Category: Uncategorized

Illinois Supreme Court Rules 6-Person Jury Act Unconstitutional

trial by jury Illinois Supreme CourtIn an opinion released this morning, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the right of trial by jury includes the right to demand a 12-member jury. In Kakos v. Butler, 2016 IL 120377, the Court held that Public Act 98-1132, which bars a litigant from exercising this right, and the statute it amended, 735 ILCS 5/2-1105(b), were “facially unconstitutional.” Kakos, 2016 IL 120377, ¶ 37. Because the provision regarding jury size could not be severed from the entirety of the Act, the Court invalidated the entire Act.

Public Act 98-1132 (effective June 1, 2015), which amended section 2-1105(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, limited the size of a civil jury to six persons and increased the amount paid per juror across the state. In Kakos, the plaintiffs filed a complaint at law alleging multiple counts of negligence and loss of consortium against the defendants. The defendants then moved to request a 12-person jury and sought a declaration that P.A. 98-1132 was unconstitutional. The circuit court agreed with the defendants and granted the motion, finding that the Act was facially unconstitutional and violated separation of powers. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court as a matter of right under Rule 302(a).

According to the Supreme Court, “it is clear that the drafters of the 1970 Illinois Constitution intended for the essential common-law features of a jury trial as then employed to be preserved and protected.” Kakos, 2016 IL 120377, ¶ 36. The Court said that Article I, section 13, of the Illinois Constitution “reveals an intent on the part of the drafters to maintain common-law characteristics of jury trials.”Id. Article I, section 13, provides: “The right of trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate.” Id. ¶ 13. According to the Court, “[t]he phrase ‘as heretofore enjoyed’ plainly indicates that the drafters intended for certain characteristics of a jury trial to be maintained.” Id. It further observed, “[t]his court has long interpreted the phrase ‘as heretofore enjoyed’ to mean ‘the right of a trial by jury as it existed under the common law and as enjoyed at the time of the adoption of the respective Illinois constitutions.’” Id. ¶ 14.

The Court said that it “has long included the 12-person size of a jury within its descriptions of the essential features of a jury trial.” Id. ¶ 36. The “transcripts from the convention debates,” the Court explained, “make clear that the drafters did not believe the legislature had the authority to reduce the size of a jury below 12 members and the drafters did not act to give the legislature such power.” Id. The Act and statutory amendment violated Article I, section 13.

The decision, authored by Justice Garman, was 5-0, with Justices Thomas and Kilbride taking no part.

ARTICLE BY Brad Elward of Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.C.

© 2016 Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.C

Double Your Law Firm’s Lead Conversion Rates with This Proven System (Part 1 of 3)

lead conversion generationThe purpose of marketing is to generate leads. The purpose of your intake system is to convert those leads into clients. To take your law firm to the next level, you need both lead generation and lead conversion. The problem is most attorneys spend all their time and money focusing on getting more and more leads, but fail to recognize that what you do with those opportunities is just as important as generating them.

Over the last 16 years, we have developed a proven intake and lead conversion system that has doubled the conversion rates of thousands of attorneys all across the nation. It consists of four major components:

  1. Training for your front office and intake staff;

  2. Specific tactics and strategies to maximize your conversion at each stage;

  3. An intake customer relationship management (CRM) software that automatically tracks and follows up with every lead; and

  4. Tracking and measurement of key metrics.

Today’s post covers #1:

#1: Training for Front Office and Intake Staff
Most law firms have a receptionist, but a receptionist is very different from an intake person. When hiring someone to handle calls from prospects, you are not looking for a receptionist. You are essentially looking for a sales person – someone who feels very comfortable “selling” over the phone. They are selling prospects on why they shouldn’t try to handle their legal problem on their own and why they should come in for a consultation. One of the biggest mistakes for consumer law firms is having an untrained, minimum wage receptionist handling calls from prospects. The only thing worse is to have a paralegal or attorney handle incoming calls. Why is that worse? Because in our experience, 99 percent of the time, they are terrible at it. Paralegals and associates see these calls as an interruption to their day.

Here are the major areas your intake staff should be trained on:

  • How to quickly qualify or disqualify prospects (this should be no more than four to six questions).

  • Precisely what information you want collected: name, phone, email, reason for call.

  • Talking points on exactly how you want the phone answered.

  • Answers to the most frequently asked questions prospects call about.

