DOCKETTH

E

The Official Publication of the Lake County Bar Association • Vol. 25, No. 6 • June 2018

2018-2019 Officers and Directors

Installation Dinner May 31, 2018

McDonald Hopkins LLC, 300 North LaSalle, Chicago, IL 60654 | 312.280.0111404 West Water Street, Waukegan, IL 60085

mcdonaldhopkins.com

Chicago | Cleveland | Columbus | Detroit | Miami | West Palm Beach

The Chicago law firm

McDonald Hopkinscelebrates 90 years

mcdonaldhopkins.com/MH2020

A publication of the

300 Grand Avenue, Suite AWaukegan, Illinois 60085

(847) 244-3143 • Fax: (847) 244-8259www.lakebar.org • info@lakebar.org

THE DOCKET EDITORIAL COMMITTEEJeffrey A. Berman,Co-Editor

Hon. Daniel L. Jasica,Co-EditorJennifer C. Beeler

Hon. Michael J. FuszDeborah L. Goldberg

Hon. Charles D. JohnsonSarah A. Kahn

Kevin K. McCormickHon. Raymond J. McKoski

Tracy M. PoulakidasStephen J. RiceNeal A. Simon

Hon. James K. SimonianMichael S. Strauss

Rebecca J. WhitcombeAlex Zagor

STAFFVirginia M. Elliott

Interim Executive DirectorJose Gonzalez Administrator

ContentsTHE DOCKET • Vol. 25, No. 6 • June 2018

To place an ad or for information on advertising rates, call (847) 244-3143. Submission dead-line: first day of month preceding the month of publication. All submissions must be made in electronic format (high resolution PDF or JPG format at a resolution of 300 pixels per inch or more.) See www.lakebar.org/html/docketRates.asp.

The Docket is the official publication of the Lake County Bar Association, 300 Grand Avenue, Suite A, Waukegan, Illinois 60085 (847) 244-3143, and is published monthly. Subscriptions for non-members are $45.00 per year.

Reproduction in whole or part without permis-sion is prohibited. The opinions and positions stated in signed material are those of the au-thors and not necessarily those of the Associa-tion or its members.

All submitted manuscripts are considered by the Editorial Board. All letters to the editor and articles are subject to editing. Publications of advertisements is not to be considered as an endorsement of any product or service adver-tised unless otherwise stated.$1.75 per word (Rate for LCBA Members)

$2.75 per word (Rate for Non-Members)

$3.50 per word (Rate for LCBA Members)

$4.50 per word (Rate for Non-Members)

Classified AdvertisingStandard

TextBoldText

Classified Advertisement may contain as many words, numbers, symbols and boldface type.

$600 per issue (Full Color)$750 per issue (Full Color)Back Cover

Inside Front orInside Back Cover

Full Page1/2 Page

1/4 Page1/8 Page

ADSIZE

ONEISSUE

6ISSUES

12ISSUES

$70$120$175$295

$65$110$160$270

$60$100$145$245

Color ad rates: add $199 per issue to theabove stated rates, excludes cover ads.

Advertising Rates

FEATURES 12 Are Young Lawyers

Less Civilized? BY MARIE SARANTAKIS

16 The 504(a) Blind Spot: Why do we Default to Maintenance?

BY STUART REID AND SARAH KAHN

20 Effect of 2017 GOP Tax Reform on Maintenance in Illinois

BY GRETA J. BERNA

COLUMNS 2 President’s Page Poised for Progress BY BRIAN J. LEWIS, PRESIDENT

4 The Chief Judge’s Page Flag Day! Betsy Ross? BY CHIEF JUDGE JAY W. UKENA

6 Bar Foundation Your Opportunity To

Support The Philanthropic Efforts Of the Bar Foundation Is Just A Click Away

BY JEFFREY A. BERMAN PRESIDENT

18 The Meeting Minutes: April 10 2018 BY SHYAMA S. PARIKH

LCBA EVENTS 5 Member Reception 7 Calendar of Events 7 New LCBA Members 7 LCBA Office Space 8 LCBA Golf Outing Back 2018 Installation Dinner

The Docket2

I’m incredibly humbled and grateful to be the new President of the

Lake County Bar Associ-ation. Thank you for your confidence in me. I will make you proud that you selected me to lead this fine organization for the upcoming year.

My grandfather, Hy Lewis, was the first law-yer in our family. My dad followed and I’m the third generation. My grandfather was 99 when he died. He practiced law until he was 97. He was the longest-li-censed practicing attorney in the State of Illinois at that time. He literally rep-resented three generations of families and he made a difference in so many lives. He donated his time and helped so many others. My grandfather, Hy Lewis, is the reason I chose to be-come an active member of the Lake County Bar.

When I became the 2nd Vice President of our Association, I began thinking about what I wanted to do in two years as President. What was my “initiative” going to be? And when I became 1st VP, my thoughts changed a lit-tle bit, and I continued to think about what this year would be all about. And then the volcano erupted on January 30 when we caught our (now former)

Executive Director stealing money from our accounts.

Welcome to the Presi-dency, Brian.

In light of that dis-covery, and the additional surprises we found as we (literally) sat on the floor of the Bar office digging through disorganized files and misleading papers, I decided right then and there that my focus this year needs to be one thing, and one thing only – re-building the infrastructure of our Association.

I know that doesn’t sound exciting, but at this moment, a solid infrastructure is the most important thing our orga-nization needs.

Infrastructure is the backbone of any healthy organization, especially a volunteer organization like ours. It supports its members. It needs to be reliable and efficient so we can meet our goals, both

economic and philanthrop-ic. Our collective goals as an Association depend on it. Moreover, the changes in the way we practice law, especially with technology, underscore the need for sol-id, reliable infrastructure.

So how are we going to do this? How are we going to make our Bar Association the strongest, safest Bar Association in the State?

First, we are going to reallocate our funds. It’s never desirable to spend money on things that you don’t see. Paying mon-ey to have your furnace repaired, for example, is something that’s not excit-ing, but vital.

In my personal injury practice, I meet with cli-ents on a regular basis who have tried to save money on their insurance. But in truth, that money is the most important money you can spend to protect your

Poised for Progress

President’sPage

The

BY BRIAN J. LEWISPRESIDENT

2017-18 OFFICERS & DIRECTORS

Brian J. LewisPresident

Stephen J. RiceFirst Vice President

Patricia L. CornellSecond Vice President

Joseph M. FuszTreasurer

Shyama S. ParikhSecretary

Jennifer J. HoweImmediate Past President

Tara R. DevineTorrie M. Newsome

Hon. Christen L. BishopKatharine S. Hatch

David R. Del ReThomas A. Pasquesi

June 2018 3

most valuable assets — your family.

So we, as a Board, are going to reallocate our resources to protect our most valuable asset — our Bar family.

We have already hired a sophisticated and expe-rienced accounting firm. They have been tasked with several important projects. Right now they are finishing up their audit of years of the Association’s and Foundation’s books. When that is complete, they will commence with monthly reconciliation of our bank accounts. There will also be, among other things, a quarterly review of our P & L, our budget numbers, etc.

We have never had this level of oversight and pro-tection, but it’s time. And it’s worth the cost.

We have also instituted other, cost-free measures that will keep us safe. For example, the accounting firm, the Treasurer and I will all have access to our accounts. Balances and ex-penditures can be checked at any time, online or in person, because multiple people are now authorized users on all of our bank, credit card, and payroll accounts. This helps with oversight and complete transparency.

We will receive noti-fications on our phones when our credit card is used or when there is suspicious account activ-ity. We now require two signatures on checks over a certain dollar amount.

I am also working intently with our past presidents to create a Transition Manual for the Executive Committee. For

two years now, I’ve known I’d be the President in 2018. I knew that I’d be speaking at awards cere-monies, presenting new judges with their robes and helping raise money through our programs.

