"The Brief" - The ALA Blog

Don Wall, who served as Counsel to the Circuit Executive of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for more than 25 years, passed away on May 15, 2026. Don was a fixture at the Seventh Circuit and was respected by all who had an opportunity to cross professional paths with him. His obituary can be found here. 

AI and The Sorcerer’s Apprentice

An essay by Edward J. Kionka1

        According to the legal news, all of us in the legal profession — lawyers, law firms, judges, law clerks, paralegals, law students, law professors, administrators — are rushing to hop on the AI2 bandwagon. Perhaps some of us are trying to use it too much, too soon.

        Do you remember the story of the sorcerer’s apprentice? It originated in a 1797 poem by Goethe. As an old sorcerer leaves his workshop, he assigns his apprentice to fetch water. Tiring of making trips carrying a heavy pail, the apprentice enchants a broom to do the work for him, using magic in which he’s not fully trained. The floor soon floods, and the apprentice realizes he can’t stop the broom because he doesn’t know the magic required. He splits the broom in two with an ax, but each piece becomes a whole broom, and both brooms continue fetching water. The entire room floods. When all seems lost, the old sorcerer returns and breaks the spell, admonishing the apprentice that only a master should invoke powerful spirits. (Walt Disney’s animated short, Fantasia3, popularized Goethe’s story to a worldwide audience.)

        Are we like the apprentice, with AI as the magic?

        Learning AI is difficult and time-consuming. I’m not sure how solo or small-firm lawyers will find the time and patience to master it. AI is rapidly becoming part of law school curricula, so perhaps the next generation of lawyers will be up to speed early on. BigLaw is spending big bucks to develop proprietary AI platforms (see Appendix). The Illinois Supreme Court appointed an AI Task Force. The Illinois State Bar Association has a Standing Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Practice of Law, and its steering committee has begun vetting AI apps. The entire Illinois court system, from the top down, is using AI.

        The simple truth is that whoever you are — law student, lawyer, paralegal, judge, law teacher, legal administrator — you have no choice. You must learn to use the appropriate AI tools and apply them to your work as best you can.

        Some experts predict we will soon have AGI (artificial general intelligence) that can understand, learn, and apply knowledge across any intellectual task, just like a human. After that, they say, will come ASI (artificial superintelligence), a theoretical AI that would surpass human intelligence and capabilities across all fields, including creativity, general wisdom, and problem-solving. If and when ASI arrives, we’re all in trouble. Robots will be the next species, and they won’t need humans.

        At present, however, we have only narrow AI (ANI), which performs specific, predefined tasks, such as facial recognition, voice assistants, and playing chess. For our purposes, these tasks include retrieving information (legal research, data collection), drafting documents (pleadings, contracts, legal briefs and memoranda), and analyzing and summarizing documents.

        As you surely know, you’re already using ANI every day — for example, when you do a Google search, use a maps app, or ask Siri or Alexa for information.

        When I started using Westlaw for legal research, we had to use Boolean syntax for queries. Today, we can use full natural-language sentences. You can enter a narrow legal question (1-2 sentences) in the main search bar and get a direct answer with hyperlinked citations. You can also use Westlaw Deep Research.4 Lexis+ offers similar capabilities.

        Thomson Reuters also offers Westlaw’s Co-Counsel Legal and Lexis offers Protégé, both of which they claim can create timelines, gather surveys across jurisdictions, analyze and update contract terms, outline arguments, identify affirmative defenses, draft, summarize, or compare documents, find potential claims, research legal questions, identify contradictions in witness statements, summarize filing deadlines, adjust the tone of a draft document, and suggest courses of action. vLex Fastcase integrates AI-driven legal tools, including AI drafting tools such as Clearbrief, allowing lawyers to access case law while drafting in Microsoft Word. vLex Fastcase is available free to ISBA members.

        Popular standalone AI tools that are not legal-specific include ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, Copilot, and others. Gemini is Google’s AI assistant, and Copilot is Microsoft’s. If you use Google or Microsoft apps, you already have access to Gemini and Copilot. Apple’s Siri is a basic AI, but Apple plans to make it a more capable generative AI through Apple Intelligence and partnerships with platforms like Gemini.

        Legal-specific AI plugins and purpose-built applications — for example, CoCounsel (by Thomson Reuters), Claude for Legal (from Anthropic), and Spellbook (Microsoft), which runs inside Microsoft Word — are now available, along with many others. OpenAI will soon offer legal-specific tools.