  • Scripts for when they leave voicemail messages.

  • Brief guide on how to use your phone system.

  • How to use your lead tracking system or intake CRM.

  • Your firm’s relevant information, such as website, address, driving directions to your local office.

  • Protocol on expectations on how, when and how frequently to follow up with prospects.

  • Top three reasons why they should come in for a consultation (for local clients).

  • Top three to five reasons why they should hire you. What makes your firm unique?

  • How, when and with whom to set appointments for initial consultations.

  • What to do when you don’t know how to handle a prospect.

  • Key phrases of empathy and support.

  • How to control the call for when prospects want to talk too much.

  • Sample intake form filled out correctly as a guide.

  • Training on how to use any software required of them.

Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) and Vermont Agree to Drop GMO Lawsuit

GMO LawsuitThe food industry, led by the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA), and Vermont have agreed to dismiss a federal lawsuit that challenged a state law requiring the labeling of certain foods made with genetically modified organisms.

Vermont’s labeling requirements for genetically modified (GM) foods have been preempted by the recent enactment of federal GM labeling legislation which establishes a “National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard” and calls for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to “establish a national mandatory bioengineered food disclosure standard”.  On August 11, 2016, Vermont’s Attorney General (AG) issued a formal memo stating that the AG’s office will no longer enforce the state’s requirements.  Still pending on appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, however, was a federal court case filed by food industry groups against the state of Vermont challenging the state GMO labeling law.

Earlier this week, the parties to the lawsuit agreed the suit was no longer warranted because a new federal law preempted the Vermont law that took effect July 1, 2016.

The dismissal of the legal challenge to Vermont’s GMO labeling law represents the formal conclusion of a particularly controversial chapter in the GM labeling debate that involved sparring over the potential development of a patchwork of conflicting labeling requirements across the 50 states.  With the conclusion of the Vermont GMO labeling law saga, industry can now work with USDA to develop uniform federal regulation for labeling GMO foods.

ARTICLE BY Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman of Keller and Heckman LLP
© 2016 Keller and Heckman LLP

Students May Now Organize… For the Time Being – Flip Flops in the Summer

union, organize, National Labor Relations ActThe issue of whether students may be considered employees for purposes of organizing under the National Labor Relations Act has been a hotly contested issue over the past decade.  On August 23, 2016, the Board reversed itself again and held that certain students at Columbia University are able to organize under the NLRA.

For many years, students who provided teaching and other services to their college or university in the course of their studies were not considered employees for the purposes of organizing under the NLRA. Adelphi University, 195 NLRB 639 (1972);  The Leland Stamford Junior University, 214 NLRB 621 (1974).  The Board long held that the relationship between graduate students and their university was primarily that of a student and not a statutory employee.

In 2000, the Board reversed its position and held that students may in fact qualify as employees under the Act.  New York University, 332 NLRB 1205 (2000).  Four years later, holding that students have a “primarily educational, not economic, relationship with their university,” the Board reversed itself again and returned to holding that students were not employees under the Act.  Brown University, 342 NLRB 483 (2004).

Yesterday, three members of the Board voted to reverse Brown University and held that students at Columbia University may organize under the Act.  In doing so, the Board observed that there were several public universities where students were represented by labor unions and that there was no empirical evidence that collective bargaining by student assistants would harm the educational process.

Who knows how long the Columbia University decision will remain the law.  Much will likely depend on who wins in November.  Stay tuned!

ARTICLE BY Michael Colgan Harrington of Murtha Cullina

© Copyright 2016 Murtha Cullina

Increased Penalties for Immigration-Related Violations

increased immigration penaltiesThe U.S. Department of Justice has issued a new rule increasing penalties against employers for various immigration-related violations. The new penalty structure applies to civil penalties assessed after August 1, 2016, whose associated violations occurred after November 2, 2015.

Given the significant increase in penalties for immigration-related violations, employers should use particular care when dealing with I-9 form completion and other immigration-related employment processes and practices. We recommend that all employers perform an annual internal I-9 audit and consider periodic I-9 audits by third parties. Please refer to our prior alert as guidance when performing internal I-9 audits.

The penalty structure for first violations is set forth below. Increased penalties for repeat violations are also in effect.

