Illinois Supreme Court

More than 600 new attorneys will be admitted to practice in Illinois on Thursday, May 9 with Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court presiding and administering the attorney’s oath at five separate locations.

All of the candidates have passed the Illinois state bar examination, an ethics examination, and have been certified by the Committee on Character and Fitness.

The largest group, 467, will be admitted in the First Judicial District during ceremonies starting at 10:30 a.m. at the Arie Crown Theatre. Illinois Supreme Court Justice Charles E. Freeman will preside, with Justices Anne M. Burke and Mary Jane Theis participating.

Appellate Court Justice Maureen E. Connors from the First Judicial District will make the motion to admit the class.

The 668 men and women were certified as candidates and will be sworn in as Illinois attorneys Thursday at ceremonies in the five Supreme Court judicial districts.

Here are the time and locations of Thursday’s ceremonies:

Justice Moses W. Harrison II

"My former colleague, friend and mentor Chief Justice Harrison will be remembered as a prominent judge in Illinois legal history not because he was a great man, but because he never lost sight of the common man," said Chief Justice Thomas L. Kilbride "His commitment to equality and fairness went well beyond his simple, succinct, yet superlative opinions. He treated all people in all stations in life with the same kindness, dignity and respect. That fundamental decency guided his work as a judge, and his work guided Illinois law.

"Illinois is a sadder place today because of his death, but it will forever be a better place because of his life."

Justice Harrison was a member of the Illinois judiciary for 29 years; a member of the Illinois Supreme Court for 10 years; and Chief Justice from Jan. 1, 2000 to September 5, 2002, when he retired. His legacy is quite larger.

A Chicago Tribune profile in 1999 described him as "a gentleman rebel, a distinctly gracious man whose convictions are firm and manners mild."

During his tenure on the Supreme Court, he was most known and honored for demonstrating a commitment to justice and human welfare, writing—either for the majority or in dissent—to defend the poor, the weak, the young and the elderly against corporate or government policies which went against their interests.

Russell v. SNFA

By Alyssa M. Reiter, Williams, Montgomery & John Ltd.

This helicopter-crash case provoked two important long-arm-jurisdiction issues: whether due process protection under the Illinois long-arm statute is greater than federal due process protectionsand whether to apply a narrow or broad version of the stream-of-commerce theory.

Defendant SNFA manufactured a custom tail-rotor bearing in France used in a helicopter manufactured by an Italian company. That manufacturer’s wholly-owned subsidiary located in Pennsylvania sells defendant-produced parts and sells helicopters incorporating defendant’s parts. SNFA knew that the manufacturer incorporated its products into its helicopters for sale in America but did not know the final destination.

SNFA does not have any direct United States customers for its custom-made helicopter parts. SNFA does not have any offices, property, assets or employees in Illinois.

Since 1997, SNFA has sold aerospace bearings to a company located in Rockford. Those bearings are a different model and type from those involved in this case. 

A helicopter containing an SNFA part crashed in Illinois.

The Illinois Supreme Court announced Monday the applicable dates for new rules aimed at mitigating abuses and uncertainty in mortgage foreclosures, and helping those who face the loss of their homes by imposing several requirements on mediation programs and lenders seeking to foreclosure.

The rules were announced February 22, and their effective date is May 1.

However, under amendments filed on Monday Supreme Court Rule 114, which requires a lender to attest that the lender has complied with the requirements of any applicable loss mitigation program, will apply to all judgments on or after the May 1 effective date of the rule no matter the foreclosure filing date.

"Because the affidavit (required under Rule 114) must be filed prior to the entry of a foreclosure judgement, the effective date requires application to any case where a judgment of foreclosure has not yet been entered," state amended comments to Rule 114. "Thus, although a case may already have been filed prior to the effective date (May 1) of Rule 114, the Rule would apply if a judgment of foreclosure has not yet been entered."

Supreme Court Rule 113, which establishes practices and procedures in mortgage foreclosure cases, was amended to make clear that it applies only to those foreclosure actions filed on or after the effective date of May 1, 2013.