        NotebookLM is a special-purpose AI app that works only with the data you supply. This is hugely important because using open tools such as ChatGPT and including actual client or case information in your submission can lead to improper disclosure of confidential or privileged information and raise serious professional responsibility issues.

        The Illinois Supreme Court adopted a Policy on Artificial Intelligence, effective January 1, 2025.5 Briefly, the use of AI is permitted and encouraged, provided the user complies with existing legal and ethical rules (see Appendix).

        Although AI characteristics can be classified in multiple ways, for our purposes, we will focus on two: generative AI and traditional AI.

• Generative AI creates new, original content — text, images, video, audio, or code — from user prompts.
• Traditional or Classic AI relies on programmed rules and logic. Rather than creating new content, it performs specific tasks such as legal research, finding other information, making predictions, classifying data, or recognizing patterns using existing information. It’s like a research assistant that can also summarize, organize, and perform similar tasks.

So what’s not to like?

        First and foremost, AI is too prone to errors and hallucinations. This is especially true of generative AI. In tests of generative AI in legal contexts, hallucination and error rates ranged from 17% to 33%.6

        Here’s an example using a recent event and traditional AI.

        In an April 2026 game, Joe Adell, the Los Angeles Angels’ right fielder, made three amazing over-the-wall catches that robbed the Seattle Mariners of three home runs.7 The Angels won 1-0. Did Joe have the greatest defensive game in MLB history? A sports writer asked one of the most prominent AI tools. The AI’s response was negative; the greatest was Ozzie Smith’s performance against the Dodgers in 1978, when he recorded 13 assists at shortstop, “a modern-era record.” The response went on to elaborate on the game and his performance. It sounded so credible.

        Except it was totally false. No such game was played. And Ozzie never had 13 assists in any game that year. In fact, Ozzie never had 13 assists in any game he played in the big leagues.

        The bot also described “other famous defensive masterpieces worth mentioning.” However, the details of another supposed defensive gem were significantly inaccurate.

        To see examples of hallucinations and errors in generative AI, one need only read the legal news. Hardly a day goes by without a story about a lawyer or law firm that was sanctioned — and embarrassed — when the court discovered that a case cited and even discussed did not exist. A database recently identified more than 1,000 U.S. legal cases with fabricated citations, misquoted authority, or other AI-generated legal errors.

        When I read these stories, my first thought is, “Where did you go to law school?” In the first semester of my first year of law school, my legal writing instructor taught: “Never cite a case you haven’t read.” Despite some lawyers’ protests to the contrary (which unfortunately lack credibility), there is no doubt that these fake citations and discussions were produced by generative AI.

        Another problem with using generative AI to produce a draft of your brief, memo, or opinion letter is that, even if the authorities are accurate and authentic, and the draft reads well, it may not be the best you can do. It may even be defective. You won’t realize that because you didn’t marshal the facts and the law yourself and you didn’t use your brain to craft the writing.

        Good legal writing — briefs or other documents — is part education, part training, part skill, but also an art. Words are the lawyer’s tools; you are a wordsmith. Words can be combined in countless ways. Robots aren’t the best legal writers, yet. You can do better.

        Recently, I wrote a brief that required a line-by-line analysis of the record. Doing so, I noticed something that led me to a new way to frame an argument. It turned out to be a winner. If I had delegated that part of the brief to AI, I’m quite sure that argument would never have been made.

        In another appeal, the circuit court’s ruling rested solely on estoppel. I wanted to make a laches argument. I found a brief reference to laches in the administrative hearing transcript. Browsing cases, I found an Illinois Supreme Court opinion that opened the door for me to argue laches in my brief. I don’t trust that my robot would have found that path.

        That’s what it comes down to — trust. In several recent CLE courses, the instructor advised treating AI like a student law clerk or a first-year associate. Use it to gather information but verify the results. Do the writing yourself. Use AI research as a springboard for your own work. That seems like sound advice.

Using AI in brief writing

        Rather than tell you what you should do (that’s up to you), I will tell you how I use it.

        Jeff Su, the instructor in many YouTube videos (four are cited in the Appendix), uses an airplane cockpit analogy to illustrate three ways to use AI.

        First is autopilot mode. You hand the task to AI with clear instructions and trust the output with minimal review. The AI handles everything on its own. Think level flight.

