidency.
Finally, Truman received a great lift from the ill-fated
campaign of one of the true political clowns of the
twentieth century, a jerk by the name of Henry Wallace. Henry Wallace was a true Socialist and a dupe
for Josef Stalin and the Soviet Communist Party. He
started the Progressive Party in 1948 after Truman
fired him in 1946 from his post as Secretary of Commerce. Wallace was influenced by a Soviet agent to
recruit Socialists, American Communists and other
idealistic people, into the Progressive Party. Wallace
was also the former Secretary of Agriculture (who
did nothing for farmers during the Dust Bowl years)
and the third Roosevelt Vice President. He ran to the
left of Harry Truman. People could no longer accuse
Harry Truman of being a Socialist or Communist,
when in fact there was a true Socialist on the ballot
by the name of Henry Wallace. Thank God Roosevelt
lived into his fourth term.
In the 1920’s William G. Harding died before he
sought his second term. His successor, Calvin
Coolidge, declined to run for a second term after he
was elected in his own right in 1924. In 1928 Herbert Hoover took over an economy that was on the
brink. The Stock Market Crash of 1929 exposed the
American Economy as a house of cards. What ensued
thereafter was three years of absolute misery where
one-third of the population was out of work, there
was no safety nets and people were living in ramshackle tents all across the country called “Hoover
Towns”. It was on this premise that Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to the presidency and would succeed himself three times. Roosevelt died less than 3
months into his fourth term. Harry Truman took over
and won reelection in 1948 as the Incumbent.
There is no doubt that President Obama used the
power of Incumbency to help him along in 2012.
His Executive Order passing the most popular portion of the “Dream Act” certainly solidified his vote
with Hispanic Americans. (That is the part of the Act
where the children of Illegal Immigrants can be on a
path to citizenship by going to college and/or joining the military). The Executive Order also stopped
deportation of any illegal immigrants who had been
brought to this country when they were under 16,
lived here and had no criminal records. His bailout
of General Motors and managed bankruptcy and sale
of Chrysler from Daimler-Benz to Fiat were very
popular in the rust belt states of Michigan, Ohio and
Pennsylvania. His stance against fossil fuels attracted
several young idealistic people.
Truman’s race in 1948 is the blueprint for all Incumbents. Truman had the Dixiecrats walk out of the
1948 Democratic Convention. The Dixiecrats were
nothing more than racist Americans, from Southern
states, led by Strom Thurmond, who objected to
Mayor Hubert Humphrey of Minneapolis instituting
a Civil Rights Plank into the Democratic Platform.
Truman stood by that Platform and, even though he
used the “n word” as part of his everyday vocabulary, he attracted and kept in the Democratic Party an
overwhelming majority of African American votes.
In May of 1948 President Truman was the first Head
of State to recognize the State of Israel. This could
have been done because Truman thought it was the
right thing to do or he had a best friend and former
business partner who was of the Jewish Faith. Otherwise, he could have been looking towards the votes
of millions of Jewish people living in the big cities.
Truman also ordered the Berlin Airlift after Josef
Stalin ordered a blockade of landlocked West Berlin.
For over a year the American Air Force airlifted water, food and medical supplies to the people of West
Berlin. Truman was seen as the ultimate Cold War
President.
Finally, the most significant part of being the Incumbent is to be the President. The scene in New Jersey
with Governor Chris Christie and President Obama
walking the streets of Atlantic City and promising
Federal Aid to the stricken communities from Hurricane/Superstorm Sandy. This impressed anyone who
was undecided because they thought the President
could work with a Partisan Republican and get results. It was free advertising that could not be staged
nor bought.
All of the Incumbents had at their disposal well-oiled
and veteran experienced political machines that were
designed to get out the vote. President Obama’s
ground game was truly awesome. The best evidence
that it was the incumbency and not the “new coalition” is that the President carried DuPage County!
There are no significant members of the “new coalition” in DuPage County. The county is made up of
mostly white people.
Continued on Page 19
Newsbriefs - 16
Continued From Previous Page
IRS Practice and Procedures
By: Joshua Nesser, Lavelle Law, Ltd.
Statute of Limitations on Assessment – U.S. v. Home Concrete &
Supply, LLC, 2012 WL 1413964
(2012)
Why This Case is Important: This
case clarified the different circumstances in which the IRS’s three
year and six year statutes of limitations on assessment apply. Based
on this case, the six year statute of
limitations only applies in cases
where a taxpayer understated his or
her gross income by at least 25%.
It does not apply in cases where a
taxpayer overstated his or her deductions, and therefore understated
his or her tax liability by 25%.
Six Year Statute of Limitations on
Assessment
In Home Concrete & Supply,
LLC, two taxpayers used a “Son
of BOSS” tax shelter to reduce
the capital gains from their 1999
sale of their North Carolina business. While they received over $10
million from this sale, the use of
the shelter enabled their partnership to only report a taxable gain
of $69,000.00 from the IRS. More
than three (but less than six) years
after the tax return reporting this
gain was filed, the IRS determined
that the taxpayers had overstated
their basis in the business and as a
result understated and underpaid
their tax liabilities. Accordingly,
the IRS adjusted the basis reported
by the taxpayers and issued a notice of deficiency to the taxpayers
advising them of their increased
tax liabilities. The taxpayers paid
the balances due but filed a lawsuit
against the IRS seeking a refund of
such payments arguing that the IRS
failed to make adjustments to the
tax returns in question within the
three year statute of limitations set
forth in the Internal Revenue Code.
Generally, the IRS has three years
from the date on which an income
tax return was filed to determine
that more tax than was reported on
the return is actually due. However, in circumstances in which a
taxpayer improperly “omits from
gross income” an amount in excess
of 25% percent of the gross income
stated on the return, this period is
extended to six years. Because the
IRS had not adjusted the taxpayers’
returns within three years of the
date they were filed, the taxpayers
argued that the IRS’s adjustments
were not timely and not legal.