But I did not know, for example, that my signature would be required on the LCBA tax return. Or that the Past President, the Treasurer and I needed to go to the bank to make changes on the signature cards for our accounts. Those are just a few exam-ples that this Transition Manual will address, but it will be a living, breath-ing document that will be revised and improved upon in the years to come. It will include a detailed calendar so that each month, in fact each week, the Executive Committee knows what requires atten-tion. We will know pre-cisely when the taxes need to be filed, and when the budgeting process needs to begin so that the new Board can approve a solid, safe and realistic budget at its first board meeting in the new fiscal year.

In a volunteer orga-nization like ours, such a Transition Manual is vital to consistency and reliability.

And finally, we are going to hire a reliable, educated and professional Executive Director. Our hiring committee has already interviewed close to ten candidates and several are fantastic. We will have a second round of interviews in early June and expect to have our new ED right after the July 4th holiday.

We have an incredible opportunity right now.

We are going to turn this negative into a positive that will catapult our Bar Association forward. Our spectacular new building in Waukegan is a metaphor for a new beginning that is poised for success.

I will lead us in re-building our infrastructure so that in the year to come, other bar associations from

around the State will look at the LCBA as the epito-me of a strong, financially secure example.

I am looking forward to serving the LCBA in 2018-2019. I accept the challenges that are in front of us and I thank you for allowing me this opportu-nity to lead our Bar Associ-ation for the year ahead.

The Docket4

June 14th is Flag Day, an observance that most of us would probably fail to

remember if not for the preprinted or automated notation on our calendars and datebooks. However, the history and meaning behind this observance is well worth a mention. So, what is Flag Day, how did it come about, and what part did Betsy Ross really play in the creation of our national symbol? Flag Day com-memorates the adoption of the flag of the United States of America, which occurred by a resolution of the Sec-ond Continental Congress on June 14, 1777. Coin-cidentally June 14th also marks the birthday of the United States Army, which was authorized by an act of Congress as the “the Amer-ican Continental Army” in 1775, two years prior.

Flag Day falls within National Flag Week, a time which we as Americans are called upon to reflect on the foundations of our nation’s freedoms. The flag represents those freedoms and has been an enduring symbol of our country’s ideals starting as far back

as the Revolutionary War. Although Flag Day is a national observance, it is not a public holiday in most parts of the United States. Among the places where the American flag always flies are the White House, Fort McHenry and the Iwo Jima Memorial.

The establishment of Flag Day as an annual observance is credited by most to Bernard Cigrand who was a well-known Wis-consin teacher. Cigrand began pushing for Flag Day recognition in 1886. He made his first proposal in an article he wrote entitled “The Fourteenth of June,” which was published in the Chicago Argus Newspaper on June 14, 1886. Cigrand spent decades champion-ing the flag. He eventually became the editor-in-chief of the “American Standard,” a magazine that at the time was devoted to American emblems according the foundation. Cigrand wrote articles in that magazine and other publications to campaign for Flag Day observance. Another person who pressed for the creation of Flag Day was

William Kerr who started the American Flag Day Foundation in western Pennsylvania in 1885. Kerr reportedly met with nine presidents and contacted many politicians over the sixty-seven years he spent seeking to establish an of-ficial day of recognition for the flag. Another person who contributed the effort was George Bloch, a New York City principal who started his push for Flag Day in 1889.

Their hard work came to fruition when President Woodrow Wilson issued a proclamation calling for a national observation for the flag on June 14, 1916. How-ever, Flag Day did not be-come official until August 1949 when President Harry Truman signed legislation that proclaimed June 14th as Flag Day. Then, in 1966, Congress requested that the president issue a proclama-tion designating the week in which June 14th occurs as National Flag week.

Another question is who designed and who

made the first American flag? Although popular culture credits Elizabeth “Betsy” Ross with making the first American flag, there are some who dis-agree. While she generally gets credit for it, there are no historical consensuses or agreed upon facts that either establish or disprove that she was the first per-son to darn the American flag. At the time of the Revolutionary War, there were at least seventeen flag makers and upholsterers who worked in Philadel-phia. Margaret Mann was thought to have made the first continental colors, but there is no evidence that she was the first to stitch the Stars and Stripes.

Today, Francis Hopkin-son is generally given credit for the Betsy Ross ‘stars-and -bars’ design, although when he asked for compen-sation for his design, Hop-kinson’s claim was rejected on the basis that others might have contributed. Betsy Ross’s biographer Marla Miller asserts the

Flag Day! Betsy Ross? Chief Judge’s

Page

The

BY CHIEF JUDGE JAY W. UKENA

June 2018 5

question of Ross’s involve-ment in the flag should not be one of design, but of production. What has been generally accepted for her contribution to the design of the flag is that she came up with the idea of using five-pointed stars, rather than six-pointed stars. The actual creation, design

and manufacturing of the flag appears to have been a collective effort and may be why there is some issue as to who actually sewed the first flag. Most however accept that Hopkinson was responsible for the overall design.

Despite the histor-ical discussions about

who designed the flag and who made our flag, the flag itself represents freedom and has stood as an enduring symbol of our country’s ideals since its early years. Our pledge to the flag is a reminder of our loyalty to the nation and an affirmation of our belief that it stands as a

symbol of liberty and jus-tice throughout our nation and the world. So next time you see that notation in your calendar, please take some time to reflect on our nation’s symbol, and that it represents the highest ideals of a free country and an enduring democracy.

Member Reception Sponsorship OpportunitiesLCBA Member Receptions will generally be held on the 4th Thursday of every month.Your $500 sponsorship includes:• Recognition in advertising before the event and on signage at the event• Reception from 4:30 – 6:30 p.m.• Complimentary beer and wine.

Upgrades available for additional fee.

Thursday, June 28, 2018 4:30 - 6:30 p.m.

Sponsored by

Riewer & Collins invites you to join

them in celebrating

Sara Roberts and Karen Altman

becoming partners of the firm.

Contact Virginia Elliott at virginia@lakebar.org or (847) 244-3143 to add your name to a reception.

The Docket6

You have heard and seen me talk about the mission of the

Bar Foundation repeatedly

– we are the philanthropic arm of the Bar Associa-tion. Through the Foun-dation, the Lake County Bar is working to enhance justice, promote fairness, support the disadvan-taged, and much more.

You have also seen and heard me urge you to support those efforts in a variety of ways over the past year. This time the plea is more direct.

It is membership renewal time at the Lake County Bar Association. All members have received or should soon receive an annual dues renewal statement for 2018-2019. Of course, I want to en-courage everyone to renew their memberships. Be-yond that, and specifically pertinent to the Bar Foun-dation, is something we refer to as the Foundation “check-off.” Each renewal

includes a $50 donation to the Bar Foundation, unless the member chooses to opt out. As noted on the renewal form, the pro-ceeds of those donations are used exclusively for the Foundation’s “Charitable Efforts,” and represent an enormously important source of funds for those philanthropic endeavors.

Money from the check-off has been used to provide grant funding for various organizations that provide access to justice for those in need. Exam-ples include funding the Foundation has provid-ed for Court Appointed Special Advocates, which protects the interests of abused and neglected chil-dren in the courts; Prairie State Legal Services, which provides free legal services for disadvantaged and low income individuals; Teen

Court, which helps first-time juvenile offenders obtain a fair opportunity for a fresh start and a clear record; the Family Visita-tion Center of Lake Coun-ty, which promotes the safety and well-being of families and children who have experienced trauma, violence and abuse; and Veteran’s Court, which helps troubled military veterans access justice and get the particularized help they need.

In addition, the check-off funds have been used to advance the Bar Foun-dation’s new philanthropic initiative focused on Youth at Risk and the organiza-tions that work with them. That includes the year-long effort to partner with and support Waukegan To College, and the students they serve. Among other things, the Foundation

Your Opportunity To Support The Philanthropic Efforts Of the Bar Foundation Is Just A Click Away BY JEFFREY A. BERMAN

PRESIDENT

Board of TrusteesJeffrey A. Berman

PresidentCarey J. Schiever

Vice PresidentJoann M. Fratianni

SecretaryMark B. Peavey

TreasurerMelanie K. Rummel

Immediate Past PresidentJennifer L. AshleyNandia P. Black

Patricia L. CornellDouglas S. Dorando

Hon. Fred Foreman (Ret.)Scott B. GibsonKenneth J. GlickDavid J. GordonKeith C. Grant

Amy L. LonerganFredric B. Lesser

Steven P. McCollumMichael G. NerheimNicholas A. RiewerPerry S. Smith, Jr.