        In handling an appeal, there is not much in this category. Possibly looking up rules to confirm dates or requirements, finding a single case by its citation, finding something in the record where a basic search won’t do, simple tasks like that. For example: “How many plays did Shakespeare write?”8 I use it all the time to check words, phrases, and facts.

        Some use AI to summarize testimony or documents, but I wouldn’t totally trust it for that job.

        Second is collaboration mode. You and AI iterate together through multiple rounds until the output meets your standard. Neither you nor AI could have produced the result alone. Think takeoff and landing.

        Legal research is the best example, but this mode can be used for anything short of writing as long as the result can be verified. In their output, some AI tools include a link or reference to the source, a very useful way to verify.

        Third is manual mode. You do the work yourself because AI either can’t do it well, or the risk of getting it wrong is too high. Think in-flight emergency.

        Manual is my writing mode. I believe the brief I craft myself will be superior to one written by a robot, no matter how good the robot is — at least for now. In other words, I don’t trust a robot to write my brief, not even the first draft.

        There is one AI app I use when editing my writing — Grammarly. In my experience, it’s quite good. It has made my writing better and more concise. Other similar apps include Copilot (integrated into Microsoft 365), ProWriting Aid, Hemingway, Linguix, Readable, WordTune, QuillBot, Ginger, and others. But I always work interactively with Grammarly, and I don’t accept all of its suggestions.

        A recent CLE course identified skills that AI cannot replace:

• Intuition
• Credibility/trustworthiness
• Empathy
• Critical thinking
• Information literacy
• Professional judgment

        Bryan Garner, widely regarded as one of America’s top legal writing gurus, argues that high-level writing tasks — including legal drafting, literary style, and persuasive argument — remain a uniquely human domain where style, tone, and ethical considerations matter. Critical thinking, originality, and ethical communication are integral to writing, and these elements can never be outsourced to AI. Good writers, he says, will always have the edge, especially over those who allow their skills to wither by overrelying on AI.

        Aristotle taught that the three principles of persuasive rhetoric are logos (logic), ethos (credibility), and pathos (in our context, your reader wants you to win). As far as I know, ANI will not do ethos and pathos as well as you and I, if at all.

        Writing — especially legal writing — is hard work. We are all lazy by nature. It’s our genetic heritage. AI is a tempting shortcut. We may think it can save our client money, make an appeal more affordable, or save our own precious time. But our objectives are to (1) win and (2) provide the maximum possible assistance to the reader, in both content and form. In legal writing, as in all other work, we should use the best tool available at each step. More often than not, that tool is the human brain.

Appendix

BigLaw

• Kirkland & Ellis is developing a proprietary AI platform and is prepared to spend about $500 million on its AI build over the next three to four years.
• Other firms are using commercial AI platforms, such as Harvey or Legora, or using AI tools for a specific part of a client matter rather than for the entire matter.
• Sullivan & Cromwell partnered with a firm to develop AI discovery and deposition assistants.
• Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton acquired the LLM developer Springbook AI.
• White and Case created its own tool.
• Troutman Pepper Locke developed its own AI chatbot adding agentic AI capabilities, and incorporated Thomson Reuters’ Deep Research.

Illinois Supreme Court Policy and Guidelines

• Permitted Use: Litigants, attorneys, judges, and court staff are permitted and encouraged to use AI.
• Ethical Compliance: All use of technology must strictly comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct.
• Total Accountability: Attorneys, judges, and self-represented individuals bear ultimate responsibility for their final work product.
• Mandatory Verification: Users must thoroughly review all AI-generated content for accuracy before submitting it to the court.
• Required Competence: Before using any tool, users must understand both the general capabilities of AI and the specific functions of the software.

Some AI videos

• www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVyD6THcvDQ (AI basics)
• www.youtube.com/watch?v=htZRCE2GgIs (Part 1: The Only AI Tools You Need)
• www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH9ctWaxGgQ (Part 2: Productivity & Creative AI)
• www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_765enJBy8 (Things that AI can’t replace)

Footnotes

1 The author is a retired law professor and a not-yet-retired appellate lawyer. See www.KionkaLaw.com. Disclosure: I used AI in researching and writing this essay. All info is believed to be current as of June 2026. © 2026 Edward Kionka

2 If you don’t know the first thing about Artificial Intelligence, my friend, you are at the bottom of a long, steep hill.