New and Old Penalty Comparison

Type of Violation

Old Penalty Structure

New Penalty Structure

I-9 Verification Paperwork

$110 – $1,110

$216 – $2,156

Unlawful Employment of Unauthorized Workers

$375 – $3,200

$539 – $4,313

Unfair Employment Practices (Includes Discrimination)

$375 – $445

$3,200 – $3,563

Unfair Employment Practices (Document Abuse)

$110 – $1,100

$178 – $1,782

H-1B Violations (Includes Filing Fees Paid by Employee, LCA Public Access File Violations)

Maximum $1,000

Maximum $1,782

H-1B Violations (Includes Discrimination, Willful Failure Pertaining to Wages/Working Conditions)

Maximum $5,000

Maximum $7,251

H-1B Violations (Includes Certain Displacement of U.S. Workers)

Maximum $35,000

Maximum $50,758

H-2B Violations (Includes Failure to Pay Wages, Unlawful Termination)

Maximum $10,000

Maximum $11,940
ARTICLE BY Kelly M. Fortier, José A. Olivieri & Kelly R. Rourke of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

Join the National Association of Minority & Women Owned Law Firms for their 2016 Annual Meeting, September 14-16 in Houston, Texas

Join NAMWOLF at the 2016 Annual Meeting & Expo in Houston, Texas. The Annual Meeting is a great opportunity to increase your participation and relationships with NAMWOLF Law Firm Members. All attendees further benefit by attending CLE sessions specific to Law Firm Member practice areas, which provides greater insight into each Law Firm Member’s experience and capability to handle complex legal matters.

NAMWOLF Annual Meeting

The NAMWOLF Annual Meeting & Law Firm Expo is a three-day conference providing unique opportunities to connect corporate counsel from Fortune 1000 companies and minority and women owned law firms. The conference features NAMWOLF’s signature event, the Law Firm Expo, which provides an opportunity for In-House Counsel to meet with the Nation’s top minority and women owned law firms in a relaxed networking environment. We provide top notch continuing legal education and networking.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Visit www.namwolfmeetings.org  for the conference schedule, room block information, and registration information.

Emergencies on Campus: Is Your Institution Prepared?

emergency preparedness college campusLast week, El Centro College, a community college located in the heart of Dallas, found itself in the middle of the crossfire during the sniper shooting that killed five police officers and wounded several others.  The event was supposed to be a peaceful protest over recent police shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota. Thanks to a decision by college administrators, El Centro was already on lockdown when the shooting took place as a precautionary measure in anticipation of the protest.  Thus, students and faculty were safely contained during the crossfire.

According to the latest reports from the Chronicle of Higher Education, El Centro dispatched a campus-wide notification approximately forty minutes after the shooting had started, advising students to shelter-in-place. According to the Chronicle, some students are critical of how the college handled the situation, suggesting that the school should have been quicker to dispatch an alert.

To enhance student and staff safety, and to minimize liability risks in these challenging times, colleges and universities should review their policies and procedures on emergency preparedness, including protocols for communicating to faculty, students, and staff members during an emergency.  Further, the Clery Act requires all federally-funded institutions to disseminate timely warnings and emergency notifications.  Additionally, institutions may wish to provide their faculty, students, and staff members with training on emergency situations.

ARTICLE BY Gillian R. Flick & Julie A. Moore of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC

© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

Happy Independence Day!

american flags

Happy 4th of July!

From your friends at the

National Law Review

Gender Neutral Restrooms Now Required in NYC

gender neutral restroomsOn June 28, 2016, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed legislation passed earlier this month by The New York City Council to amend the City’s administrative code, plumbing code and building code to require gender neutral restrooms. The new law applies to businesses and other establishments in the City’s five boroughs with existing single-occupancy, publicly-accessible restrooms. The law does not require businesses to build new single-occupant restrooms, nor does it affect larger restrooms with multiple single-stalls.

Instead, the law prohibits the labelling of single-occupant restrooms as gender-specific. Beginning January 1, 2017, signs designating single-person restrooms for one gender, i.e., “men” and “women,” must be removed and replaced with signs for all sexes.  Employers with establishments in the City that may be affected should take advantage of the lead time to ensure compliance.

ARTICLE BY Laura A. Stutz of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
©2016 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Los Angeles Employers Must Pay Higher Minimum Wages And Provide Expanded Paid Sick Leave

higher minimum wagesOn July 1, 2016, employers who have more than 25 employees performing some work in the City of Los Angeles (the “City”) will need to provide higher minimum wages and six paid sick days per year. Employers with fewer workers in the City will need to expand sick leave benefits by July 1, 2016, but they will not be subject to minimum wage hikes until the same day next year.