Conclusion
After reviewing the relevant
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, Treasury Regulations,
and case law, the Supreme Court
determined that overstating basis
in an asset is not “omitting gross
income” because, technically, all
income is still reported; deductions from that income are merely
overstated. Accordingly, the Court
stated that the three year, rather
than six year, statute of limitations
applies to this and other “Son of
BOSS” tax shelter cases. Because
the IRS failed to adjust the taxpayers’ returns within three years of
the date they were filed, the IRS’s
adjustments were void and the IRS
could not require the taxpayers to
pay more than the tax they reported
as due on their original returns.
Defined Value Gift Clauses Wandry v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo
2012-88 (U.S. Tax Ct. 2011)
Why this Case is Important: – An
often-used estate planning tool
is making annual gifts to family members in the amount of the
annual exclusion to reduce the
donor’s taxable estate while not
incurring any gift taxes. This can
be difficult to do when transferring
ownership interests in a business,
however, because it is difficult to
determine the exact value of the
interests at the time of the transfer.
In this case, the Court permitted
the taxpayers to define the interests
being transferred in terms of their
value, rather than the ownership
interest percentage, an important
victory for taxpayers.
Gifting of Closely-Held Business
Interests
In Wandry, the taxpayers, a married
couple, owned a Colorado limited
liability company. As part of their
estate planning strategy and to take
advantage of the annual gift tax
exclusion, every year the taxpayers gifted to their children ownership units of the LLC. Because
the precise value of these units
was unknown and could to not be
determined at the time the gifts
were made, the transfer documents
stated that the taxpayers intended
each gift to be in the amount of
$11,000 (the amount of the annual
exclusion at that time) and that
Continued on Next Page
of the membership units, the number of units gifted was reduced.
Newsbriefs - 17
open. In 2009, the IRS informed
the taxpayer that he was being held
they were gifting the approximate
personally liable for the “trust fund
number of units that would satisfy Trust Fund Penalty and Non- tax” portion of the organization’s
that intention. The documents fur- Profits – Bunch v. Commissioner, employment tax liability, which
ther stated that if the IRS later de- 109 AFTR 2d 2012-1335 (E.D. portion was equal to $197,859.26.
Tennessee 2012)
termined that the units had a greater
value, and that the gift amounts
Trust fund taxes are those federal
Why this Case is Important: – Many
therefore exceeded the annual exincome and FICA taxes that are (or
business owners do not realize that
clusion, the number of units gifted
are supposed to be) withheld from
in certain circumstances the IRS
would be adjusted accordingly to
an employee’s wages by an employcan hold them personally liable for
ensure that no gift taxes were iner and paid to the IRS. When a busia portion of their businesses’ uncurred. Every year a gift tax return
ness fails to remit trust fund taxes to
paid employment taxes. Even more
was filed stating that gifts in the
the IRS, the responsible individuals
alarming is that, as demonstrated by
amount of the annual exclusion were
in the business are held personally
this case, the IRS can hold volunmade to the taxpayers’ children. In
liable for those amounts. The taxteer members of the board of direc2006, the IRS examined these gift
payer contested this assessment and
tors of not-for-profit organizations
tax returns and determined that the
argued that as a non-owner of the
personally liable for such organizavalue of the units transferred to the
organization who received no finantions’ unpaid employment taxes.
taxpayers’ children in each year in
cial benefit from it and who did evquestion had a value in excess of
erything he could to make sure the
Trust Fund Recovery Penalty
such year’s annual exclusion. The
organization paid its taxes, he could
IRS issued deficiency notices to the
not be held personally liable.
In Bunch, the taxpayer was a directaxpayers indicating that they owed
tor and the president of a Tennesgift taxes for each year.
Conclusion
see not-for-profit organization. He
The Court upheld the assessment
loaned to the organization the funds
Conclusion
against the taxpayer. This was based
it required to begin operating and
The taxpayers argued that each
on its conclusion that the taxpayer
later made additional loans as necyear they made a transfer of a spegenerally had the ability and auessary. He worked on a volunteer
cific dollar amount, not a specific
thority to control the organization’s
basis; he never received a paycheck
number of units, and that as a refinances. Based on his role, he eifrom the organization. In 2006, he
sult of this strategy the value of
ther knew or should have known
learned that the organization was
the gifts could not have exceeded
of the organization’s tax problems.
having difficulty paying its emthe annual exclusion. The IRS, of
Taking into account his knowledge
ployment taxes and loaned money
course, took the opposing position.
of these problems, by permitting the
to the organization to pay these taxThe Court, focusing on the transfer
organization to pay creditors other
es. Moreover, he became actively
documents and the gift tax returns,
than the IRS, he “willfully” failed
involved in the organization’s ficoncluded that at all times, the taxto require the organization to pay
nancial affairs, including assuming
payers’ intent was to gift a certain
the trust fund taxes to the IRS. The
check-writing responsibility. For a
value to their children rather than
Court noted that Bunch could have
period of time thereafter, the orgaa certain percentage interest in the
taken many actions to prevent the
nization was able to pay its taxes in
LLC, and that the number of units
taxes from going unpaid, includfull. However, when a major client
gifted would be based on this value.
ing closing the organization, applyof the organization began delaying
Therefore, the Court held that the
ing for a loan, or filing bankruptcy.
payments, the organization once
notice of deficiencies issued by the
By taking none of these actions, he
again was unable to pay its taxes.
IRS were improper. Rather than infailed to fulfill his responsibility to
Instead, it used available funds to
crease the value of the taxpayers’
the organization’s employees and
pay the creditors necessary to stay
gifts based on the IRS’s valuation
the IRS.
Newsbriefs - 19
Newsbriefs - 18
Editor’s Rant Continued From Page 15
‘‘
WHY ATG?