3 https://youtu.be/UEEMzrKAeNc

4www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/help/cocounsel/legal/skills/skills-prompts-workflows/westlaw-deep-research

5ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois%20Supreme%20Court%20AI%20Policy.pdf.See also www.illinoiscourts.gov/News/1485/Illinois-Supreme-Court-Announces-Policy-on-Artificial-Intelligence/news-detail.

6 https://hai.stanford.edu/news/ai-trial-legal-models-hallucinate-1-out-6-or-more-benchmarking-queries

7 https://youtu.be/Ru3xR5_IFtQ

8 The correct answer is, we don’t know exactly. Scholars mostly agree that he wrote 37-39, a few in collaboration with other playwrights. We know of two lost plays, Cardenio and Love’s Labour’s Won. Probably there were others. The First Folio contains 36 plays. In this case, AI got it right.

9 https://lawprose.org/bryan-garner

By: Angela Reaney

In Glossip v. Oklahoma, 604 U.S. 226 (2025), the Supreme Court vacated Richard Glossip’s capital murder conviction finding that the state’s failure to correct its star witness’s known false testimony denied Glossip due process. The decision relied on Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), holding that a conviction must be reversed when the state fails to correct known false evidence and the error was material in that it could have played a role in the conviction.

In 1997, Glossip managed a hotel in Oklahoma City that was owned by Barry Van Treese. Justin Sneed, a 19-year-old with a history of violence and methamphetamine use, lived in one of the hotel rooms in exchange for work at the hotel. One day, when Van Treese arrived to collect cash deposits, Sneed beat him to death with a baseball bat.

Glossip first told police that he did not know about the murder but admitted a day later that Sneed confessed to the murder. Before interviewing Sneed, officers told him that “before he made up his mind on anything, they wanted him to hear some of the things they had to say.” They proceeded to tell Sneed they knew he did not act alone and should not “take the whole thing.” They also told him that “everybody was making Sneed the scapegoat in this,” especially Glossip. Following the officers’ lead, Sneed told the officers that Glossip asked him to rob Van Treese and the robbery went wrong. Both Glossip and Sneed were charged with capital murder.

Glossip rejected a deal to avoid the death penalty in exchange for his testimony against Sneed. Sneed, however, accepted the same deal in exchange for his testimony against Glossip.

Glossip was tried twice. Sneed’s testimony was the only evidence tying Glossip to the murder. At the first trial, Sneed testified that Glossip asked him to kill Van Trease, but he did not know the motive. He admitted killing Van Treese with a baseball bat but denied using a knife. An Oklahoma court reversed finding Glossip was denied the effective assistance of counsel.

Before the second trial, the prosecutor learned that a medical examiner would testify that Van Treese was killed with a baseball bat and a knife. Without notice to the defense, Sneed changed his testimony and admitted to stabbing Van Treese, consistent with the medical examiner’s testimony. Sneed also denied ever seeing a psychiatrist or taking lithium before his arrest.

Years later, the State produced eight boxes of evidence that were never disclosed. The new evidence included a note from the prosecutor to Sneed’s attorney, dated before the second trial, stating she wanted to talk to Sneed about the medical examiner’s testimony that Van Treese was stabbed. The boxes also contained Sneed’s letters to the prosecutor stating that he wanted to recant and the prosecutor’s notes establishing that she knew about Sneed’s bipolar disorder and lithium prescription.

Based on the new evidence, Glossip filed a postconviction petition raising a Napue claim. Although the state agreed reversal was warranted, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Glossip’s conviction. The court found, in relevant part, that the prosecutor could not knowingly conceal information where the defense had knowledge.

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, finding that the prosecutor’s failure to correct Sneed amounted to a denial of due process. It noted that the prosecutor knew about Sneed’s bipolar diagnosis and lithium prescription because she had his medical records and a competency evaluation in which he reported the lithium prescription. Moreover, the prosecutor’s notes established that she knew about the prescription. She, therefore, was required to correct Sneed.

The Court also found that the due process violation was material. Sneed’s testimony was the only evidence of Glossip’s guilt, and the failure to correct Sneed’s testimony affected the jury’s credibility determination. The Court further noted that, although the prosecutor told the jury in closing that Sneed was harmless absent Glossip’s influence, evidence established that bipolar disorder combined with methamphetamine use could trigger impulsive violence.

