Background and Regulatory Context

Thirty states, including Illinois, have designated English as their official language. However, the United States doesn’t have a law establishing English as the country’s official language outside of an Executive Order. Nevertheless, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has effectively gained a new enforcement role: policing English language compliance.

In 2025, the White House issued Executive Order No. 14286, which set stricter enforcement of the longstanding English language proficiency requirement for commercial motor vehicle drivers. The English requirement for commercial motor vehicle drivers is not new. What is new is how strictly it will now be…
Continue Reading English: The Official Language of Commercial Transportation

The Case

Zhao[i] involved a coverage dispute over a homeowner’s hail damage claim and the cost of repair/replacement under the homeowner’s policy.

During the initial claims process, both sides obtained damage estimates. Those estimates reflected a sizeable gulf in covered damage. That dispute led to the policyholder invoking the policy’s appraisal provision, which the insurance carrier resisted. The policyholder then filed a coverage action in court.

The trial court found for the policyholder and ordered the matter to appraisal, reasoning that the dispute concerned the extent of damages, not coverage. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the decision to…
Continue Reading Appellate Court Expands Role of Insurance Appraisal Process to Include Causation Issues

The Case

Montgomery[i] involved a 2017 motor vehicle accident where an interstate motor carrier’s employee veered off Illinois Interstate 70 while driving a tractor-trailer on the job, ultimately striking a stopped driver, Shawn Montgomery, and causing Mr. Montgomery significant lasting injury and disfigurement. Montgomery’s leg ended up being amputated as a result of his injuries, and he sued the driver, the driver’s motor carrier employer (Caribe Transport II), and the freight broker (C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.) that arranged the shipment with Caribe II that resulted in the accident at issue.

In part, Montgomery’s lawsuit alleged that the broker was…
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Rules in Favor of Negligent Hiring Freight Broker Suits

It Usually Works—Until It Doesn’t

Illinois courts used to show some leniency when attorneys missed filing deadlines because of electronic filing issues. That window may be closed. As the e‑filing system has matured, so has the judiciary’s expectation that practitioners understand it and follow its rules. Recent case law makes clear that Rule 9 is no longer a broad safety net for late filings.

That reality matters because deadline issues rarely arise in a vacuum. The siren song of procrastination has, presumably, called to nearly every human being, including lawyers. Whether it was during law school, practice, or even writing…
Continue Reading Illinois Courts No Longer Excuse Late E-Filing

Trial lawyers really have little choice; they must adapt to the changing technology environment or fall behind. But recent court guidance reveals that in important areas, old rules still apply to new challenges posed by using artificial intelligence, even if the adequacy of old rules is debatable.  So far, courts are not creating a special AI privilege; instead, they are applying old doctrines to new tools. The practical lesson is that courts are applying ordinary privilege and discovery rules and common confidentiality and privacy protections rather than creating special AI rules.

Privilege and Attorney Work Product Issues

The two most…
Continue Reading Generative AI: Practical Advice for Trial Lawyers

What the Martin v. Layman Decision Adds

Illinois’ Fourth District Appellate Court’s decision in Martin v. Layman[1] continues a line of Illinois cases that closely examine whether hospital consent forms effectively disclaim apparent agency in emergency care settings. Relying in part on the First District’s reasoning in Brayboy v. Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp.,[2] the court held that the existence of a signed consent form did not resolve the issue as a matter of law when questions remained regarding the language and structure of the form, the patient’s neurological condition, the timing of the disclosure, and whether the…
Continue Reading Beyond the Signature: Context, Timing, and Continued Judicial Scrutiny of Hospital Consent Forms in Apparent Agency Claims

The Case

Wilkinson v. Farmers Holding Companies involved a dispute under a Missouri statute about an employee’s post-termination rights to a “service letter” stating the nature and duration of his service. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the company based on the company’s argument that it was not the actual employer. The Supreme Court’s decision addressed only the procedural law regarding summary judgment and plaintiff’s failure to abide by the procedures of Rule 74.04 in responding to summary judgment.