Hon. Henry C. Tonigan (Ret.)Hon. Joseph R. Waldeck (Ret.)

Brian J. Wanca

June 2018 7

has helped to underwrite a new college entrance examination preparation program for W2C juniors.

Moreover, the check-off funds also have been used for the Bar Foun-dation’s contributions to the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit’s Veterans History Project, through which our profession has an opportu-nity to express our deepest gratitude to the men and women of our Armed Forces who have sacrificed so much, and who have courageously secured our country’s freedoms and advanced its interests around the world.

Still more uses of the check-off funds include the Bar Foundation’s contributions to other community outreach en-deavors of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, including the annual High School Mock Trial Invitational competition, Constitution Day commemorations and Law Day observances.

The Bar Foundation is committed to contin-ue its support for these efforts. And, of course, there always is more that can be done. With your

continuing support, and importantly your contri-bution of the Foundation “check-off,” we will be able to achieve that goal. When you renew your Bar Association membership, please contribute to this worthy cause.

Your New Office Could be in the LCBA Building

• Furnished• Approximately 2,000 square feet• Two blocks from the courthouse• Two private offices• Conference room• Large reception area• Men’s and women’s bathrooms• Small kitchen• Free parking for staff and clients

Available NowContact Virginia Elliott

(virginia@lakebar.org or 847-244-3143)to view the property and get more details.

2018-2019 Foundation Board of Officers and Trustees

New LCBAMembers

Welcome

AttorneysDiana Martinez

Discover Financial ServicesJoshua Patrick

Lindsay, Pickett & Postel, LLCJackson Swartout Attorney at Law

Daniel Hood Thomas B. Hood Law Offices

Jason Montemayor Zanck Coen,

Wright & Saladin, P.CMaurice Hunt

Panzaca & Associates

Register for these eventsonline at: www.lakebar.org

Calendar ofEvents

The88

June 9 Annual Membership Picnic Glen Flora Country Club

July 26 Annual Golf Outing

Glen Flora Country Club

The Docket8

PlayPlayers of all levels are encouraged to participate in the 2018 Lake County Bar Association Golf Outing.

The LCBA Golf Outing is guaranteed to be a huge success which you do not want to miss.

Golf Championship TrophyFor those who take this outing seriously, this is your goal. Remember, two members of a foursome must be LCBA Members to win the trophy.

2018 LCBA Golf Outing

ContestsContests for players of all levels• Men’s / Women’s Longest Drive• Men’s / Women’s Straightest

Drive• Men’s / Women’s Closest to the

Pin• Putting obstacle course• Most balls in the water• Raffle prizes• Door prizes

The CourseAt the heart of any great country club lies a golf course of incomparable charm and challenge, one that engages golfers at every level of consciousness. Preeminent architect Austin Clayssens designed such a golf course at Glen Flora. Established in 1911 and set among 125 exquisite acres in the serenity of Chicago’s North Shore, the vision for the property was developed into a par 70, 6,420-yard championship layout. The golf course is the centerpiece of Glen Flora, and it has been carefully sculpted to embrace the essence of a membership beholding the ideals of the great game at this golf course.

Raffle PrizesWe are seeking 4-5 raffle prizes valued at $500 or above. Each donor of a raffle prize will receive:• Firm, organization or company prominently displayed throughout

the championship• Firm, organization or company name/logo on all advance

promotional materials once commitment is made• Acknowledgment of sponsorship in player welcome packet• ½ page ad in August 2018 The DocketPlayers

$175 per player or $700 per foursome• Greens fee, cart and range balls• Lunch, two beverage tickets and

post play reception• 1 Mulligan and one door prize

ticket per player• Raffle prizes and tournament

contest

The Fine PrintNo reservations will be accepted unless payment is received (or guaranteed by a credit card) by Friday, July 20, 2018. No refunds will be issued after 12:00 Noon, Friday, July 20, 2018. Any member who reserves a foursome will be responsible for the payment and attendance of the entire group (the reserving LCBA member’s credit card will be charged for the entire group fee regardless of whether the entire foursome is present to play on Thursday, July 26, 2018 (unless prior arrangements have been made before the cancellation date).

Feel Good Four PackDoes your golf game struggle a bit? No worries – for a $20 contribution to the Lake County Bar Association, you can purchase a Feel Good Four Pack consisting of the following:• An additional one free mulligan• 1 do over chance on chips• Be bold on your first putt – you pick up and do not need to make

2nd putt and 1 Cup extender• 5 additional raffle tickets for door prizes

June 2018 9

July 26, 2018 | Glen Flora Country ClubRegister online at www.lakebar.org

Join the fun as a SponsorEagle 4Some Sponsor: $1,200(game sponsor/premium starting position and recognition)

• Choice of starting hole (first paid-first choice)• 4 players: green fees, cart and range balls• 4 Mulligans, 4 door prize entries• 12 drink tickets, pre-round luncheon and post-round reception• Name of firm, organization or individual displayed on a sign at one of the 18 tees (Text or

logos permitted, please provide JPG file)• Complimentary ½ page advertisement in August 2018 issue of The Docket

Gold Tee Sponsor: $1,000(hole sponsor)

• Your generous contribution will support your choice of one of the of the following: Pre-round Luncheon, Post Round Reception, Hole-in-One Competition

• The name of your firm, organization or company displayed on an individual sign at one of the 18 tees. (Text or logos permitted, please provide JPG file)

• Firm, organization or company prominently displayed throughout the championship• 2 tickets to the: pre-round luncheon, post-round reception, 2 drink tickets per person• 2 representatives permitted at sponsored hole to greet players and distribute items• Acknowledgment of sponsorship in player welcome packet• Complimentary ½ page advertisement in August 2018 issue of The Docket

Silver Tee Sponsor: $500(hole sponsor)

• The name of your firm, organization or company displayed on an individual sign at one of the 18 tees. (Text or logos permitted, please provide JPG file)

• Firm, organization or company prominently displayed throughout the championship• 2 tickets to the: pre-round luncheon, post-round reception, 2 drink tickets per person• 2 representatives permitted at sponsored hole to greet players and distribute items• Acknowledgment of sponsorship in player welcome packet• Complimentary ¼ page advertisement in August 2018 issue of The Docket

Tee Sponsor: $150• The name of your firm, organization or company displayed on an individual sign at one of

the 18 tees (Text or logos permitted, please provide JPG file)• Acknowledgment of sponsorship in player welcome packet• Acknowledgment of sponsorship in August 2018 issue of The Docket

The Docket10

2017 LCBA Golf Outing & Sponsor Registration

Cont act Information

July 26, 2018 | Glen Flora Country ClubRegister online at www.lakebar.org

Name: ______________________________________ Firm: ________________________________________Display Acknowledgment as: _________________________________________________________________(How the sponsor’s name will appear)Address: ____________________________________ City, State & Zip: ______________________________Phone: _____________________________________ Fax: ________________________________________E-mail: ___________________________________________________________________________________Payment method: o Check enclosed o Visa o Mastercard o Discover o American Express Number: ___________________________________ Expiration Date: ____/____/____ CVV: ___________ Signature: ________________________________________________________________________________

PLEASE RETURN REGISTRATION TO:Lake County Bar Association • 300 Grand Avenue, Ste A • Waukegan, IL 60085

TEL (847) 244-3143 • FAX (847) 244-8259

MY FOURSOME:

1. ____________________________________ HDCP

2. ____________________________________ HDCP

3. ____________________________________ HDCP

4. ____________________________________ HDCP

Please try to place me with:

Name: ________________________________

o Individual Player: # ____ @ $175 (includes golf, lunch & reception) o Foursome: # ____ @ $700 (includes golf, lunch & reception) o Feel Good Four Pack: # ____ @ $20o Lunch: # ____ @ $25 o Reception & 1 Drink Ticket: # ____ @ $25o Eagle Sponsor (includes 4 players) $1,200o Gold Tee Sponsor $1,000o Silver Tee Sponsor $500o Tee Sponsor $150o Raffle Prize Sponsor * Total $ __________

Sponsorship opportunities are available on a first paid, first serve basis. Sponsors will be recognized with signage at the event and a thank you ad in The Docket.