The state court misapplied Napue when it found that the prosecution could not “knowingly conceal[]” the lithium prescription because the defense knew about it. The duty to correct false testimony, the Court explained, falls on the state and not the defense.

Oklahoma has elected to retry Glossip for noncapital murder. He is currently in jail awaiting retrial.

Angela Reaney is a criminal defense attorney focusing on direct appeal and postconviction cases.

Angela's Email: areaney@reaneylaw.com

In February 2026, the Appellate Lawyers Association wrote to the Hon. Mary L. Mikva, Chair of the Executive Committee of Illinois Appellate Court, First Judicial District, to recommend a change to the First District's Local Rule 22 regarding the filing of paper copies of electronically filed briefs. On May 15, 2026, a majority of the justices of the First District voted to approve the ALA's recommended change. Specifically, Local Rule 22(e) has been amended to make clear that a filer need not "file" a previously electronically filed brief.

On the same date, a majority of the justices of the First District also voted to approve a change to Local Rule 21 to revise and clarify that mediators must either be a sitting judge of the Appellate Court or a pro bono attorney with appropriate training and appointed by the Court. Additionally, the process of assigning cases to mediation has been clarified for consistency with Supreme Court Rule 310.1. 

The amended rules can be found here. 

The ARDC has two openings for Appellate Counsel.

Job Description

Are you looking for a challenging role within a public service organization that provides competitive compensation, an excellent benefits package, a hybrid work environment, and career growth opportunities? If so, the Illinois Supreme Court’s Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) may be the place for you.

It is the mission of the ARDC to promote and protect the integrity of the legal profession, at the direction of the Supreme Court, by registering and supporting attorneys, providing innovative education and outreach programs, and offering restorative services to help lawyers uphold the highest ethical standards. Through thorough investigations and fair proceedings, we address allegations of attorney misconduct and unauthorized practice of law, ensuring accountability while also advocating for those harmed by misconduct.

Role Summary

The ARDC is currently seeking two full-time Appellate Counsel to join our dedicated appellate team in the Chicago office. Appellate counsel facilitates attorney compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct by collaborating with the ARDC’s Litigation team in formulating case strategies and recommendations for discipline in formal disciplinary matters, and in handling appeals from Hearing Board decisions to the ARDC’s Review Board and the Supreme Court of Illinois. In addition, appellate counsel are frequently called upon to represent ARDC employees and volunteers who are named in lawsuits in state or federal court challenging actions they have taken in the performance of their official duties.

Staff attorneys have a diverse and challenging caseload within the context of a fast-paced work environment, balancing the rights of attorneys and protecting the public and the courts. This is an exciting opportunity to engage in challenging and meaningful public service work while making a difference in the lives of fellow Illinoisans and advancing the ethical and competent practice of law.

Key Responsibilities

• Reviewing and analyzing ARDC Hearing Board decisions, transcripts, and other evidence from the prosecution of disciplinary cases before that Board.
• Interpreting and applying the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, and the Rules of the Supreme Court of Illinois and the ARDC, in appeals of disciplinary cases before the ARDC Review Board and the Supreme Court of Illinois.
• Drafting persuasive briefs and presenting oral arguments before the ARDC Review Board and filing petitions before the Supreme Court of Illinois.
• Conducting legal research on the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, emerging issues in professional responsibility, and substantive, procedural and jurisdictional issues in state and federal court.
• Representing ARDC employees and volunteers by preparing and presenting dispositive motions and memoranda to be filed in state and federal courts.
• Researching attorney disciplinary precedent and collaborating with litigation counsel to develop case strategies and preserve appellate issues.
• Drafting petitions for reciprocal discipline to be filed in the Supreme Court of Illinois in cases in which Illinois lawyers have been disciplined in other jurisdictions.
• Responding to attorney callers to the ARDC's Ethics Inquiry Program by providing guidance relating to the lawyers' professional responsibilities or attorney disciplinary case law

Qualifications and Skills

• J.D. degree from an ABA - accredited law school and an active member of the bar in good standing
• Active Illinois bar license (or eligibility to obtain admission promptly)
• Minimum of 7-10 years of appellate experience in the practice of law, preferably with five of those years in professional regulation
• Strong legal research, analytical, problem-solving, and writing skills
• Excellent communication and interpersonal skills, with the ability to interact with diverse groups of people
• Highly organized with strong attention to detail, and excellent project and time management skills
• Proven ability to independently manage a varied workload while maintaining a service-oriented attitude
• Eagerness to learn about new areas of the law and apply knowledge to unique facts
• Commitment to ARDC’s mission and values

The ARDC is committed to a culture of inclusion. We offer a hybrid schedule, a congenial work atmosphere, and an excellent benefits package including, medical, dental, vision, STD/LTD, retirement plan, PTO, tuition reimbursement, parental leave and professional developmental offerings. Salary will be determined based on the candidate’s experience and qualifications, with a targeted salary range of $110,000 to $130,000.

