Jane Grover: 7th Ward Leadership

Submitted by Jane Grover on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 10:21

Dear Friends and Neighbors:
We're in the homestretch in the 7th Ward aldermanic election, a good time to remind you of the difference I'll make as your alderman.  I am pleased to be the only 7th Ward aldermanic candidate rated "Highly Recommended" by the Central Street Neighbors Association.   

As an Evanston taxpayer and consumer of City services, I will be a disciplined and responsible steward of taxpayer dollars, by scrutinizing the City's budget, thoroughly reviewing and understanding City programs, contracts, and payroll to maximize revenue-generating potential and to eliminate inefficiencies, and look outside of government for meaningful partnerships to provide services to residents.  
 
As an advocate for pedestrian safety in the 7th Ward -- look to the Central/Prairie crossing and the reconfiguration of McCormick Boulevard as examples -- I will work to remove barriers to pedestrian traffic in our neighborhoods by implementing the City's comprehensive planning processes (Evanston's Multimodal Transportation Plan, the Climate Action Plan, and the Central Street Master Plan).  Too many of us choose our cars rather than public transportation or walking for errands within Evanston and too many of our students walk to school in the absence of sidewalks or safe crossings. 
 
As a lawyer, I will work to ensure an accountable and transparent City government by promoting full disclosure of information to Evanston residents, convening regular Ward meetings, proposing more frequent review of the minutes from closed City Council meetings, and requiring strict compliance with the City's Ethics Code, the Illinois Open Meetings Act, and the Freedom of Information Act.  The more information we all have, the better our City government will be. 
 
As student of diplomacy with significant experience as a collaborative leader, I will change the tone of the discourse in Evanston.  I will seek the opinions of my constituents, give every citizen the fair consideration he or she deserves, amplify concerns when it is required, respectfully disagree, and create opportunities for candid and constructive discussion of the issues that tend to divide us.  Changes in the City Council, in the city manger's office and in the president's office at Northwestern University create new opportunities for synergy and collaboration between Town and Gown, but we need leaders who understand the history and complexity of that relationship, as well as its unrealized potential.   
 

For an independent voice on your City Council, I'm your candidate.  I am grateful for your support.

Jane Grover
847-491-1863

Comments

JunadRizki

Sun, 04/05/2009 - 12:16

Jane  I did a look up under the "Attonery Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois"
 
Under Jane Watson Grover ( assume that is you? If not you may clearify this for us ) it states "Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practive Law last year registered year 2009."
 
Why would any license professional want to let their license expire and /or go dormant?
 
While I am not familar with the attonery act, ( Jeff may comment here) clearly those who hold their licenses are qualified to practice law,
 
In most other profession you can not use the title of the profession unless you have a license.  I can not say that is true for lawyers.
 
Under the forms you sent to the state for campagin funding you call out your occupation as "lawyer", if you can not practice law how can you call yourself a lawyer? ( here again maybe Jeff can offer his opinion, since I am can not claim knowledge in the practice of law in this great State) 
 
All this may be fine points and details - since you clearly went to law school and held the license, but it does appear currently you can not practice law?

jeffpsmith

Sun, 04/05/2009 - 14:17

     An attorney still holds their degree and is a "lawyer" or "attorney" even if they are not practicing.
     Every year many of the roughly 80,000 attorneys in Illinois voluntarily register as an "inactive status attorney." They still have a law license, it just means that they are not using it commercially. The reasons are as varied as attorneys. Some retire, some go into other lines of work. An inactive attorney may still do pro bono work. The fee to the ARDC is about $200 higher for "active" status, and typically active attorneys are expected (but not required) to be in at least one bar association, which costs several hundred dollars; professional insurance can add thousands a year especially for a solo practitioner; the new continuing legal education requirements can be very costly as well. And being "listed" gets you on many, many lists and results in all manner of solicitations and inquiries.
     So if an attorney is not actively practicing law, say because their main job or avocation is in some non-law-related capacity, or because they are raising a family, they might well go on "inactive" status, with the option of resuming that should they want to return to the thrilling life of paid legal work.

JunadRizki

Sun, 04/05/2009 - 16:31

Jeff - are you suggesting if an Attorney  who does pro bono work  could not be helded liable for malpractice? thus they do not need insurance?
How would one reinstate a license usually if you are in a profession and go inactive since you have not been taking the classes they would require you to take the licensing exam all over?  Most professional clearly do not want to retake exams - time, money and effort.
I am interested but next time I see you we can talk. you need not reply.
I find it interesting one can still call themselves a lawyer under the law if they are not holding an active  license to practice in the state.
 
 

jeffpsmith

Sun, 04/05/2009 - 20:00

but I'll try and answer it, even tho I doubt anyone else on this board finds it interesting. It seems like pure semantics.
"are you suggesting if an Attorney  who does pro bono work  could not be helded liable for malpractice? thus they do not need insurance?"
No. Put it this way, if you are doing patent work on cases where your advice coould cost a client rights to a multi-million dollar invention, your rates are likely to be higher than if all you are doing is routine closings for a small nature conservancy. Or -- likely -- if all you do is pro bono, for one instution, they might be covering your insurance. Note some areas of law are more expensive to practice in than others, just as in medicine.