• Registration & Practice 10:30 a.m.• Lunch 11:00 a.m. - 12:00 Noon• Shot Gun 12:30 p.m.• Post Game Reception Approx. 5:00 p.m.

June 2018 11

The recently amended rule requires uninsured lawyers

to complete an online self-assessment. Contact Andrew

at andrew.murray@isbamutual.com or visit

isbamutual.com/rule-756 to learn more.

No one serves small and solo firms like ISBA Mutual...

we’re the #1 legal malpractice insurance company in Illinois.

UNINSURED ILLINOIS LAWYERS :

How is Your FirmAffected by SupremeCourt Rule 756(e)?

Andrew MurrayDirector of Sales

312 379-2000 isbamutual.com

The Docket12

color

WHY SHOULD A LAWYER BE CIVIL? Our work, by its very nature, is adversarial. As

attorneys we have an obligation to zealously represent and defend our clients’ interests. We argue for a living. Essentially, we function as middle-men between parties because we possess the specialized training and prudence to articulate well-reasoned arguments, rather than display base emotions. In order to be heard and successfully achieve our clients’ ends, we must never compromise our composure or decency.

Civility is not a notion that is confined to collaborative lawyers, but applies with equal, if not greater, force to litigators who must neces-sarily remain conscientious of their courtesy to the Court, opposing parties, and their own clients. All

lawyers should exercise sound moral judgment and be concerned with their professional reputation. We have been entrusted with an intrinsic duty to maintain a sense of decorum to the Court and the public-at-

large when acting as officers in the administration of justice.

ARE YOUNG LAWYERS LESS CIVIL THAN THEIR PREDECESSORS?

Numerous jurisdictions are recognizing and lamenting the deterioration of civility in the legal profession. Some may be tempted to attribute this decline in courtesy to the influx of newly minted Millenni-al attorneys to the profession. How-ever, incivility is not a new problem nor is it unique to professionals under the age of thirty-five.

Are Young Lawyers Less Civilized? BY MARIE SARANTAKIS, LAP WRITING COMMITTEE

Marie Sarantakis is the founding attorney of Sarantakis Law Group, Ltd. She concentrates her practice in family law and criminal defense. Ms. Sarantakis is Co-Chair of the American Bar Association Young Lawyers Division Family Law Committee.

What is civility? Civility is an art, attitude, and behavior. It is the act of being able to politely disagree during discourse and the ability to remain respectful in the midst of a tense situation. Moreover, it is resisting the impulse to react

based on emotion. Consequently, those who are civil make others feel comfortable, heard, and respected. They are disciplined and keep greater end goals in sight.

June 2018 13

color

First Midwest Wealth Management strives to be the corporate

fiduciary of choice for families and individuals that need skilled

professional assistance with their estate plans.

• We willingly accept difficult situations including

disputed trusts.

• We coordinate with trust and estate attorneys.

• We have over $10 billion in assets.

1 Wealth Management services are offered through First Midwest Bank. Most wealth management products are not FDIC insured.

Close working relationships. Skilled professional assistance.

Helping clients achieve their wealth management objectives.

FirstMidwest.com/Wealth | 800.369.40652 May be subject to credit approval.

Property insurance may be required.

First Midwest WM Ad - 4/c - Full Page - Finished Size 8.5" x 11" - Bleed 8.75" x 11.25" (Live Area 8.25" x 10.75")Lisa Herff - 630-875-7269 - Lake County Bar Association Docket - May 1st ISSUE Ad Due Date 4/1/2018

We offer a full range of Wealth Management Services1:

Personal Trust and Estate ServicesTrust Administration

Revocable and Irrevocable Trusts

Guardianship and Special Needs Trusts

Directed, Complex or Disputed Trusts

Charitable Trusts

Estate and Trust Settlement

Business and Closely Held Asset Advisory Management

Investment ManagementAsset Allocation

Portfolio Management

Investment Strategies

Individual Retirement Accounts

Custodian ServicesTrade Settlement

Corporate Actions

Reporting

Wealth Planning ConsultationEstate Planning

Retirement Planning

Business Succession Planning

Liquidity and Cash Flow Analysis

Philanthropic Planning

Real Estate and Agricultural ServicesFarm Management

Land Trusts

1031 Exchanges

Consulting

Institutional Asset ManagementNonprofits, Foundations and Endowments

Retirement Benefit Services

Trustee, Administration and Recordkeeping

Dedicated Private Banker

Custom Credit2

Personal Cash Management

The Docket14

Be that as it may, here are four reasons why Millen-nials may be at risk of being perceived as, or be vulner-able to, behaving less civilly:

(1) We were raised with different cultural norms – Contemporary society is becoming increas-ingly informal. As Millennials, many of us have grown up in a world much less structured than our predeces-sors. It is not that we consider civility to be anachronis-tic or dispensable, rather we may be wrongly perceived as not paying homage to traditions and etiquette which we don’t know to exist. A Millennial may not be aware of what behaviors are expected by prior generations if they have not had much experience and/or men-torship.

(2) We commu-nicate differently – Smart phones and e-mail have drastically altered the way all of us com-municate. For Millennials, a text message is an accept-able and efficient way to make contact, whereas for a Baby Boomer, this may be perceived as an impersonal and watered-down cop out to a real conversation. While we can debate the merits of what constitutes ideal communication, both sides can agree that there is less accountability and more room for miscommu-nication when we don’t directly talk to and/or see the other party. Accordingly, older lawyers may find a younger lawyer’s mode of delivery to be disrespectful due to its form, rather than its content or intention.

(3) We aim to zealously represent our clients – Model Rule 2.1 demands that attorneys zealously represent their clients. This seems difficult to reconcile with behaving civilly. However, Comment 1 of Model Rule 1.3 makes it clear that, “[t]he lawyer’s duty to act with reasonable diligence does not require the use of offensive tactics or preclude the treating of all persons involved in the legal process with courtesy and re-spect.” Learning to delicately balance zealous represen-tation of a client with maintaining civility and polite-ness towards an opponent can be a challenging task in the early stages of one’s legal career.

(4) We are inundated with dramatic impres-sions in the media – There is no shortage of legal dramas on television or the big screen. These sen-sationalized portrayals can have an influence on an impressionable student navigating what it means to be a good attorney.

These are a few of the many reasons cited in com-mon discourse which may potentially be influencing a new lawyer’s understanding of civility. Whether these arguments have merit and to the degree that

they impact on young attorneys’ behavior is debatable. Irrespective of how civil new attorneys behave, and why this is or is not so, it is a laudable objective that all attorneys should aim to conduct their work in a principled and upstanding manner. Accordingly, here are five ways in which an attorney can enhance his/her professionalism:

(1) Gaining Experience – A new lawyer may receive mixed messages as to how they are expected

to behave and what is proper. Over time, this usually irons itself out. It becomes apparent that it is a disservice to your client and yourself to behave in a boorish and abrasive manner. Conversely, it becomes glaringly evident that the old adage, “you catch more flies with honey than with vine-

gar” reigns true. (2) Being Present – We must make an effort to

be more present, both physically and mentally. Rather than sending an e-mail or text we can reach out to call or visit the other person. Granted this is not always possible or expeditious, but we must be aware that sterile written words lacking inflection and tone will always pale in depth and connection to those which are personally spoken. Moreover, when we are engag-ing with someone, we need to focus on what they are saying and feeling and not simply inwardly preparing our response. As attorneys, that may be difficult for us to do because we are taught to always be prepared and focus on our goals while cutting out outside noise.