*Please submit a cover letter along with your resume*

The ARDC is committed to working with and providing reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities. If you need a reasonable accommodation because of a disability for any part of the employment process, please send an e-mail to employment@iardc.org to let us know the nature of your request and your contact information.

The First District, Illinois Appellate Court, seeks an experienced and collaborative Legal Research Director to lead a talented staff of attorneys. This leadership role ensures the highest quality of legal analysis supporting the court’s decision-making. The ideal candidate brings both deep legal research expertise and a commitment to mentoring and innovation within the judicial system.

Annual Salary Range: $114,482-158,000

The Legal Research Director of the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court is an executive level position with a wide-range of responsibilities for the management of the First District’s Legal Research Department. The position is located in Chicago, Illinois. The Research Director assigns the tasks to be performed by the Appellate Court Research Attorneys in the Research Department. The Research Director is also responsible for supervising the work of the Appellate Court Research Attorneys and assuring that the work is completed in a correct, timely, and professional manner. The Research Director confers with justices and other members of the First District of the Appellate Court concerning matters before the court or issues relevant to the work of the court.

Interested persons should submit a resume, professional writing sample, three professional references, and a letter of interest stating how the candidate’s experiences and qualifications connect with the required and preferred credentials, characteristics, and priorities expressed in the position profile to: courtemployment@illinoiscourts.gov 

Submissions must be received by Sunday, April 19, 2026

Justice Eugene E. Doherty of the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, is seeking candidates for a law clerk position. The law clerk will be expected to perform legal research, analysis, and writing, and to review and assist in the drafting of judicial opinions, orders, and other legal documents.

A Juris Doctor from an ABA-accredited law school and either licensed or eligible for admission to the Illinois bar. Applicant should possess excellent research, case analysis, and writing skills.  Experience as a law clerk in a reviewing court is strongly preferred. Applicant must possess the ability to travel throughout the state, including overnight stays as required. This position requires a valid driver’s license, proof of automobile insurance to operate a personal vehicle on state business, and a safe driving record. Applicant may be required to submit additional materials and/or complete job-specific tests for the position. Substantial remote work attendance will be considered, but work on a totally remote basis is not preferred. The salary for this position is $111,899. 

Interested candidates should submit a letter of interest, resume, professional writing sample, an official law school transcript, and three references to edoherty@illinoiscourts.gov. Applications received by Friday, March 20, 2026 will receive first consideration. 

The Access to Justice Division of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts is seeking candidates for a Supervising Senior Policy Attorney position.  

The Access to Justice Division's (ATJ Division) objective is to improve access to the justice system for all users, particularly to those who are low-income or have difficulty accessing the courts, through creating standardized statewide court forms, improving language access and interpreter services, and developing training materials and educational programs for judges and court personnel, among other priorities. We share a vision of a community free from bias, systemic unfairness, and oppression, where everyone is treated with dignity and respect.

The Supervising Senior Policy Attorney a supervisory, professional position responsible for identifying ways for the Judicial Branch to address the growing numbers self-represented litigants (SRL) and limited English proficient (LEP) litigants coming to court with a focus on technology and elevation of resources through systematic outreach. Work is performed with considerable independence and with wide latitude for professional judgement under the general supervision of the Director of the Access to Justice Division.

A Juris Doctor degree and seven years of supervisory experience are required, along with a strong commitment to serving underserved and marginalized communities, self-represented litigants, and limited-English-proficient litigants. Preference will be given to candidates with experience in civil legal aid, marketing experience within the legal aid or non-profit context, extensive familiarity and comfort with adopting emerging technologies, regular court appearances within the Illinois court system, court or public administration involving project management, or substantial pro bono activities. More information regarding benefits for the position can be found here. 