Earlier this month, the City Council passed the Los Angeles Minimum Wage Ordinance (Ordinance No. 184320) (the “City Ordinance”) requiring employers to pay a higher minimum wage and provide more sick leave benefits than state law. A summary of the City Ordinance is below, but employers with questions regarding compliance should contact their employment counsel.

Minimum Wage Increases

The City Ordinance raises the minimum wage as follows:

26 Employees
Or More 

25 Employees 

Or Less

July 1, 2016

$10.50

$10.00

July 1, 2017

$12.00

$10.50

July 1, 2018

$13.25

$12.00

July 1, 2019

$14.25

$13.25

July 1, 2020

$15.00

$14.25

July 1, 2021

$15.00

$15.00

On July 1, 2022, and every following year, the minimum wage will increase based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the City’s metropolitan area. Beginning in 2022, the City’s Office of Wage Standards of the Bureau of Contract Administration will publish additional minimum wage increases on February 1 of each year, with the increases taking effect on July 1 of each year.

Notably, this new law defines “Employee” as a person who: (1) “in a particular week performs at least two hours of work within the geographic boundaries of the City for an Employer”; and (2) qualifies as an employee entitled to receive the state-mandated minimum wage. The average number of Employees, as defined above, for the previous calendar year will be used to determine the size of an employer. Any new employer must count the total number of Employees, as defined above, during its first pay period.

The City Ordinance requires increases to the minimum wage sooner than the anticipated raises in California’s state-wide minimum wage, which will be set for employers with more than 25 employees to $10.50 on January 1, 2017, with gradual increases to ultimately $15.00 per hour on January 1, 2022. For smaller employers (25 employees or less) the gradual increases in state-wide minimum wage (much like the City Ordinance) will be delayed one year. Employers with exempt employees, however, should note that local minimum wage hikes (such as the City Ordinance) do not affect the minimum salary requirements to qualify for various wage and hour exemptions under state law. For example, the executive, administrative and professional exemptions—which permit employers to pay certain qualifying employees a salary instead of hourly wages with overtime—require a minimum monthly salary equivalent of at least twice the state-wide minimum wage.

The law also contains special provisions for nonprofit and transitional employers as well as for employers with employees who are 14 to 17 years old.

Expansion of Paid Sick Leave

The ordinance also provides six paid sick days (instead of the state-mandated three days) to Employees who, on or after July 1, 2016, work in the City for the same employer for 30 days or more within a year from his or her employment start date. The main requirements include:

  • Paid sick leave must accrue on the first day of employment, or July 1, 2016, whichever is later;

  • An Employee may use paid sick leave beginning on the 90th day of employment, or July 1, 2016, whichever is later;

  • An Employee may take up to 48 hours (i.e., six work days) of sick leave for themselves, a family member, or “any individual related by blood or affinity whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship” in each year of employment, calendar year, or 12 month period;

  • Employers must provide paid sick leave either by: (1) granting the entire 48 hours to an Employee at the beginning of each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period; or (2) using an accrual rate of one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked;

  • If an employer has a paid leave or paid time off policy (or provides payment for compensated time off) that is at least 48 hours, no additional time is required;

  • Accrued unused paid sick leave must carry over to the next year, but employers may implement a cap of at least 72 hours;

  • An employer may require an Employee to provide reasonable documentation of the reason for sick leave (though employers still must be cautious of state medical privacy laws);

  • Like state law, accrued unused paid sick leave is not payable upon termination of employment; and

  • If the Employee separates from employment and then is rehired within one year, then the employer must reinstate the Employee’s previously accrued and unused paid sick leave.

A separate but related ordinance (the Los Angeles Office of Wage Standards Ordinance, Ordinance No. 184319) passed by the City provides for restitution and additional penalties for failure to comply with the above standards, and it also requires every Employer to post the notice published each year by the Office of Wage Standards. The notice must be in English, Spanish, Chinese (Cantonese and Mandarin), Hindi, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Korean, Japanese, Thai, Armenian, Russian and Farsi, and any other language spoken by at least five percent of the Employees at the workplace. This notice can be found online at: http://wagesla.lacity.org/.

ARTICLE BY Benjamin J. Kim of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
© 2010-2016 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP