Asked and Answered  By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC Q. I am the sole owner of a five-attorney litigation firm in Mesa, Arizona. I started the firm 12 years ago after leaving a large firm. I was an income partner in that firm. For a few years I operated as a solo with a legal assistant. Then I began adding associates and staff. Now we have four associates, an office manager/bookkeeper, two paralegals, and two legal assistants. Our annual gross fee revenues are around $1.2 million, the overhead is high, and my net income is not all that much more than what I was making as a solo. My associates aren’t willing to put in the time to generate the billable hours that we need. Then there is the time and stress of managing all of this. Is growth a good thing?

Blockchain may dramatically reduce the cost of processing mortgage applications and provide for transparent, secure transactions and efficient recordkeeping. But the strengths and limitations of blockchain should be better understood before replacing a title system that has been in place for more than 140 years in Illinois, argues Paul Peterson in his February 2019 article, “Problems Blockchain Doesn’t Solve,” for the Illinois Bar Journal. Peterson, vice president and senior underwriter for the Fidelity Family of Title Insurers, vice-chair of ISBA's Construction Law Section Council, and a member of ISBA's Real Estate Law Section Council, outlines record-validating problems that blockchain technology has yet to crack.

Do you know how to determine which chapter of bankruptcy your client needs? Are you familiar with the rights of both a landlord and a tenant in a bankruptcy case? Do you understand the interplay between a divorce and a simultaneous bankruptcy? Join us March 8 in Chicago or via live webcast for a look at the current developments and cutting-edge issues that you need to be aware of to effectively advise your client on all aspects of their bankruptcy case.

The Illinois Supreme Court announced today several changes to the assessment system by which fees, fines, and other court costs are paid by civil and criminal case litigants. These changes are a result of Public Act 100-0987, which was passed by the legislature in 2018 in order to simplify the imposition, collection, and distribution of court assessments. The changes include Civil Assessment Schedules as well as fee waivers in amended Rule 298 and new Rule 404. The changes are effective July 1, and the new assessment structure, not including the waivers, expires Jan. 1, 2021.