The bigger question is,
why not? No matter how experienced
you are, you can’t know everything.
Two closings a month or twenty, ATG
is a valuable resource for attorneys.
I’m committed to ATG—it’s a good fit.
We’re part of a large metro area, but I’m a
hometown lawyer with a neighborhood
practice. My partner Dick Hutchison,
now retired, joined ATG in the early days.
I came in later, but from the very
beginning, the people were so kind
and helpful, and it’s still that way. The
staying-power at ATG is heartwarming,
comforting.You can rely on them, believe
them. It’s been a great experience, a great
enhancement to my practice, and to
my life.
Dave Anders
Member since 1989;
Firm joined in 1977
’’
DID YOU KNOW?
The Illinois Supreme Court in a decision filed on October 4, 2012 reversed and overruled In re Marriage
of Drews, 115 Ill 2d 201 (1986), which had held that
a plenary guardian lacks standing to institute dissolution of marriage proceedings on behalf of the ward.
The Court in Jan Karbin v. Marcia Levinson Karbin
by and through her guardian, Kara Hibler not only
overruled the decision In re Marriage of Drews, supra, but also reversed the Circuit Court and Appellate
Court on the issue and allowed the guardian to seek
permission from the Court to file a Dissolution Petition on behalf of the ward if such a petition is found
to be in the ward’s best interest.
The background of the case is anything but simple
but needs to be followed in order to understand the
ruling. Jan and Marcia Karbin were married on June
2, 1984. At the time Marcia had one daughter who
Jan adopted. They later had one child together by
the name of Jacob, who was mentally disabled and
resides in a full-time care facility.
After a serious car accident in 1997 Marcia suffered
from brain damage and became totally disabled requiring full-time care. Jan was appointed the plenary
guardian of Marcia’s person and estate. Jan also
established an annuity for Marcia’s lifetime care out
of the proceeds of a large personal injury settlement
award resulting from the car accident.
By 2004 Jan could no longer take care of Marcia due
to his own Parkinson’s disease and transferred his
plenary guardianship to Kara Hibler.
ATG: Making good lawyers better.
800.252.0402
WWW.ATGF.COM
Contact us for more information:
Phil Krawiec Business Development Representative
Direct Phone: 312.752.1219
E-mail: pkrawiec@atgf.com
ATG is an Illinois Accredited
Continuing Legal Education Provider.
Offices in: Arlington Heights | Belleville | Champaign
Chicago | Frankfort | Libertyville | Lombard
Oak Lawn | Skokie | Wheaton | Waukesha, Wisconsin
NLT | Belvidere | Crystal Lake | Rockford
In 2007, after living apart for nearly three years, Jan
petitioned the Circuit Court of Cook County for dissolution of the marriage. Marcia, through Kara, filed
a Verified Counter Petition, alleging the same bases
as Jan, to wit Irreconcilable Differences and NonCohabitation. Now the case gets really complicated.
In 2009 the wife, through her guardian, filed a Motion to Compel Discovery and petitioned the Court
for Interim Fees and Costs. At that point the husband
moved to voluntarily dismiss his Petition for Dissolution. As is usual in divorce cases, the accusations
flew back and forth. Husband stated that his wife had
told him that she no longer wished to divorce him and
the husband asked for the Court to appoint a Guardian ad Litem to determine whether his wife wanted
to continue the dissolution proceedings. The wife,
through the guardian, claimed that the husband had
been romantically involved with another woman for
some time and that he and the other woman were living together in a residence which was purchased with
marital funds.
On July 29, 2009 the Trial Court granted the husband’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of his Dissolution Petition. The Court ordered that in light of
this dismissal that the parties were to be realigned.
Additionally, the Court also granted the wife’s Motion to Compel Discovery. The husband claimed that
the woman that he was living with was his live-in
caregiver. He denied that he knew that the Warranty
Deed and the mortgage to his property listed the
woman as his wife. He also admitted that the couple
had a joint checking account but explained that he
was unable to write checks and that the joint account
was simply a convenience.
On October 7, 2009 the Trial Court transferred the
husband’s Motion to Appoint a Guardian ad Litem
to the Court’s Probate Division. Additionally, the
husband moved to dismiss the wife’s counter-petition
maintaining that pursuant to the Illinois Supreme
Court decision in In re Marriage of Drews, supra,
the guardian had no authority to pursue a Dissolution
Proceeding on the wife’s behalf.
On January 5, 2010 the Probate Court held that the
guardian had no standing to file a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage on the wife’s behalf. Thereafter on
April 30, 2010 the Judge in the Domestic Relations
Court ruled that under Drews “a guardian does not
have the authority to litigate a Dissolution of Marriage Action as a Petitioner” and granted husband’s
Motion to Dismiss the wife’s Counter-Petition.
At that point the wife appealed and a majority of
the Appellate Court affirmed that the Drews Case
controlled. The loan dissent was from the late great
Judge Cahill who believed that Drews was factually
distinguishable.
The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with Judge Cahill
and found that the implied authority construction of,
the Guardianship Statute rather than the Drews Courts
narrow construction of said statute controlled. The
Court was concerned that by following the husband’s
reasoning in reaffirming Drews, that the law would
unfairly treat incompetent spouses, leaving them “at
the complete mercy of the competent spouse without
consideration of their best interest”. The Court went
Continued on Page 20
Newsbriefs - 20
Editor’s Rant Continued From Page 19
on to state that “once a person is found to be “disabled” under the Probate Act, he or she is viewed
as “a favorite person” in the eyes of the law and is
entitled to vigilant protection”.