"How would one reinstate a license ...."
 
The procedure is outlined in the rules. I've never had need to look at it deeply.

"I find it interesting one can still call themselves a lawyer under the law if they are not holding an active  license to practice in the state."
 
I don't see why this is interesting. Again, being a lawyer is different than being allowed to practice in a specific jurisdiction. Analogy: There are building trades where someone is not licensed to pull a permit in Evanston. A plumber who isn't allowed to practice in Village X because they don't have a Village license is still a plumber.  If I move to Wisconsin I would still be a lawyer, just not a member of the Wisconsin bar able to practice there. What you are is a result of your training and background. What you are allowed to do with a trade or profession, however, is often regulated by one or more units of government.
One distinction between law and other professions is the 4th Amendment. I'm not sure you have a constitutional right to a plumber...hmmm, have to think about that one. :)
Some people get law degrees and never practice law ever.  I had plenty of classmates who did that, or who haven't practiced in years, because they went into business, entertainment, whatever. They are still lawyers by training.

JunadRizki

Sun, 04/05/2009 - 23:13

Jeff - lets talk about licensed Engineers and Architects,
 
It is not legal to misrepresent yourself as an Architect or Engineer under the law. That is you can not advertise you are a Architect or Engineer unless you hold a license.
 
Most cities require drawings sealed by licensed professional.
 
You as a lawyer can not seal an engineering or architectural drawing.
 
I do not believe the city requires the engineers or architects to have any type of special license to practice in Evanston since the state licenses them.
 
If the Architect or Engineer goes to Wisconsin they need a Wisconsin license to practice.
 
You do not obtain a license, just by finishing school, you must have experience and take exams.
 
So when you talk about lawyers, it is some what confusing to me, it appears lawyers can call themselves lawyers without holding an license?
 
You comment on the "One distinction between law and other professions is the 4th Amendment"
 
Ofcourse the whole purpose of the licensing acts is to protect the public safety and welfare. 
 
It could be why lawyers are treated differently, since they are less interested in the public welfare and more interested in politics?  That is most of our elected officials appear to be lawyers! ( which is true on the City Council )
 
We can talk off line about this if you wish since as you say - I doubt anyone else is interested.  Maybe John Zbesko since he commented on the lawyers versus economists!
 

jeffpsmith

Mon, 04/06/2009 - 01:10

Junad, I'm happy to finish this online, since you started it as an oblique (or not so oblique) insinuation against a candidate, Jane Grover, and you continue to insinuate some sort of misrepresentation, when there is nothing of the sort.

The distinction you blur is between professional training, title, and commercial practice. We know that by virtue of having been a practicing attorney in the past, Jane Grover got a law degree, took a bar exam, passed it, applied to the Supreme Court of Illinois, was vetted by the Character and Fitness Committee, and was sworn in. So the comparison to an architect who was never licensed is inapropos. Her website lists a litigation practice for about a decade, until 1999, and a quick check online shows at least one complex case she worked on, that lasted over 5 years and went up to the federal appeals court twice.

Among attorneys who have voluntarily changed their status and are not authorized to practice in Illinois are Barack Obama (retired) and Michelle Obama (voluntarily inactive). Each is nonetheless still referred to by the ARDC as "attorney" or "lawyer."

I don't know why Jane took her shingle off the hook but she has a perfect right to do so, and no lawyer I know would judge her for that. I do know that it's tough for a lawyer of any gender to be both an involved parent "there" for kids and community during critical years of their development, and simultaneously to litigate at the highest level. Historically, more female than male attorneys have made the tradeoff to devote more time to family. This sometimes-derided "mommy track" has been a subject of extensive discussion in the bar, as it serves as a barrier to the advancement of women in the profession for many reasons, not least of which is that firms place a premium on hours; however, no one who values parenting judges such a personal decision negatively.

Was that Jane's decision? I don't know and frankly it's none of my business. But I know other professionals who have made similar decisions: lawyers, educators, at least one doctor.
 

Beyond the surface details, I don't know anything more about Jane's personal and professional life than I know about John's or Kevin's, or any of the mayoral candidates', and I'm not really interested. Jane is running for alderman, not applying to be Corporation Counsel; her service on boards is at least as important as her professional training. I do know that most people making a decision to run for office, for any of the right reasons, are making a decision to give up some -- maybe a lot -- of potential income. So it wouldn't surprise me that someone with a track record of service had made a similar tradeoff years before.

JunadRizki

Mon, 04/06/2009 - 20:18

Jeff - you seem to have not been able to answer my very simple question but write a very long reply.
 
Can someone legally call themselves a "lawyer" in the state of Illinois - if they do not hold the license to practice law?
 
 

jeffpsmith

Mon, 04/06/2009 - 22:04

Junad, this thread arose with a different question, not a completely simple one (esp. because the rules changed about 1999), about inactive status. And I think the clear answer is that a lawyer on inactive status is still a lawyer.
As to your new question, no Illinois law or rule discusses what you "call" yourself other than restrictions on advertising. The rules mainly deal with what you can "do." Since that's pretty limited, a lawyer never admitted likely will find a different line of work. But that's not the situation that started this thread. If you want to continue it, it'll have to be offline.