(3) Attending Professionalism CLEs – While new attorneys need to focus their resources on learn-ing the substantive law and procedures of their trade, it is also imperative that they learn the unwritten rules of professional conduct, which may also potentially have a significant impact on their work.

(4) Securing Mentorship –We subconsciously learn from others how to approach disputes and re-solve conflicts. Our base instincts are tempted to resort to rudeness and tantrums, but as we mature, we learn that we are more likely to be heard and get our way if we behave reasonably and respectfully. We come to this realization not only through our own trial and error, but also by acting as an observer. The opportunity to witness how a seasoned practitioner handles tribula-tions is invaluable.

(5) Practicing Reflection – Inevitably we will all encounter a hot-headed lawyer who sends an infuri-ating and accusatory e-mail, while copying half of the western hemisphere. After reading it, the scene is ripe

“Civility costs nothing, and buys everything.”

– Mary Wortley Montagu

June 2018 15

to prepare your emotionally charged response. In such a situation, it is best to resist the temptation. Ulti-mately, civility is within us, but sometimes it may not be our primal response. If it is appropriate to respond, wait a few hours, and do so in a matter-of-fact but polite manner. You can best defend your reputation, and dismantle the other side’s assertions, by remaining above the fray.

At the end of the day, civility comes down to one thing, being nice. It’s the right thing to do. By behav-ing civilly, you are likely to not only gain more respect,

but also lend greater credence to your voice. Civility benefits you, your clients, and the legal profession.

Marie Sarantakis is the founding attorney of Saran-takis Law Group, Ltd. She concentrates her practice in family law and criminal defense. Ms. Sarantakis is Co-Chair of the American Bar Association Young Lawyers Division Family Law Committee and on the Board of Governors of the West Suburban Bar Association. She is also a Young Professionals Board Member of Illinois Legal Aid Online and an Associate Board Member of the Illinois Lawyers Assistance Program.

Toll Free: 1-800-776-6060 • Chicago: 1-312-346-3770100 South Wacker Drive, Suite 900, Chicago, IL 60606

www.ResoluteSystems.com

CHICAGO • MILWAUKEE • NEW YORK

MEDIATION, ARBITRATION & ADR CONSULTING

Resolute Systems, LLC

Judge Margaret Mullen works with Lake County attorneys and their clients to mediate:

• Personal Injury• Divorce• Medical Malpractice• Professional Malpractice• Probate• Commercial Matters

Call Resolute Systems at 312-346-3770. Let’s get started on settling your dispute!

Hon. Margaret J. Mullen, ret.Mediator • Arbitrator • Discovery Referee

The Docket16

Perhaps more importantly, the newly revised section also replaced the spousal maintenance “cliffs” under which guideline maintenance obliga-tions jumped dramatically at the 5, 10, and 15-year marks, to “stair steps” in which each additional year of marriage gradually increases the guideline main-tenance award in applicable cases (for example, from 36% of the duration of the marriage for marriages of between 8 and 9 years to 40% of the duration of the marriage for marriages of between 9 and 10 years).1 These modifications have generally been viewed favorably, in that they served to eliminate, or at least greatly decrease, the “divorce filing incentive” for troubled marriag-es approaching the statutorily critical anniversaries and also substantially

1 Illinois Public Act 100-520.

winnowed down the “non-guideline” case pool to truly high-income house-holds above $500,000 per year.

While the statutory guidelines for maintenance have helped to streamline at least some cases and provide im-proved predictability for both litigants and courts, most family law practi-tioners may also be aware by now of the rote and often thoughtless manner in which maintenance has come to be awarded since the “formula era” began in 2016. Essentially, spousal mainte-nance has, almost overnight, gone from being a legitimate point of debate gov-erned by a multi-factor analysis, into a calculator-driven right in virtually every case where the parties have been mar-ried at least 5 years and the lower-earn-ing party generates less than 40% of the household income. While this out-come is predictable in that it takes a lot

The 504(a) Blind Spot: Why do we Default to Maintenance?

BY STUART REID AND SARAH KAHN

Sarah Kahn was sworn into the Illinois bar in November 2014. Since then, she has been practicing family law with The Law Offices of Stuart A. Reid, P.C. Stuart A. Reid established his firm in 2004 and devotes his practice exclusively to family law matters, including divorce, child support, paternity and allocation of college education expenses.

The latest version of Section 504, “Maintenance” of the Illinois Marriage and Dis-solution of Marriage Act, effective January 1, 2018, served to revise the statute by increasing the ceiling for application of the statutory formula from combined

household incomes of $250,000 to $500,000.

June 2018 17

less work for lawyers and judges to quickly punch a handful of data points into a calculator or an app and let it spit out a result, this 30-second analysis is not actually consistent with the statute. Rather, Section 504 now provides as follows, “In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal separation … the court may grant a maintenance award for either spouse… [t]he court shall first determine whether a maintenance award is appropriate, after consider-ation of all relevant factors…”2 An award of maintenance is discretion-ary, not mandatory, and the preliminary question, which is now usually ig-nored, is: “is this a mainte-nance case?” Specifically, the statute still provides a list of factors to be consid-ered under section 504(a), with the open-ended fourteenth factor being “any other factor that the court expressly finds to be just and equitable.”3 Some of those factors include “the needs of each party … the realistic present and future earning capacity of each party … any impair-ment of the present and future earning capacity of the party seeking main-tenance due to that party devoting time to domestic duties … the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities, and the needs of each of the parties …”4

Expressed as a flowchart, the statute provides the fol-lowing decision-making process: Box 1: Review and apply the 14 statutory factors set forth in Section 504(a). Is maintenance appropriate under the 14 factors? Yes: Apply the formulas and determine the amount and duration as set forth in Section 504(b-1) if the total household income is $500,000 or less. No: Ok. It’s not a maintenance case. Instead, the decision-making flowchart actually being applied around Illinois appears to be as follows:

Box 1: Has the lesser-earning spouse been making less than 40% of the total household income over the past year or two?

2 750 ILCS 5/504(a) (emphasis added).3 Id.4 Id.

If Yes: Maintenance is awarded. Apply the formula. If No: No maintenance. But you probably knew that al-ready since the parties’ incomes are practically identical.This erroneous, near-automatic application of the statu-

tory formula in Illinois has been facilitated by a flaw in the now-dominant (and overall very good) Family Law Software program, which automatically applies the spousal main-tenance formula the moment you begin providing income

data for the two litigants, without any initial inquiry as to whether maintenance is appropriate in the case or, for that matter, wheth-er the parties were even married (which is pretty important, since mar-riage is a prerequisite for maintenance eligibility in Illinois). So, for example, if you are working on a child support question in a parentage case where the parties were never married (and therefore no claim to maintenance is available), or a case with a prenuptial agreement barring main-tenance, or simply a case where the statutory factors indicate that maintenance is not appropriate (as per the actual instructions in the statute) you instead

have to “turn off” maintenance by un-checking one or more of a series of tiny boxes.

The screenshot below was taken from a newly-created Family Law Software file in which the only inputs were the parties’ names, incomes, and that there were two children of the relationship. At least three boxes must be unchecked here to take maintenance “out of the equation.”

One hesitates to imagine how many unmarried liti-gants have already ended up with incorrect child support amounts after a quick computation in Family Law Software presumed that the parties were married and therefore figured a maintenance adjustment to each party’s income before applying the child support tables.

In essence, the mindset has become the exact opposite of the process described in Section 504, with a phantom burden now being applied to “disprove” maintenance in every case where the total household income does not fall within a 60/40 split.

There is probably (at least) one additional factor at play in the rote application of the maintenance formula that has developed. Maintenance and child support are side-by-side in the divorce statute (at sections 504 and 505, respectively) and practitioners are very familiar with the application of

The complex modern world in which we live,

and the infinite variety of family structures that we find within it, makes the question of whether and

when the award of spousal maintenance is appropriate

a challenging one.