Interestingly, the written decision by Justice Freeman
zeroed in on the enactment of the “No Fault” Provisions of 1984. The Court noted that the Drews Case
was decided in 1986 but the review of the Appellate
Court’s decision in that case revealed that the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage was filed prior to the
enactment of the new “No Fault” Law. That was one
of the main factors in the 2012 Court’s decision. The
Court’s decision says the following:
“Under our modern legal framework, if one
party to a marriage need not be “at fault” and
divorce is arguably more “acceptable” in American Society, it is not inconceivable that elderly,
mentally incapacitated, or mentally ill individuals could want or need to institute divorce
proceedings, where historically their wants or
needs were legally irrelevant or dismissed as
unascertainable.”
Deep Purple
We all came out to Montreux
On the Lake Geneva shoreline
To make records with a mobile
We didn’t have much time
Frank Zappa and the Mothers
Were at the best place around
But some stupid with a flare gun
Burned the place to the ground
Smoke on the water, a fire in the sky
Before there was an Aerosmith, Def Leppard, Metallica, Guns n’ Roses, Poison or any of the other Hard
Rock Bands there was Deep Purple which was voted
the “World’s Loudest Rock Band” in 1973. Before
there was Joe Perry or Slash or Ritchie Sambora there
was Ritchie Blackmore who formed the essential
member of Deep Purple and made the band the bestselling band in 1973.
The Deep Purple most of us old enough to remember,
broke onto the scene when Blackmore convinced
Ian Gillan to sing vocals for the band. Gillan, along
with bassist Roger Glover, joined the band in 1968.
However, anyone who ever heard Deep Purple knows
that the keyboard player Jon Lord and Ritchie Blackmore’s guitar made the sound of Deep Purple. It is
Ritchie Blackmore’s solo that drives the beginning of
“Smoke on the Water” to make it possibly the greatest
introduction of any song in the history of Rock. Guns
n’ Roses guitarist Slash is basically a Ritchie Blackmore clone. The total symmetry between Blackmore’s guitar and the classically trained Jon Lord’s
keyboards created the unique sound of Deep Purple.
They burned down the gambling house
It died with an awful sound
Funky Claude was running in and out
Pulling kids out the ground
The most famous incident involving the group occurred in December 1971 when the band traveled to
Switzerland to record their album “Machine Head”.
The album was scheduled to be recorded at a casino
in Montreux using the Rolling Stones mobile studio.
Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention were also
playing at the casino in Montreux and a fire broke
out when some idiot fired a flare gun into the ceiling,
burning down the casino. The album was later recorded in a corridor at the nearby empty Grand Hotel.
The song “Smoke on the Water” was born and made
its appearance in 1973. The live version features the
famous Blackmore intro and a fabulous confluence
of Blackmore’s guitar and Lord’s organ that permeate
the 2nd half of the song.
When it all was over
We had to find another place
But Swiss time was running out
It seemed that we would lose the race
Smoke on the water, a fire in the sky
In 1973 Deep Purple released the album “Who Do We
Think We Are” which featured the hit single “Woman
from Tokyo”. The band was nominated in October
of 2012 for induction into the Rock n’ Roll Hall of
Fame. It is a shame that such lesser notables such as
Laura Nyro, Patty Smith, Donovan and a group that
was formed almost 20 years after Deep Purple, Guns
n’ Roses, made their way into the Rock n’ Roll Hall
of Fame before Deep Purple.
We ended up at the Grand Hotel
It was empty cold and bare
But with the Rolling truck Stones thing just outside
Making our music there
With a few red lights and a few old beds
We made a place to sweat
No matter what we get out of this
I know I know we’ll never forget
Smoke on the water, a fire in the sky
Newsbriefs - 21
CONSIDERATIONS FOR DRAFTING A SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY
By: Joette S. Doran, Employment Law Committee
While it’s clear that social media usage is
extending to the workplace, a report by Manpower
employer services found that only 29% of companies
in the Americas have a “formal policy regarding employee use of social networking sites.”
Employer responses to employee activity in
social media and employer social media policies are
receiving intense scrutiny from the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB protects all
employees, union and non-union, who participate in
“concerted” or group activity. If an employer disciplines or terminates an employee who posts negative
statements about the workplace, that may violate the
Act since employees has a right to use social media to
complain about their working conditions.
On May 30, 2012, the NLRB issued its third
review regarding social media policies which focused
on seven cases that the Board pursued against employers. In six of the seven cases, Lafe Solomon Acting General Counsel of the NLRB, “concluded that at
least some of the provisions in the employers’ policies and rules are overbroad and thus unlawful under
the National Labor Relations Act.” Solomon stated,
“As explained in my previous reports, an employer
violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act through the maintenance of a work rule if that rule “would reasonably
tend to chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.” Section 7 of the NLRA provides to all
employees—unionized and non-unionized—the right
to engage in protected “concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection.” The only social media policy that Solomon upheld was Wal-Mart, finding that it contained
tangible examples of what is and isn’t permissible
which helped employees understand that the prohibitions did not extend to protected concerted activity.
In September the NLRB issued two opinions
regarding social media policies. In Costco Wholesale
Corp., 358 N.L.R.B. No. 106 (Sept. 7, 2012), NLRB
found that Costco’s employee policies that are too
broad regarding the use of the Internet and social
media since the policy language would reasonably
“chill” the exercise of rights under Section 8(a)(1)
of the NLRA. The NLRB held that broadly phrased
prohibitions violated employees’ Section 7 rights because they could “reasonably be interpreted” as prohibiting employees from discussing their wages and
other terms and conditions of employment with other
employees and third parties, including union representatives: The broadly written provisions included
unauthorized posting, prohibitions against discussing
private matters, sensitive information, sharing confidential information and posting statements that could
damage the company.
The Board upheld provisions which required
employees to observe “appropriate business decorum” because it would be viewed as requiring general
workplace civility. The Board also upheld a provision prohibiting employees from leaving company
premises during their shift without management
permission because this would not be reasonably understood as requiring employees to get management
permission to go on strike.
In Knauz BMW, 358 N.L.R.B. No. 164 (Sept.
