Benchmark data can prove to be invaluable when making decisions about the future of your law firm. Understanding how others in the legal profession are using technology to streamline workflows and increase revenues can make all the difference.

That’s where the recently released 2025 Legal Industry Report from AffiniPay comes in. This report, published annually, offers insight into how legal professionals from firms of all sizes and practice areas are approaching and benefiting from technology adoption. Over 2,800 legal professionals were surveyed for this year’s survey, which covers a wide range of topics, including artificial intelligence adoption, financial management software choices and the continued shift to remote and hybrid work environments.

The data reveals notable trends surrounding legal professionals’ technology choices and outcomes, including how software adoption impacts firm profitability and how remote work choices are changing the landscape of law practice.

Increased interest in AI adoption

With generative AI continuing to make headlines, it’s not surprising that the data shows that interest in it has increased since last year’s report. For example, in 2024, 31% of legal professionals reported using generative AI tools for work, up from 27% in 2023.

Interestingly, the rate of adoption varied across firm size and practice areas. Immigration practitioners led generative AI usage, with 47% incorporating it into their daily workflows. Other practice areas, such as personal injury (37%), civil litigation (36%) and criminal law (28%), also reported high usage.

Despite the individual growth rates, the survey showed that legal-specific generative AI adoption at the firm level slowed slightly. Only 21% of firms reported using AI in 2024, down from 24% in 2023. This decline is likely due to firms being in the exploratory phase—testing AI tools in specific use cases or pilot programs, rather than fully integrating the technology. The overall sentiment shows that while AI is still being explored, many firms are taking a cautious and measured approach.

At the firm level, civil litigation firms reported the highest generative AI adoption rate, at 27%, followed by personal injury and family law firms, at 20% each. Trusts and estate firms and criminal law practices had lower adoption rates, at 18% each. Immigration firms reported the lowest adoption rate, at 17%.

Overall, the data shows that for those who have adopted generative AI tools, they are relying on them quite often. Among frequent users, 45% use AI daily, and 40% use it weekly. The most common tasks accomplished with it include drafting correspondence (54%), brainstorming ideas (47%), conducting general research (46%) and summarizing documents (39%).

Financial management tools for profitability and stability

Survey data also highlights how firms are increasingly adopting financial management software to improve financial workflows. In particular, legal-specific accounting and bookkeeping software has become a key tool for many firms. Respondents indicate that 37% of their firms have legal accounting software built into their firm’s practice management system, while 16% said it’s built into their firm’s billing software. Another 11% use software that is integrated with, rather than built into, their firm’s law practice management platform, and 16% reported adoption of a stand-alone legal accounting tool.

The survey data shows that legal accounting and bookkeeping tools have notably increased efficiency, with nearly 26% of firms reporting one to five hours reclaimed per month. Another 17% reduced workloads by six to 10 hours, 7% saved 15 or more hours each month, and 4% recovered a whopping 11 to 15 hours.

Another valuable tool for improving workflows is legal billing tools. The legal professionals surveyed (80%) relied on invoicing software, with 27% saving one to five hours per month, 16% saving six to 10 hours, and 12% saving 11 or more hours. The end benefit of the time saved using legal accounting and billing tools? Significant gains in productivity and profitability.

Growth of online payment processing

The report also highlights the increasing adoption of online payment processing software, with 82% of respondents sharing that their firms accept credit and/or debit card payments in 2024, up from 78% in 2023. This adoption has resulted in time savings and financial impact. More than a third of respondents (35%) saved between one to five hours per month using online payment systems, while 14% saved six to 10 hours. Also of note is that firms accepting card payments reported improved collection rates, with 59% of firms noting that their collection rates increased “somewhat more” or “significantly more” each month.

The growing use of online payment solutions is indicative of a broader trend toward automating tedious and time-consuming administrative tasks that were previously manual. By offering more payment options, firms are not only improving their financial stability but also freeing up time to devote to more client work and firm growth.

Remote and hybrid work adoption

Finally, the report addressed remote and hybrid work, which has become a staple for many firms. About three-fourths of survey respondents reported using cloud-based remote working tools, with videoconferencing (79%), e-signatures (78%) and e-filing (76%) ranking the highest.

Additionally, the data showed that the hybrid work model has gained traction in the legal profession. According to the survey results, 28% of firms operate fully in office, while 21% use hybrid schedules for all team members. Another 19% of firms are fully remote, and 18% adopt hybrid schedules for some staff members.

Just as remote and hybrid work continued post-pandemic, so too did participation in virtual court proceedings, with 34% of respondents attending virtual hearings a few times per month, 21% a few times per week and 5% every day.

Even so, preferences for in-person appearances remain strong, especially for certain types of proceedings. Half of respondents prefer to avoid virtual hearings, followed by jury trials (45%), bench trials (43%) and motion arguments (39%). However, practice areas significantly impacted these results.

For example, trust and estate professionals were more likely than the overall average to prefer virtual litigation proceedings, with only 36% opting for in-person jury trials, followed by bench trials (35%) and motion arguments and depositions (at 30% each).

In contrast, civil litigation and personal injury lawyers showed a stronger preference for in-person proceedings, with 56% each favoring jury trials, and 46% and 49%, respectively, choosing in-person depositions. Similarly, criminal law practitioners also leaned toward in-person proceedings, with 59% preferring hearings, 58% jury trials, 55% bench trials and 49% motion arguments.

Immigration lawyers, on the other hand, were less likely to prefer in-person litigation, with below-average preferences for motion arguments (26%), status conferences (22%) and depositions (19%).