The Docket18

child support formulas in Illinois, whether that be the old percentage of income model or the new data-driven “basic obligation” tables. There is no list of statutory factors to be considered as to whether child support is appropriate.5 All minors whose parents are separated (and somebody files a case) are entitled to child support. The child support debate now usually boils down to “where does this data put us on the tables” and, once in a while, “which parent should be the payor.” So, the “quick take” on the maintenance formulas in Illinois appears to have boiled down to “Oh, this is like figuring out child support… the argument is mostly about what the right inputs are” even though that’s not actually what the newly revised maintenance statute says. Howev-er, in order to comply with the actual statute, it is critically important that we re-examine this blind spot in light of the socioeconomic landscape of today’s world.

Such a rote application of the maintenance formula may have been well-founded decades ago when marriages were exclusively between a man and a woman, divorces were based on fault, and women were a much smaller fraction of the workforce.6 This “always-on” maintenance presumption is also consistent with established principles in Illinois case

5 Although one can certainly have fun imagining a list of such statu-tory factors, such as “Do they brush their teeth?” or “Are they nice to grandma?”

6 See Morgan, Laura W. “Current Trends in Alimony Law: Where Are We Now?” ABA GPSolo eReport, Vol 1., No. 9, April 2012. (Available at: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/gpsolo/publi-cations/gpsolo_ereport/2012/april_2012/current_trends_alimo-ny_law.html).

law that “maintenance is intended to be rehabilitative in nature to allow a dependent spouse to become financially independent” and that “[p]ermanent maintenance is appro-priate… where a spouse is unemployable or employable only at an income substantially lower than the previous standard of living.”7 The implicit assumption was, at least in the ma-jority of the marriages of yesteryear, that the wife economi-cally and professionally disadvantaged herself to stay home to care for children while the husband worked to support the family. Then, at the end of such a marriage, it would be inequitable to the wife, who had sacrificed years of profes-sional and economic potential, to not be afforded either the opportunity to rehabilitate her earning capacity or to live out her remaining years at a standard of living consistent with what had been established during the marriage.

Times and economic realities, however, have changed dramatically in the past several decades. In the U.S. from 1960 to 2012, the percentage of married couples with children under 18 where the father was the sole breadwin-ner shrank from 70% to 30%, while the percentage of dual income households has risen from 25% to 60%.8 There is now a growing gender gap in higher education, with women outnumbering men in college enrollment.9 People are get-

7 In re Marriage of Heroy, 385 Ill.App.3d 640 (1st Dist., 2008) (quoting In re Marriage of Samardzija, 365 Ill.App.3d at 708 (3d Dist., 2006)).

8 The Rise in Dual Income Households, Pew Research Center, June 18, 2015. (Available at: http://www.pewresearch.org/ft_du-al-income-households-1960-2012-2/).

9 Lopez, Mark Hugo and Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana. “Women’s Col-

June 2018 19

ting married for the first time at later and later ages, with the average marriage age having climbed from 23 to 29 for men, and from 20 to 26.5 for women, between 1960 and 2011.10 Fewer and fewer women are choosing to have children, and those who choose to have children are having them later and later in life, with the U.S. fertility rate at an all-time low.11 Same-sex marriage is now the law of the land.12 Life expec-tancies increased throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, with people living longer on average than ever before.13 With people living longer, it is also no surprise that rates of remarriage are on the rise for Americans aged 55 and older.14

Given these dramatic changes in society and the huge expansion of “non-traditional marriages,” there is now an endless supply of fact patterns in which an award of mainte-nance from the higher earning spouse to the lower earning spouse is neither intuitive nor consistent with the statutory factors. What about a later-in-life remarriage, where one or both spouses are on their second, third, or even fourth mar-riages, never raised any children together and married either during or shortly before their retirement, yet have disparate incomes? This is a fact pattern which throws many of the common 504(a) factors out the window and perhaps lends additional weight to others, such as the duration of the marriage and the age and health of the parties. An income differential in such a fact pattern, when the income is largely retirement income from labor performed long before the parties ever met, should not automatically give rise to a pre-sumption of spousal maintenance, and the legislature has explicitly provided for these sorts of scenarios by instruct-ing that we are to apply the statutory factors first and only then, if maintenance is appropriate, apply the formula. In spite of this, in all truthfulness, it would be our expectation that even in a 12-year marriage between two senior citizens who never raised children together, were retired when they met, and with the lesser-income party in better health, the courts would still presume that the party with 70% of the income should pay maintenance to the party with 30% of

lege Enrollment Gains Leave Men Behind” March 6, 2014. Pew Research Center. (Available at: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/06/womens-college-enrollment-gains-leave-men-behind/).

10 Cohn, D’Vera, Passel, Jeffrey S., Wang, Wendy, and Livinston, Gretchen. “Barely Half of U.S. Adults Are Marred - A Record Low” December 14, 2011. Pew Research Center. (Available at http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s-adults-are-married-a-record-low/).

11 Paquette, Danielle. “Why American Women Are Having Fewer Babies Than Ever” August 16, 2016. The Washington Post (Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/16/why-american-women-are-having-fewer-babies-than-ever/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.56d041e723c4).

12 Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015).13 National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States,

2016: With Chartbook on Long-Term Trends in Health. Hyatts-ville, MD. 2017. (Available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus16.pdf#015).

14 Livingston, Gretchen. “Chapter 2: The Demographics of Re-marriage.” November 15, 2014. The Pew Research Center. (Available at: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/11/14/chap-ter-2-the-demographics-of-remarriage/).

the income, regardless of the statutory factors. What about a marriage in which one party has a higher income but is 62 years old, while the other party earns less but has a stable career with better benefits at work (such as a police officer or government employee), and has many more years ahead before normal retirement age? What about a marriage in which the parties did not marry until their respective chil-dren from prior relationships were already in college, both parties have stable careers, and neither party ever delayed or stepped away from their career to raise the other’s children?

The complex modern world in which we live, and the infinite variety of family structures that we find within it, makes the question of whether and when the award of spousal maintenance is appropriate a challenging one. In recently revising the maintenance statute, the Illinois legislature has made a good faith effort to standardize the amount and duration of maintenance in cases where maintenance is appropriate, so as to avoid the specter of regional disparities across the state (or even from judge to judge). The legislature has, however, still tasked us as lawyers and judges to continue doing the “heavy lifting” of applying a list of 14 statutory factors to make the initial determination of whether “the light is on” in the first place (i.e. whether maintenance is appropriate). So far, however, all of us (lawyers, judges and even software developers) seem to have taped the light switch to the wall in the “on” position. That’s not what the statute tells us to do.

Upscale Office for Rent

1880 W. Winchester Rd., Suite 206 Libertyville, IL

• Shared office space • Internet & utilities included • Large conference room • Reception area • Kitchenette • Private bathrooms

2 Individual Private Offices Available Now for $600 Per Month

For more information contact: David Maloney at 847-247-2700 or dmaloney@maloneylawllc.com

The Docket20

1. Paid as cash or cash equivalents;12. Made pursuant to a qualified instrument (usually a

divorce decree or separation agreement);3. Is not designated by the instrument as “not mainte-

nance”; 4. The parties must reside in separate households when

payment is made;5. The payor is not liable to make any payment after

death of payee spouse; 6. The parties must file separate income tax returns;

and 7. The payment is not treated as

child support. Note that payments for joint-ly-owned house expenses, manda-

1 Steven G. Siegel, Divorce and Separation: Tax Issues, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Personal Finan-cial Planning Section (2013) at Ch. 1. avail-able at https://www.aicpa.org/interestareas/personalfinancialplanning/cpeandevents/downloadabledocuments/20131121-di-vorcetaxationoutline.pdf

tory life insurance payments, and payments to third parties on behalf of a spouse can also be considered maintenance.2 Under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage statute, the court is required to follow a statutory calculation for maintenance. Deviation is allowed by agreement of the parties, or by the court, with specific findings as to the reason for the deviation. The tax treatment of maintenance would not be a finding that would justify a deviation under current Illinois statute. Going forward, in general, maintenance will have

three different tax treatments based on whether the maintenance is considered part of a pre-1985 divorce judgment, post-1984 judgment or a post-2018 judgment. The current change to maintenance tax treatment

2 U.S. Department of Treasure, Internal Revenue Service, (2017), Publication 504: Divorced or Separated Individuals (Cat. No. 15006I) at pg. 15-18, retrieved from https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p504.pdf.