28, 2012), relying on Costco, the Board found that a
rule requiring workplace courtesy violated Section
8(a)(1). The Board found a violation of the provision
which read. “Everyone is expected to be courteous,
polite and friendly to our customers, vendors and
suppliers, as well as to their fellow employees. No
one should be disrespectful or use profanity or any
other language which injures the image or reputation
of the Dealership.” The Board found this rule unlawful since employees who wanted to avoid discipline
would view this rule in the context of disputes related
to wages, hours, or terms and conditions of employment and therefore would be inhibited in exercising
NLRA rights.
The Knauz case is the Board’s first ruling
involving posts to the social media website Facebook
involving a nonunion car dealership. The Board upheld the dismissal of an employee fired based on his
Facebook postings that included mocking comments
and photos regarding a BMW event. The employee
alleged that his posts were protected because his
commissions may suffer because the choice of food
offerings was not appropriate for potential luxury car
buyers. After his posts, as well as others relating to
an auto accident at a neighboring dealership owned
by the same employer, the salesman’s employment
was terminated. The Board found that these Facebook postings were deemed unprotected under Section 7 since that the employee posted the information
apparently “as a lark, without any discussion with any
other employee of the dealership, and had no connection to any of the employees’ terms and conditions of
employment.”
Based on the Costco and Knauz decisions,
employers can expect continued litigation over social
media policies and the success of these polices will
be based on how carefully the policy is drafted so that
it does not violate the employees Section 7 rights.
Joette S. Doran has her law practice in Hoffman Estates. She concentrates in employment law and handles
employment law actions in state and federal administrative agencies and courts. For more information
please visit her website at www.joettedoran.com.
Newsbriefs - 23
Newsbriefs - 22
Matrimonial Law Committee - Recent Decisions
By Howard Bernstein
ATTORNEY’S FEES - NONDISCHARGEABLE IN
BANKRUPTCY
In Re: Arlyn Joe Johnson, Debtor
(Janet Johnson and Steven A.
Wakeman, Plaintiffs v. Arlyn Joe
Johnson, Defendants), No. 128021 U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
Central District of Illinois, July
10, 2012.
Attorney represented Wife
in divorce. MSA provided for
Husband to pay Wife’s attorney
$2,500.00 as his contribution to
Wife’s fees and said fees were nondischargeable in any bankruptcy
that Husband may file in the future.
Husband filed for bankruptcy and
listed the attorney as a general
unsecured creditor. Wife and her
attorney filed an adversary complaint alleging the attorney’s fees
to be paid by Husband were nondischargeable in bankruptcy. Husband alleged that said fees were
dischargeable because the payment
was to be made directly to the attorney and not to the Wife for her
attorney’s benefit. Court held the
attorney’s fees are non-dischargeable because the debt was for a
“domestic support obligation that
is not dischargeable pursuant to 11
USCA 523 (a)(5) and pursuant to
11 USCA 523 (a)(15).” The literal
wording of Section 523 (a)(15)
states that an obligation owed to a
spouse, former spouse or child is
non-dischargeable. This obligation
was owed to the attorney on the
Wife’s behalf. Many earlier cases
have held that attorney’s fees to
be paid directly to the attorney are
dischargeable because the attorney
is not a spouse, former spouse or
child. These earlier cases required
the attorney to bring the adversary proceeding in the attorney’s
name jointly with the spouse. The
recent cases follow the interpretation given in this case. There are at
least two bankruptcy judges in the
Northern District of Illinois who
believe the current interpretation
is faulty because an attorney who
files an adversary proceeding in
his or her name without joining the
non-debtor spouse has no standing;
the attorney is not a spouse, former
spouse, child or child’s guardian.
A GAL in a divorce case is not the
child’s legal guardian.
ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD
SUPPORT
Theodora Weston v. Illinois Department of Human Services, etc.,
et al, U.S. District Ct. Northern
District of Illinois, No. 11 C 8792,
April 16, 2012
Former Wife had not received child support over a period
of twenty years. Her claim was
for more than $197,000.00. She
contacted the State’s attorney for
St. Clair County to collect the
child support due her. She alleged
that the State’s Attorney told her
that “the Feds instructed him to
refrain from collecting the child
support and to reduce the arrearage to zero.” A Court Order was
entered on November 21, 2011, for
a judgment in favor of the State in
the sum of $38,000.00 and nothing
due the former Wife. Former Wife
filed suit in Federal Court alleging
that the St. Clair County State’s Attorney had violated her civil rights
by not collecting the sums due
her. The District Court dismissed
the suit with prejudice for several
reasons: (1) Federal Courts do not
have subject matter jurisdiction and
decline to accept cases for divorce,
alimony and child custody, unless
brought under the Hague Convention; (2) the Statute of Limitations
for actions on violating civil rights
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 is
two years; (3) there is no Fourteenth Amendment rights to child
support payments; (4) no property
interest in child support payments
is protected by the Fifth Amendment so there was no taking of her
asset without just compensation.
Hopefully, the attorney did not take
this case on a contingency basis.
RETIREMENT FUNDS BENEFICIARY
Estate of Joseph Malecki, Anne
Malecki v. Anheuser Busch, etc.,
et al, District Court for Northern
District of Illinois, No. 10 C 5072,
June 5, 2012
Decedent was a participant
in a retirement plan that provided
for distribution of the assets in the
plan according to the beneficiary
designation in place at the time of
the participant’s death. The plan
also provided that in the event of
divorce, the former Wife is not a
valid beneficiary unless there is a
QDRO. Over the years, decedent
named his niece as his beneficiary.
He later named his Wife as his beneficiary with his niece as the contingent beneficiary. Decedent and
his Wife were divorced in 2003.
No QDRO was entered giving his
Wife any portion of the plan. Five
years after the divorce, decedent
died. The plan received three
claims for the funds in the plan.