In particular, the Court noted that although the Plaintiff’s “point relied on” argued that summary judgment is an extreme and…
Continue Reading ITT at 33: Granting Summary Judgment in Missouri is Still Not “Extreme or Drastic”

Using Deposition Testimony to Secure Summary Judgment

In asbestos products liability matters, motions for summary judgment are a standard part of case workup. Although summary judgment is an extreme measure that’s rarely granted, a recent Cook County case (Paul Enright, Special Administrator of the Estate of Susan Enright v. A.O. Smith Corp., et al.) demonstrates it is possible.

Summary judgment motions focus on case-specific facts and often rely on deposition testimony from the plaintiff and fact witnesses. In its Motion for Summary Judgment, the defense in Enright argued that plaintiff had not met her evidentiary burden and thus the case…
Continue Reading Building the Record: How Depositions Shape Summary Judgment Orders

Case Background

Marsha J. Martin filed an amended complaint[1] alleging that she received an e-mail that appeared to be from Coastal Customs Builders requesting payment for construction services provided to her. Martin further alleged that, unbeknownst to her at the time, Coastal Customs’ e-mail had been hacked. Martin ultimately wire transferred funds to the hacker’s account at Fifth Third Bank. The hacker then withdrew the funds and transferred them elsewhere. According to Martin, Fifth Third Bank was unable to recover the funds that were wired.

Under a theory of negligence, Martin alleged that Fifth Third Bank knew the hacker…
Continue Reading Not My Customer, Not My Problem? Assessing Whether a Duty May be Owed to a Non-Customer Under Martin v. Fifth Third Bank

Public AI Tools and Discovery Exposure

Generative AI tools have quickly become part of daily life for businesses and individuals across Illinois and Missouri. Platforms such as ChatGPT and other large-language models often feel conversational and private, which can foster a false sense of security. Recent litigation, however, demonstrates that what users type into these tools may be stored, logged, and later produced in court. For companies operating under Illinois and Missouri discovery rules—both of which allow broad discovery of electronically stored information—this risk is particularly acute.

One of the clearest examples comes from copyright litigation brought by major publishers.
Continue Reading AI, Privacy, and Discovery: Think Before You Prompt

Missouri Case Highlights the Problems

The advancement of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) tools has revolutionized many industries, including the legal profession. However, the use of Gen AI in legal practice is not without significant risks. As discussed below, Kruse v. Karlen highlights the importance of accuracy, ethical responsibility, and compliance with procedural rules when using AI tools to prepare court documents.

In Kruse v. Karlen, the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal and imposed sanctions after a pro se appellant submitted an appellate brief riddled with fictitious case citations and misrepresented legal authorities. 692 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. Ct. App.
Continue Reading Tips for Avoiding the Pitfalls of AI in Legal Practice: Missouri’s Evolving Rules on AI Disclosure

The Rollout of a Unified Corporate Enforcement Policy

On March 10, 2026 the Department of Justice (DOJ) rolled out what it called its “first-ever” Department-wide corporate enforcement policy for virtually all federal white-collar criminal matters. The department-wide Corporate Enforcement Policy (CEP) is certainly not all new, as it reaffirms past enforcement discretion principles based on disclosure, cooperation, and remediation. Yet, it applies more broadly to all types of white-collar cases (except antitrust matters subject to the Antitrust Division’s leniency policy). Stressing the goals to promote uniformity, predictability, transparency, and fairness, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche noted the CEP:

…
Continue Reading New Comprehensive Justice Department Corporate Enforcement Policy

Background and Context

A recent Madison County, Illinois,[1] case explored whether the actions of an insurance carrier could waive an insured’s personal jurisdiction defense in an asbestos exposure wrongful death case. This appears to be an issue of first impression in Madison County asbestos litigation, but plaintiffs could raise this argument in other types of litigation and in other courts as well.

The Court ultimately found there had been no waiver and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the arguments presented show how early communications can create risk.

Facts of the Case

Plaintiffs Sharon…
Continue Reading Carriers Beware! Avoid Waiving Personal Jurisdiction Defense of Your Insured