The bill underwent several changes before being passed.  Most notably, there is no authority to prosecute minors disseminating  ”sext messages” depicting themselves.  The original bill made it a Class B misdemeanor  for any minor under 17 to send any nude photograph or other depiction of sexual conduct via electronic means.  There were also criminal violations for minors who request and distribute the offending pictures.  The harshest proposed penalties were for those who post the pictures to websites with the intent of causing emotional distress to the person depicted.

The new law sets out to protect minors from other minors sending around nude pictures, and imposes a juvenile justice theory of rehabilitation rather than true punishment.

There are very strong opinions about minors and sexuality.  The facts, however, are that people under the age of 18 have sexual relationships with each other all of the time.  It seems that the Illinois General Assembly has acknowledged that in not prohibiting a minor from sending sexually explicit images of him or herself to others.

There are strong freedom of speech and privacy arguments at play in the issue of whether or not minors should be prohibited from engaging in this type of communication.  There is even a practical consideration that even if it were a misdemeanor for Romeo and Juliet to send sexual pictures to each other, there are scant enough resources to seriously prosecute the offenses.  There are probably a dozen Romeos and Juliets in every single eight grade class.

When things are not necessarily illegal, but also not right, it’s time for good parenting to come into play.  Minors may not understand the concept that nude photos sent over an internet or phone connection can last forever, and can, in a very short time, make it into the wrong hands.  Now, in Illinois, if these images are passed around by another kid, they may be getting a hands-on lesson in the juvenile justice system.  Anyone can still be prosecuted for child pornography, disorderly conduct, public indecency, or a violation of the harassing and obscene communications act.

Most people have strong opinions about this topic.  Please sound off respectfully in the comments.

The Illinois Supreme Court Rules committee with hold a public hearing next Wednesday, July 28th to address changes in the civil discovery rules.  This is the chance to voice concerns about any of the implications of the proposed changes.

Once change lifts the prohibition of using a party’s discovery deposition as evidence when the party is unavailable.  This is, of course, tempered by the requirement for the trial court to find that it will do substantial justice.  This change was prompted by Berry v. American Standard, Inc., 382 Ill.App.3d 895 (5th Dist. 2008), a mesothelioma litigation in which the plaintiff died before trial, but whose discovery deposition was inadmissible because of the express bar in the rules from using a party’s discovery deposition as evidence at trial.

Changes would allow any party to take a deposition by telephone, video conference or other remote electronic means by stating in the notice of deposition the specific electronic means to be used. Currently, agreement of the parties or court order is required for depositions by electronic means.  The new comments state their reason for changing this rule is the general acceptance of telephone depositions by the legal community.

The other change to be address allows any attorney licensed in Illinois to issue subpoenas in a pending action, except discovery depositions to nonparty physicians. Currently, only the court clerk is allowed to issue subpoenas upon request.  In my opinion, this should simplify discovery for most, although some entities will probably challenge attorney-issued subpoenas when the first wave of them are sent out.

The complete texts of the proposals can be found here.

Lisa Solomon is one of the most active and visible freelance lawyers on the web.  Today, she has made available a new guide entitled, “Associates? I Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Associates! Why Solos and Small Law Firms Should Work With Contract Lawyers and How to Do It.”

For any small firm lawyer, this is a great introduction to working with people like Lisa and myself.  Lisa succinctly illustrates the advantages of working with a freelance lawyer for legal writing and research services.  She also provides a guide for hiring and working with one of us.

I owe a lot to Lisa for getting me started in this line of work, and much of the structure of how I work was influenced by her.  So, if you are interested in working with a contract attorney, you will find that my practices fit all of the recommendations that Lisa lists in her guide.

Thanks, Lisa for being such a strong advocate for this type of work!

It’s funny how the brain works.  I was using Westlaw today, and ended up clicking on the parent company Thomsen Reuters’ site.  This lead me to the BarBri website.  This got me to thinking about how exciting and challenging it would be to study and take another bar exam.

Then it dawned on me; the summer I studied for the Illinois bar exam was one of the least enjoyable of my life!  Well, it was at the time.  In retrospect, I accomplished so very much and was as focused as a laser sight.  I couldn’t possibly afford to take another bar exam just for the challenge of it, but maybe it’s time to set some goals for writing one of the academic papers that I have rolling around in the back of my mind.  I just need to do so soul searching to decide which one is really the one that needs to get out of me right now.  Public Aid Reform?  Ethical challenges I’ve faced?  Working on high publicity criminal cases?  The experiences of gifted adults working as attorneys?  Help me out with some comments!

An article today at Law.com suggests that there is a new model in big law firms.  Hourly contract attorneys, supplied by large staffing companies are replacing “armies” of young associates.

This model, contract attorneys performing document review for large litigation cases, has been in existence for some time.  The article sites technological advances that make it even more efficient for the hiring firms to work with contract attorneys.  The hiring firm no longer has to host the contract attorneys in their offices.  Rather, the attorneys are given remote access to the law firm’s computer files.  This is not only true for the big staffing companies.

On this website, any attorney who hires me for contract work can upload any documents that I may need, from pleadings to discovery.  No shipping of large files required, as long as the files are in electronic format.  There is no staffing agency to serve as a middleman.  I have less overhead, and pass on that savings to the attorneys who hire me.  Unlike staffing agencies, my services can go beyond the typical document review.  I specialize in legal research and writing, and can do almost anything short of meeting with clients and making court appearances.

The absence of face-time at the hiring firm makes working with a staffing company less appealing for some lawyers.  Many who have signed up for these legal staffing companies are in the midst of a search for a permanent position.  They may even work harder and more efficiently when on-site, because of the potential of being asked to join the firm at which they are working.  Hiring firms must be aware of this when working with attorneys from large staffing companies.  Working with me is different.  I work off-site all of the time, and I am not looking for an associate position at a law firm.  I own my practice, specializing in what I love to do.  I take enormous pride in my work and I rely on happy clients to send more work my way.

If you are interested in utilizing a contract attorney, and prefer not to work with a large legal staffing company, please contact me.

This article on the WSJ Law Blog brings to mind one of the most refreshing idea about working as a freelance/contract attorney.  I agree that big law firms may have to change their business model in the so-called “new economy.”  Mass layoffs of part-time employees is not good; but is perhaps a good sign that there is need for change.

I can save my clients, big firms or small, money that otherwise might be spent on associates, overhead, and benefits.  As someone who loves to work independently, I do not have to worry about the political structure of a law firm.  My clients can even profit from my work, not only in the savings earned by working with a freelancer, but when charging their clients for the work that I have done.

\

It is wonderful to see the Los Angeles Times’ positive story about solo practitioners.  Add to the fact that my lifeline, the Solosez listserve is mentioned, and I give the article an A+.