The claims were filed on behalf of
the decedent’s Estate, his daughter
and his ex-wife. Anheuser Busch
denied all three claims and determined that decedent’s niece was
entitled to the funds on the basis
Continued on Next Page
Continued From Previous Page
that the divorce invalidated the
former Wife and the niece was the
contingent beneficiary. The Court
ruled that since decedent was not
married at the time of his death, the
form designating his Wife was invalid. This included the contingent
beneficiary, decedent’s niece. The
plain language of the plan states
if no beneficiary designation is in
place, the Estate is the beneficiary.
INCOME TAX REFUND MARITAL INTEREST
In Re: Ronald W. Ruhl, Northern
District of Illinois, No. 474 B.R.
596, July 2, 2012
Husband and Wife filed a
joint income tax return for 2009
and received a refund of over
$7,000.00 as a result of excessive
withholding on Husband’s earnings. Husband filed a Chapter 7
bankruptcy petition; his Wife did
not join in the bankruptcy proceeding. The Trustee filed a motion
to have the Husband turn over the
entire tax refund. Husband argued
that half the refund was his Wife’s
share of the refund. The issue was
who owned the tax refund. Was
the refund marital property? The
Court ruled in favor of the Trustee
in bankruptcy. 750 ILCS 65/7
provides that a married person can
own, receive, use and possess his
or her earnings free and clear of
his or her spouse. Illinois does not
recognize a form of marital property until dissolution of marriage
proceedings have been filed. There
was no allegation that Husband
made a transfer of any part of the
income tax refund to his Wife and
there was no dissolution of marriage pending. The filing of a joint
tax return did not create a joint
ownership of the refund because
it does not contain any words of
conveyance to the Wife.
CUSTODY - SAME SEX
RELATIONSHIP
In Re: T.P.S. and K.M.S., No. 2012
Il.App (5th) 120176 (October 12,
2012)
The parties to this action are
two women who were in a long term
romantic relationship and agreed to
co-parent two children conceived
through artificial insemination. Respondent gave birth to the children
and Petitioner was the primary caregiver. Both women were named co-
guardians of the children. When the
relationship terminated, Petitioner
filed a Petition seeking custody and
visitation rights and Respondent
sought to have Petitioner removed
as co-guardian of the children. The
trial court dismissed Petitioner’s
Petition because she had no standing because she was not connected
to the children biologically or by
adoption. The Appellate Court reversed saying, “If an unmarried
person causes the birth of a child by
the deliberate, premeditated conduct of artificial insemination under the express agreement with the
mother to serve as a co-equal parent, that person should receive the
same treatment in the eyes of the
law as a person who biologically
causes conception.” The Appellate
Court cited the Illinois Supreme
Court case of In re Parentage of
M.J., 203 Ill. 2nd 526, which held
that a man who intentionally enters
into an agreement to have a child
through artificial insemination with
a woman can be compelled to support that child.
Howard Bernstein is a partner at
Schwartz, Wolf & Bernstein LLP,
in Buffalo Grove and specializes
in Domestic Relations and Family
Law, Bankruptcy and Real Estate.
MATRIMONIAL LAW COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENT
To all practitioners who practice family law in Rolling Meadows, this will be of interest to you.
Effective December 1, 2012, Judges Levinson and Reibman have changed the way the Pro Se cases will
be heard in 106 and 105, respectively. In the past, these Pro Se litigants’ cases were heard on Tuesday and
Thursday mornings with one facilitator running back and forth between the court rooms. Under the new
change, Pro Se cases will be heard only on Thursdays and each court room will have a facilitator. The
facilitators are bar association member volunteers whose role is to help the Judges move the call by drafting Orders or sometimes mediating for these parties to quickly resolve pending issues. This helps move
the call. Cases for clients with attorneys are now being set on other days during the week. The paternity
Judge will also need a facilitator on Thursday which is Pro Se day in that courtroom, as well. If you wish
to volunteer to be a facilitator, please call Connie Appier at NWSBA at (847) 221- 2601. New volunteers
are always welcome.
Newsbriefs - 25
Newsbriefs - 24
November 2012 Board Meeting Highlights
By: Michael A. Meschino
•
Mock Trial is scheduled
for February 21, 2013. This is a
Thursday night and it will commence at 3:30 p.m. at the Third
Municipal District Courthouse
located at 2121 W. Euclid, Rolling Meadows, Illinois. Due to the
fact that this was a Thursday night,
the Association was not aware that
there are a number of programs that
are ongoing in the Third Municipal
District Courthouse. Some of these
programs include health screenings, WIC (Women, Infant and
Children) Registration and Consultation and other matters.
Fortunately, Judge Maki came to
the aid of the Association and made
it work. Apparently Judge Maki is
better at logistics than UPS.
At present, there are 21 of 24 teams
that are signed up for Mock Trial
which is the earliest that the Association has ever had this type of
sign up. Part of that is due to the
fact that there was going to be a
phase out of Mock Trial after the
ISBA pulled its support. Most of
the schools that had been through
the NWSBA Mock Trial regional
thought that the NWSBA’s handling of Mock Trial was the best in
the state.
For all of those seeking food and
beverage after Mock Trial the Association has come up with a package plan at Jimmy D’s afterwards.
•
The Holiday Party is December 6, 2012 at the Retro Bistro.
The Holiday Party Committee has
decided to have two charities. The
Cash Charity will be Illinois Legal
Aid Online. Additionally, the
Holiday Party Committee is seeking support for a food drive and a
sponsor for the food drive. Allen
Gabe suggested that his Rotary
Club is in a partnership with District 54 in stocking food pantries
and recommended the Board use
that as a food drive. By the way,
the cost per person at the Retro
Bistro is $65.00.
•
The first Dinner Meeting at
the Fox and Hound on November
7, 2012 featured the topic “Protecting your Assets”. It was an
extremely interesting presentation.