Effect of 2017 GOP Tax Reform on Maintenance in Illinois

BY GRETA J. BERNA

Greta Berna has her Juris Doctorate from the John Marshall Law School. Her law career will focus on family law and human rights.

Maintenance/Alimony (hereinafter referred to as “maintenance”) is “…a payment to or for a spouse or former spouse made under a divorce or separation instrument.”1

The IRS has specific requirements for payments to a spouse to be considered maintenance. The payments must be:

June 2018 21

will be effective for post-2018 judgments entered after De-cember 31, 2018. For the purposes of this article, we will only be discussing the tax treatment of maintenance.

Pre-1985 statutes had a broader definition of mainte-nance. Pre-1985 payments are considered maintenance if the payments are set forth under a divorce or separation instrument and both of the following conditions are met: 1) payments are based on marital or familial relationship, and 2) they are not child support.3

Post-1984 statutes have a narrower and more specific defini-tion of maintenance payments, as detailed in the first paragraph of this article. Further, post-1984 maintenance is subject to recapture if the maintenance payments increase or decrease more than $15,000.00 per year in the first three years after the judgment is entered.4

All pre-2019 divorce judgments allow the payor to deduct maintenance from his/her gross income, as an “above the line deduction” on page 1 of the federal 1040, and require the payee to claim the maintenance as part of income on 1040 page 1 (or allow each in the marital judgment to specify the tax treatment of the maintenance.5)

Under current law, maintenance payments generally are an above-the line deduction on Federal form 1040 for the payor and are included in the taxable income of the payee. Maintenance is considered earned income for the payee. “However, maintenance payments are not deduct-ible by the payor or includible in the income of the payee if designated as such by the divorce decree or separation

3 Id. at 16-17. 4 Publication 504 at pg. 17. Recapture can be avoided by doing

the following: 1) equal payments are made over the first three years 2) decreases during the first three years are less than the $15,000 threshold and 3) if the agreement provides that the ob-ligation of the payor terminates upon the death of the spouse. Recapture is the I.R.S.’s most effective tool to prevent parties from disguising property settlement through maintenance. The recapture rule takes effect only when the divorce is final.

5 U.S. Department of Treasure, Internal Revenue Service, (2017), Publication 504: Divorced or Separated Individuals (Cat. No. 15006I) at pg. 13-14, retrieved from https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p504.pdf. See also Steven G. Siegel, Divorce and Sep-aration: Tax Issues, American Institute of Certified Public Ac-countants (AICPA) Personal Financial Planning Section (2013) at Ch. 1. available at https://www.aicpa.org/interestareas/personalfinancialplanning/cpeandevents/downloadabledocu-ments/20131121-divorcetaxationoutline.pdf

judgment.”6 In effect, divorced parties get a more bene-ficial tax treatment of spousal support than do married couples. This is primarily because the spouse with the higher income gets to reduce his taxable income by the amount paid to the former spouse which may allow this spouse to be in a lower tax bracket. The spouse who must

claim the maintenance as income is often in a lower tax bracket than the paying spouse. This is referred to as the divorce subsidy.7

The new law could affect whether parties file for divorce in 2018, earlier rather than later, or choose to settle before December 31, 2018. More importantly, attorneys will need to clarify to their clients that if a party whose judgment predates

December 31, 2018 chooses to modify maintenance under the “substantial change” rule, the tax treatment could be negatively affected. Because Pre-2019 judgments grandfa-ther out of the new tax reform, the payor can still deduct maintenance from the gross income as a 1040, page 1 deduction, and the payee is still required to include the maintenance payments in his/her gross income. If these parties choose to modify the maintenance, and the judg-ment is entered after December 31, 2018, the parties may now be subject to the 2017 Tax Reform rules.

The 2017 GOP tax reform, The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, will repeal the divorce subsidy. Under section 1309 Repeal of the Deduction for Alimony Payments, maintenance payments are not deductible by the payor nor includible in the income of the payee.8 The new law is “effective for any divorce decree or separation agreement executed after December 31, 2018 and to any modification after 2018 of any such instrument executed before such date if expressly provided for by

6 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, H.R.1 Section-by-Section Summary, Ways and Means Committee (2017), pg. 16-17, available at

http://files.constantcontact.com/e435713a001/a96d16f5-cf50-45f8-b17c-d8456571e430.pdf (accessed Nov. 3, 2017)

7 Generally speaking, maintenance payments, even if required by a prenuptial or postnuptial, are usually protected from a dis-charge in bankruptcy. Tthe parties must prove, however, to the bankruptcy court that the maintenance is not a property settle-ment in disguise.

8 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, H.R.1 Section-by-Section Summary, Ways and Means Committee (2017), pg. 17, available at http://files.constantcontact.com/e435713a001/a96d16f5-cf50-45f8-b17c-d8456571e430.pdf (accessed Nov. 3, 2017); See also The GOP Finally Unveiled Its Massive Tax Plan that Proposes a Sweeping Overhaul to the System by Bob Bryan, Business Insid-er, November 2, 2017, available at http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gop-tax-reform-plan-bill-text-detailes-rate-2017-10. (accessed November 3, 2017).

The 2017 GOP tax reform, The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, will repeal the

divorce subsidy.

The Docket22

such modification.”9 In other words, attorneys should incorporate specific language in any modification order or judgment stating, “…the tax treatment of this modification will be subject to the pre-2019 tax rules - deductible for the payor on 1040 page 1, and includible as income to the payee on 1040 page 1.” If an attorney fails to put in this type of specific language, the parties would lose their divorce subsidy.

This means that the payor would not receive the tax benefit of deducting the maintenance paid to a for-mer spouse thereby lowering his or her taxable income. The payee would not include the maintenance pay-ments as earned income in his or her tax return. This forces the payor to pay both the maintenance amount and the taxes on any income used to pay the mainte-nance at the higher tax rate. In long term or permanent maintenance cases, this could impact the payor for de-cades. It is likely that most parties and their attorneys will seek to compensate the payor for the tax inequity paid at the higher rate by the payor and for the long-term tax impact to the payor.

If a judgment is properly written, this tax change will likely not be a windfall to either party. Family law may seek to offset the tax impact of maintenance to incorporate the receiver paying tax due by the payor. At-torneys must ensure that proper language is included in the Marital Settlement Agreement or the modification judgment to provide for a reduction in maintenance for the amount equal to tax the payor will incur. Similar to other situations in a divorce case, the parties may “true up” the amount owed by one party to the other party. This allows for a modification of the adjustment amount on a year-by-year basis. Further, this issue may not arise if the attorney includes the specific language mentioned above in the modification order.

9 One Hundred and Fifteenth Congress, H.R. 1, § 11051 (c) REPEAL OF DEDUCTION FOR ALIMONY PAYMENTS, pg. 36. available at https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1/BILLS-115hr1enr.pdf. (accessed January 24, 2018).

Under the current Illinois statute, reducing the main-tenance paid to compensate for taxes the payor incurs may be considered a deviation. If the courts find this qualifies as a deviation, the court may wait to see whether the legislature fixes the issue before they act.

The IRS is likely strictly to enforce the post-2018 tax rules. It is foreseeable that modification after 2018, will likely face audits by the IRS seeking to enforce the “no deduction/no includible income” rule. This will allow the government to collect taxes at the higher payor’s income rate so that the divorce subsidy no longer negatively af-fects the government’s tax income.

