Search results
In August 2016, defendant indicated he wanted to proceed pro se. The trial court admonished defendant about the nature of the offense, the maximum and minimum penalties, his right to an attorney, and the potential pitfalls in proceeding pro se before finding defendant’s waiver of counsel to be knowing and intelligent.
14 sty 2024 · Despite Rule 137’s strict language and all the case law that says there is no distinction between a pro se litigant and a licensed lawyer’s duties, Illinois divorce courts should grant leeway regarding a pro se litigant’s written work.
How should an Illinois judge deal with the situation that confronted Judge Weinstein? Unlike the code of conduct governing federal judges, the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct contains a provision explaining a judge’s duty in pro se matters.
Illinois Supreme Court Rules 601 through 663 set forth the rules for appeals in criminal cases, post-conviction cases and juvenile court proceedings. The Supreme Court amends its rules from time to time, so you should always consult the most recent version, which can be found on the Illinois Courts’ website at
In his article, Perceptions of justice and fairness for pro se litigants, published in the May 2011 issue of ISBA's Bench & Bar newsletter, Wright discusses the tension between providing pro se litigants meaningful access to the courts and whether and to what extent it is permissible for judges to assist them while maintaining their authority ...
Before addressing the particular pretrial civil motions used in Illinois, one needs a basic understanding of pleadings and motions. A. Pleadings A pleading is defined as “[a] formal document in which a party to a legal proceeding (esp. a civil lawsuit) sets forth or responds to allegations,
See Beehn v. Eppard, 321 Ill. App. 3d 677, 680-81 (2001) (noting that, generally, a trial court’s ruling on a motion in limine - 16 No. 1-17-2204 will not be disturbed on review absent an abuse of discretion, but that when a court’s exercise of discretion relies on an erroneous conclusion of law, review is de novo). Mr.