The only downfall was that the Fox
and Hound does not have a separate room with doors that close that
can accommodate meetings like a
Dinner Meeting with a presenter.
•
The Treasurer, Nichole
Waltz related that the Association is about $1,200.00 behind last
year’s rate. However, that does not
really matter because the money is
flowing in from credit card receipts
and late payments. The deficit is
really just a photograph of the Associations expenses prior to people
paying for the Dinner Meeting and
other events.
•
On January 24, 2013 there
will be a Dinner Meeting at the
Ram Restaurant on Milwaukee and
Lake Cook Road in Buffalo Grove.
The venue was chosen in anticipation that the Association would be
able to attract some of the Members from the Second District.
On that light, President Good related that he was practically shown
the door by Judge Sutker-Dermer
when he tried to have a meeting
with her at the Second Municipal
District Courthouse. In essence,
Judge Sutker-Dermer decided that
she was not interested in doing a
Lunch and Learn CLE with the
Northwest Suburban Bar Association; she really did not care about
having joint Pub Trawlers or par-
ticipating in any events that might
promote a joint sense of cooperation between two Suburban Bar
Associations.
•
As this Newsbriefs goes to
publication there will be a Criminal
Law CLE on November 28, 2012
in the evening which will discuss
the Municipal Cooperation Agency
and Task Force commonly known
as MCAT, to show Members
how the police forces cooperate
on serious crimes in the suburbs.
Additionally, Treasurer Nichole
Waltz has arranged for a speaker
at the November 28, 2012 Lunch
CLE and one of the topics will be
mobile phone forensics. This event
has been approved for two hours of
Professional Responsibility Credit.
•
Michael Lightfoot reported
that the Association’s IT Committee is reviewing and deciding
whether to go with specs that just
include Bar Reviews, Newsbriefs,
and Committee Chair Reports versus doing all of that plus video and
audio. At some point in time they
are going to ask the Board to approve $2,000 to $3,000 to have the
specs designed. There have been
no negotiations with Third Party
Vendors.
•
The Third Municipal District Domestic Relations Christmas
Party will take place on December
12, 2012 at Emmets in Palatine.
More news to follow somewhere in
this issue.
•
The people were approved
as New Members: Ramara A.
Brey, Anita Gut, Nicholas Karas,
Stephanie Park and Shawna Stassen; and
•
Approval of Law Student
Members: Marek Dymon
Members in the News (con’t)
Mr. Longo stood up for all sole practitioners who
have been stiffed by their clients. Thank you, Joe.
Kudos also to Michael Rothmann, Co-Chair of the
Civil Litigation Committee and fellow Board Member, who did the direct examination of Mr. Longo,
after Judge Agran told Joe he needed to have orderly
testimony. Mr. Armold, from what I could see, did
the best he could with difficult clients and a bad fact
pattern.
The Honorable Arthur C. Perivolidis was honored
with the Hellenic Bar Association Lifetime Achievement Award during their Installation Dinner and
Scholarship Ball in October, 2012. Judge Perivolidis
is affectionately referred to as “the peacemaker of
the Probate Division”, settling over 90% of the cases
brought before him without a trial. The Hellenic Bar
Association profile quotes the judge as saying “[t]he
best file is a closed file”.
IS YOUR CLIENT WORRIED ABOUT
THE DEVASTATING COST OF
NURSING HOME CARE?
Pre-Planning | Wait & See Planning | Crisis Planning
Th e Law Of fices of
An thony B. Ferra ro, LLC
Attorneys
Attorneys-- CPAs
T he Elde r Law , Estate & T rust, and A sse t
P rotection Law Firm
H e lp ing S e nior s & t he ir familie s p r ot ec t ag ainst t he d e vast at ing
financ ial c ost of long -t er m c ar e .
Call for a FREE 1 / 2 -H our Consult at ion
8 4 7. 29 2. 12 20
www. AB Fer r ar oL aw.c om
Columb ia Ce nt er I ♦ 5 60 0 N. Rive r Rd. ♦ S uit e 76 4 ♦ Rose mont, I L
Condolences
STUART H. WOLF
Stuart was a one of the most beloved members of
the NWSBA and served as President of the NWSBA
in 1991-1992. We offer our condolences to his wife
Rona and their children.
ROBERT THOMAS ETCHINGHAM
Our sympathies to NWSBA members James Etchingham and Joseph Etchingham and their families on the
recent loss of their father, Robert.
Newsbriefs - 27
Newsbriefs - 26
NORTHWEST SUBURBAN BAR ASSOCIATION
Pub Trawlers
DECEMBER
Bulletin Board
Ads are $20.00 per month and are published as a service to our Members. Call 847-221-2601
Office Space
ROSEMONT- Two individual offices (11.5 X 12 app.) available for rent
in four attorney office suite. Office rental includes use of conference room
and kitchen area. Secretarial space for rent with office. Also offering law
firm conference room rental at $45.00 per hour, seating for 8+. Ample
parking. Internet and phone wired. Contact Maria L. Delia at
847/298-3886.
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Offices for rent near third District. Please call
Gary @ 847-797-8000
There will be no Pub Trawler Event
this month!
Referrals
The NWSBA and
the Membership Committee
would like to wish you all a
Happy Holiday Season!
The Next Pub Trawlers is scheduled for
January 17, 2013
Location and Guest T/B/A
PUB TRAWLER SPONSORSHIPS:
$275 Per Event (Standard) . $350 Per Event (With Website Banner Advertising)
If you have suggestions for a special guest or are interested in being a sponsor, please contact:
Colin Gilbert: cgilbert@kbdpc.com 847-934-6000
Joseph Vito: jvito@amfam.com 847-247-9548
Jessica Oefelein: joefelein@ldolaw.com 847-240-5500
800 E. Northwest Highway
Suite 418
Palatine, IL 60074
847-221-2601 www.nwsba.org
SUPER LAWYER & AV rated Employment Lawyer in Skokie. Laurie J.