Interested candidates should submit a letter of interest, resume, and completed Judicial Branch Employment Application to courtemployment@illinoiscourts.gov.  

The Appellate Court is normally a court of review. But in some limited instances, the law requires parties to go straight to the Appellate Court, skipping the Circuit Court altogether. See Ill. Const. art. VI, § 6 (“The Appellate Court may exercise original jurisdiction when necessary to the complete determination of any case on review.”). One of those circumstances arises in the public labor relations context. When a public employer commits an unfair labor practice, and the Illinois Labor Relations Board (ILRB) issues a final order, the Appellate Court has original jurisdiction to enforce that order if any party violates it. 5 ILCS 315/11 (f)(g).

For context, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) governs labor relations between workers and private employers. 29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. But that law does not cover government entities. 29 U.S.C. § 152 (excluding government entities from the NLRA’s protections). Relations between employees and local government entities in Illinois are governed by Illinois’s Public Labor Relations Act. 5 ILCS 315/1, et seq. So when a municipality commits an unfair labor practice, employees’ remedies lie with the Illinois Labor Relations Board. 5 ILCS 315/5. Unfair labor practices include refusing to collectively bargain, discriminating in hiring and retention to discourage participation in a labor organization, and preventing employees from participation in a labor organization, etc. 5 ILCS 315/10 (a).

Recently, the Fifth District of the Appellate Court for the Fifth District exercised its jurisdiction to compel the Village of Washington Park to comply with a final order of the ILRB. People ex. rel. ILRB v. Village of Washington Park, No. 5-25-0499. Washington Park, an impoverished town in Southern Illinois, was found to have committed unfair labor practices by failing to abide by its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and by retaliating against city employees who participated in union activities. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local #50, Ill. Lab. Rel’s. Bd., No. S-CA-22-005-C (Administrative Law Judge’s Recommended Compliance Decision and Order). The ILRB ordered the Village to pay contributions to employee health insurance plans on which it had reneged, pay backpay owed to terminated employees, bargain in good faith with the Teamsters, and take other actions required by the CBA and the law. Id.

The Village did not comply. Although the Village agreed to bargain with the Teamsters, it did not fulfill its financial obligations. Id. In response, the Teamsters filed a petition for enforcement with the ILRB, which, in turn, filed a petition for enforcement with the Appellate Court.

The ILRB lacks inherent enforcement authority—like all administrative agencies—and cannot punish noncompliance with contempt. 73 C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and Procedure § 189 (2024). That is where the Appellate Court comes in. The ILRB’s petition for enforcement, filed by the Attorney General, essentially asks the Appellate Court to use its inherent contempt powers to compel the Village to comply.

The Appellate Court heard oral argument, in which the Village maintained its position that it was unable to pay the amounts ordered by the ILRB, but essentially conceded that an order enforcing compliance was proper under the law.

The Appellate Court agreed with the parties that an order was appropriate and issued an order requiring the parties to negotiate amongst themselves and submit a proposed joint order of enforcement. People ex. rel. ILRB v. Village of Washington Park, No. 5-25-0499.

This type of order is rare, and, at oral argument, the justices expressed some uncertainty about the Appellate Court’s role. Indeed, only three such orders have been entered since 1990. See Cnty. of DeKalb v. Ill. State Lab. Rel. Bd., No. 2-90-130; People ex rel. I.S.L.R.B. v. Cnty. of Macon, 3-93-0333; People ex rel. ILRB v. Harvey Park Dist., No. 1-15-0816. And given the Village’s arguments about its inability to pay, the Court was hesitant to enter an order that would require it to hear evidence. But the Court’s resolution was fair; it promoted respect for the ILRB’s orders and accommodated a struggling town.

Author: Shmuel Wyckoff is a 3L student at the Chicago-Kent College of Law with an interest in appellate practice.

Justice Mary Jane Theis announced her retirement from the Illinois Supreme Court, effective January 29, 2026. Justice Theis has served on the Supreme Court since 2010. She served as Chief Justice from 2022 to 2025.

Per the Illinois Constitution, the Illinois Supreme Court has authority to fill the vacancy, and it has appointed Justice Sanjay T. Tailor of the First District Appellate Court to fill Justice Theis' seat.

Justice Theis has had a long and distinguished career. We hope you will join us in wishing her a long and happy retirement. 

If you want to read more, the Illinois Supreme Court's statement can be found here.