Another possibility is that the Illinois legislature may amend their family law statutes to compensate for post-2018 tax treatment of maintenance. Illinois should amend the maintenance statute to include a formula to compensate the payor for the tax amount he/she will now be required to pay to the IRS on the maintenance amount. Arguably, the maintenance payee will claim that the payor should only be compensated for his/her half of the tax and not the full amount incurred. To adjust for the unfavorable tax treatment under the 2017 tax reform, the formula would need to adjust down the amount paid by the payor to the payee to be net of his/her half of the tax amount owed to the IRS on the main-tenance amount. Because the payor would likely pay a higher tax rate on the maintenance amount than the payee, it would result in a smaller maintenance amount being received by the payee. This, in essence, eliminates the prior divorce subsidy.

In conclusion, judgments that predate January 1, 2019, are not subject to the 2017 tax reform rules. Any judgment or modification to maintenance entered after December 31, 2018, will be subject to the 2017 tax re-form rules. It is important that any modification order or judgment dated after December 31, 2018, include the proper language to allow for an adjustment to the maintenance amount to offset half the tax the payor will incur on the portion of his/her gross income which is paid for maintenance.

June 2018 23

The Lake County Bar Association Board of Directors met at

noon on Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at their office in Waukegan, Illinois. Present were J. Howe, B. Lewis, S. Rice, R. Kessler, S. Parikh, D. Morrison, J. Fusz, P. Cornell, T. Devine, T. Newsome, Hon C. Bishop, K. Hatch, and Interim Executive Direc-tor V. Elliott.

The meeting was called to order at 12:05 p.m. A motion was made and seconded to remove the minutes from the consent agenda, discus-sion ensued, and the Motion passed. A Motion was made to approve the minutes from the March meeting, as revised, and was seconded, discussion ensued, and the Motion was passed; the revised minutes will be in the April 2018 Docket.

The list of newly proposed members was reviewed by the Board and a Motion was made and seconded to approve the new members, and the Motion passed.

The Board discussed a change in its registered agent, which is current-ly the former Executive Director. The Board discussed that there were certain benefits of having a corporation rather than an individual be listed. Moreover, the Lake Coun-ty Bar Foundation recent-ly appointed a corporate agent to replace the former Executive Direc-tor. A motion was made and seconded to appoint Corporation Agents, Inc., as the registered agent for the Lake County Bar As-sociation, and the Motion passed.

The Board discussed a recent request that the LCBA promote fundrais-ing for a Ray Bradbury statue, which is proposed for the Waukegan Library. The proposed statue would be located in front of the library. The Board discussed referring the re-quest to The Docket’s ed-itorial board, which could solicit an article regarding the proposal. Second Vice President Steve Rice offered to coordinate with

The Docket.Prairie State advised

the Board that it is look-ing for summer interns who would be willing to work with the organiza-tion without compen-sation. The courthouse already employs its own summer interns, and Judge Bishop is in charge of those interns at the courthouse. In addition, the State’s Attorney’s Office, Circuit Clerk, and Public Defender may also hire interns during Summer 2018. The Board discussed that all interns of the various government and pro bono agencies should be invited to our monthly member recep-tions as a means to show-case our organization.

Treasurer Richard Kessler reported that due to the lack of filings by our former Executive Director, we need to rein-state our status as a not-for-profit organization. We received a quotation for services from Manning

Silverman to prepare an application for reinstate-ment, but other options will also be explored be-fore being brought back to the Board for a vote.

Jennifer J. Howe PresidentBrian J. Lewis First Vice-PresidentStephen J. Rice Second Vice-PresidentRichard N. Kessler TreasurerShyama S. Parikh SecretaryDonald J. Morrison Immediate Past PresidentJoseph M. Fusz 2015-2018Patricia L. Cornell 2015-2018Tara R. Devine 2016-2019Torrie Newsome 2016-2019Hon. Christen L. Bishop 2017-2020Katherine S. Hatch 2017-2020Virginia Elliot Interim Executive Director

MEMBERS PRESENT

MeetingMinutes

The

BY SHYAMA S. PARIKHSECRETARY

Board of Directors’ MeetingApril 10, 2018

The Docket24

The investigation regarding monies owed to or due from the LCBA continues. The LCBA con-tinues to work towards putting together an appropriate claim for the insurance company. Also, disputes against certain credit card charges were successful and the LCBA will be receiving a refund in the next month. At this time, the Treasurer reports that the organization continues to be operational, functional, and solvent. A motion was made and seconded to reimburse the Foundation’s TIM court fund $12,852.09 for a recently discovered LCBA obligation that was paid from that account in 2014. Discussion ensued, and the Motion passed.

Virginia Elliott reported on our upcoming seminars, and specifi-cally the Family Law and the joint Trusts & Estates/Real Estate sem-inars, which will occur in Charles-ton SC and New Orleans, LA, respectively. As of the date of the meeting, there were 85 family law seminar attendees, plus 23 guests. For Trusts & Estates, there were currently 19 attendees, plus 5 guests registered. Both seminars have

sponsorships and should achieve a net profit.

First Vice President Brian Lewis reported that the search for a new Executive Director is underway. Applications are being reviewed and interviews are being scheduled in the upcoming weeks.

President Jennifer Howe report-ed that the April membership happy hour will be sponsored by Morrison & Morrison. We are looking for

a sponsor for the May 2018 recep-tion. The June reception will be sponsored by Riewer & Collins. The Installation Dinner will be held on May 31 at Briarwood County Club.

A Motion was made to adjourn at 1:21p.m., was seconded, and the Motion passed.

Thank you to all of the Board members who have been taking turns sponsoring lunches at the monthly meetings!

CommitteeMeetings

Monthly

• RSVP to a meeting at www.lakebar.org.

• Meetings subject to change. Please check your weekly e-news, the on-line calendar at www.lakebar.org or call the LCBA Office @ (847) 244-3143.

• Please feel free to bring your lunch to the LCBA office for any noon meetings. Food and beverages at restaurants are purchased on a individual basis.

DAY MEETING LOCATION TIME

1st Tuesday (Odd Mo.) Diversity & Community Outreach LCBA 12:15-1:15

1st Thursday Real Estate Primo, Gurnee 5:15-6:15

1st Thursday (Odd Mo.) Docket Editorial Committee LCBA 12:15-1:15

2nd Tuesday Criminal Law Waukegan Courthouse 12:15-1:15

2nd Tuesday (Odd Mo.) Immigration LCBA 4:30-5:30

2nd Wednesday Family Law Advisory Group (FLAG) LCBA 12:15-1:15

2nd Wednesday Trusts and Estates Park City Courthouse 12:15-1:15

2nd Thursday Young & New Lawyers Chili U, Libertyville 5:30-6:30

3rd Tuesday Local Government LCBA 12:15-1:15

3rd Tuesday LCBF Board of Trustees LCBA 4:00

3rd Wednesday Debtor/Creditor Rights Varies 5:30-6:30

3rd Wednesday Family Law C-105 12:15-1:15

3rd Wednesday (Odd Mo.) Employment Law Bobby’s, Deerfield 5:15-6:15

3rd Thursday LCBA Board of Directors LCBA 12:00 noon

3rd Thursday Civil Trial and Appeals Primo, Gurnee 5:30-6:30

June 2018 25

Consider this: ATG agents make more money, receive individual training, use intuitive ATG technology, and have access to the finest underwriting staff in the business. ATG is the only title insurance company that advocates the interests of lawyers and the clients they serve. Join ATG today, you’ll be glad you did.

There’s only one.

Looking for a title underwriter that offers ease of use, superior service, and a 50+ year history of supporting lawyers?

Offices throughout the Chicago area, Champaign and Belleville, Illinois, and Waukesha, Wisconsin.

800.252.0402 www.atgf.com

PRST STNDUS POSTAGEPAID

GURNEE, ILPERMIT NO. 208

300 Grand Avenue, Suite AWaukegan, IL 60085

Tel: 847-244-3143Fax: 847-244-8259

2018 Installation

Dinner

TO VIEW ALL PICTURES, VISIT OUR COMMUNITY PHOTO GALLERY AT WWW.LAKEBAR.ORG