Wasserman represents clients in statutory claims for discrimination (including disability, sex [including sexual harassment, sexual orientation,
and glass ceiling], pregnancy, age, religion, race, and national origin), Family and Medical Leave Act, and Wage and Hour; and drafting/litigation re
employment contracts, non-compete agreements, trade secrets agreements,
retaliation and whistleblowing. Telephone: (847) 674-7324;
Email: ljw@webemploymentlaw.com;
Web: www.webemploymentlaw.com
WHY WASTE TIME? Very experienced Per Diem attorney available to
cover any type of court appearance, i.e., motions, trial calls, pre-trials, status calls, case management conferences, etc., at any courthouse in Cook,
Lake, McHenry, Kane, DuPage, Will, Grudy, DeKalb, Kendall, Boone,
Winnebago, and Kankakee Counties, etc. Emergency calls are fine. I
may be briefed by phone and material FAXed. Very reasonable fee. Law
clerking services available-will handle filings, etc. Please call Karen Lake
at (312)726-6920.
REAL ESTATE TAX REDUCTION REFERRALS
Amari & Locallo, whose practice is confined exclusively to real estate tax
assessment process, is accepting referrals of commercial, industrial and
multi-unit residential properties (seven units or more) from fellow NWSBA attorneys. Co-counsel fees provided: Note all properties in the City
of Chicago are being reassessed in 2012. Amari & Locallo has offices
in DuPage County to service the real estate tax needs of property owners
in collar counties: Lake, Will, Kane, McHenry, DuPage, etc. Properties
located anywhere in Illinois will be reviewed without cost or commitment.
Call Katherine Amari O’Dell at (312) 255-8550.
DISPUTES re: INSURANCE BENEFITS Experienced attorney (both
Plaintiff and Defense) seeks referrals of disputes with Insurers and Employers of Employee benefit matters, especially of disability cases, as well as life
and health insurance cases. Includes ERISA (employee covered lawsuits)
federal actions, as well as Insurance Policy matters. Please call ROBERT
H. MILLER at (847) 454-4509 or E-Mail to litmgt@att.net.
DON’T WANT TO LEAVE COOK COUNTY? No problem. We are open
7 days a week. Mon-Sat 10am to 9pm and Sunday 11-6pm. Located inside
the Westfield Fox Valley Shopping Center, Fox Valley Law Center Ltd. is
accepting referrals in bankruptcy, criminal, immigration, family law and
much more. Our bilingual attorneys and staff can assist your clients in
Kane, Will, Dupage, Kendall, and Dekalb counties. Call us at 630-2362222 to schedule a consultation. The $100 consultation fee will be credited
towards their retainer.
PROBATE & CHANCERY LITIGATION & PROBATE ADMINISTRATION. Avble for referrals, consultations and assistance w/regard to
Probate Contests and Administration & Chancery Litigation (Probaterelated, Trusts, Family disputes, Accounting and Partition, & more) Call
Cary Lind
INCOME TAX DEFENSE AND LITIGATION. Richard M. Colombik
& Associates, P.C. focuses on IRS & State tax defense, tax court litigation, asset protection & complex income tax reduction and is available
for referrals. Co-counsel fees provided. Extensive experience in all levels
of IRS & State Dept of Revenue defense, including admin. review, appellate process, tax court litigation & appellate court work. From audits
thru the Supreme Court, we can defend & represent your clients. Call
Richard Colombik, JD, CPA, or Judith Gilliland, JD 630-250-5700. Info
at www.colombik.com.
FEDERAL AND ILLINOIS TAX LITIGATOR/CONSULTANT. Thirty-five years of experience, former Big 8 tax partner. Income, estate
and sales tax. Business transactions and tax controversies. Tax court,
administrative review, revenue agent exams, offer in compromise, and
innocent spouse relief. Referral fees and co-counsel arrangements.
Free consultations. Christopher M. Saternus, Attorney at Law and
C.P.A. 847-437-9434. cmsaternus@msn.com.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION: Very experienced in work injury
claims. Trial, Appeals, Uninsured and all aspects of Work Comp.
At Newland & Newland LLP we would like to help your clients and
look forward to your referrals. We represent clients in Cook, Lake,
McHenry, DuPage, Kane and Will Counties. Call Gary A. Newland
847-797-8000.
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE: Experienced Lawyers in Foreclosure
Defense. We can help your clients with all aspects of foreclosure
defense in Chicago and Lake, McHenry, DuPage, Kane and Will Counties. We practice Foreclosure Defense in Federal and State Court as
well. Experienced with Robo Signing and other defenses.Call Gary A.
Newland 847-797-8000.
MOCK TRIAL UPDATE
Presiding and Scoring
Judge Volunteers:
Save the Date:
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2013
Please note that this year’s competition
is being held on a THURSDAY afternoon/early evening due to the closing of
the Cook County Courthouses on the
weekends.
Please call the Association office to
volunteer: 847-221-2601
Northwest Suburban Bar Association
800 E. Northwest Highway, Suite 502
Palatine, IL 60074
Phone: 847-221-2601 Fax: 847-221-2844
Attorney Referral: 847-221-2681
www.nwsba.org
Non-Profit
Organization
U.S. Postage Paid
Palatine, IL 60095
Permit No. 2522
Newsbriefs - 28
CALENDAR
December 6
Holiday Party & Amendment to Bylaws Vote
January 17
Pub Trawler
January 24
Winter Dinner Meeting
February 21
Mock Trial (Please Note This is a Thursday)
The NWSBA will be collecting non-perishable food items on
December 6, 2012 at the Annual Holiday Party at Retro Bistro.
All donations will be delivered December 7th
to the Wheeling Township Food Pantry.