In conclusion

The AffiniPay 2025 Legal Industry Report highlights a range of preferences and trends within the legal profession. While generative AI remains a focus, the data shows that firms are also adopting proven cloud-based technologies for billing, payments and remote work, highlighting an increasing reliance on specialized tools that enhance efficiency, save time and improve financial outcomes.

---

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York-based attorney, author and journalist, and she is the principal legal insight strategist at MyCase, a company that offers legal practice management software for small firms. She is the nationally recognized author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers and is co-author of Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier, both published by the American Bar Association. She writes regular columns for ABAJournal.com and Above the Law, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) @nikiblack, or she can be reached at [email protected].

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Federal judge dropped from now-sealed suit…

Judiciary

Federal judge dropped from now-sealed suit over alleged underage drinking at his home

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 6, 2025, 9:31 am CST

A federal judge has been dropped from a December lawsuit alleging that “significant underage drinking” happened during a 2023 party at his home, leading to a fight that significantly injured a partygoer.

Plaintiff Alex Wilson sought to drop as defendants U.S. District Judge Mark C. Scarsi of the Central District of California and his wife in a Dec. 30 request filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Law360 reports. The request was granted the same day.

Wilson had alleged that he was injured during the fight outside the judge’s home when he was struck from behind, and he hit his head and body on the curb. The alleged assailant, who was a minor at the time, remains a defendant in the suit, along with his parents, according to Law360.

Wilson’s lawyer sought to drop Scarsi and his wife from the suit without prejudice, meaning that they could be added as defendants in the future. They were accused of negligence and premises liability.

The Scarsis were dismissed from the suit after they said the complaint had included personal identifying information that put them at risk. The suit has since been sealed, according to Law360.

Judge John J. Kralik of Burbank, California, was assigned to preside in the case in December, according to the court docket.

Scarsi is an appointee of President-elect Donald Trump during his first term in office. Scarsi oversaw a criminal tax case against Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, before the elder Biden issued a pardon to his son.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Car-racing costs can’t be deducted by lawyer…

Tax Law

Car-racing costs can’t be deducted by lawyer as marketing expense, 10th Circuit rules

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 11, 2024, 8:48 am CST

A solo personal injury lawyer can’t count the costs of car racing as a marketing activity, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Denver ruled against lawyer James William Avery, who sought to deduct more than $300,000 in expenses incurred in car racing, Law360 reports.

Avery moved to Indiana from Colorado in 2003. He continued to practice law in Colorado, but he hoped to boost his practice in his new state, as well, the 10th Circuit said in its Dec. 9 order and judgment.

To market his practice, Avery began to participate in car shows in Indiana and then tried his hand at car racing. Avery’s Dodge Viper, bought for more than $100,000, had a decal for his law firm on the back, he said in his appellate brief. The webpage for his “Viper racing team” was linked to his firm’s Facebook page.

He raced in at least seven states, including Indiana and Colorado.

But the costs of car racing were not an ordinary and necessary business expense for attorneys that can be deducted, the U.S. Tax Court ruled in February 2023. The 10th Circuit upheld the conclusion.

The Tax Court had found that Avery “greatly enjoyed car racing, which he found more exciting than his previous hobby of acquiring collector cars and participating in car shows. But we find that both activities were hobbies. No deduction is allowed for personal expenses of this kind.”

Avery had argued that the Tax Court should not have considered enjoyment of his marketing activity in its ordinary-and-necessary analysis. Doing so, he argued, could lead to a situation in which expenses incurred for a work vehicle would be deemed to be personal expenses simply because a taxpayer enjoys driving the vehicle.

The 10th Circuit said it isn’t obvious that the Tax Court actually considered Avery’s enjoyment of car racing as a factor in its analysis.

“But even if we read the Tax Court’s decision as Mr. Avery does, we see no error in considering personal enjoyment as one factor among others,” the 10th Circuit said.

Avery did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal request for comment sent to an email address listed on his appellate brief. Nor did he respond to a voicemail left at a number listed on the brief.

The case is Avery v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Law firm can sue over alleged fake online…

First Amendment

Law firm can sue over alleged fake online reviews that toppled its top rating, appeals court says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 19, 2024, 2:37 pm CDT

A Houston law firm alleging that it was defamed by 99 fake three-star reviews on its Google business page can sue for defamation for 62 of those reviews, an Ohio appeals court has ruled.

Lawyer R. James Amaro and the Amaro Law Firm in Texas can’t sue for reviews that are mere opinions, according to the Aug. 28 decision by the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals. But it can sue for the 62 reviews describing fictitious interactions or experiences with the firm that can be proven true or false, the appeal court said.

Court News Ohio covered the decision in a recent story noted by the Legal Profession Blog.

The actionable reviews included language such as “no follow-up,” “never called me back,” “never updated me,” “never responded,” “no communication” and “did not answer call.” Other actionable reviews had language indicating that the writer was a client, such as “no idea what is going on with case.”

The appeals court described the actionable reviews as “no communication reviews” and “client language reviews.”

But the firm can’t sue over reviews that gave the firm three stars, with no text included or with positive evaluations, or that contained only a subjective evaluation, such as “poor communication” and “no timely response.”

The Amaro Law Firm had more than 1,500 positive reviews and a perfect five-star rating before the negative reviews appeared in 2022, the firm said in its lawsuit. Because of the high rating, the firm appeared near the top of Google search results for personal injury firms.

The reviews were written in the name of people who were never clients or were never potential clients, the firm’s suit said. In response to a subpoena, Google said all the negative reviews were from an IP address assigned to the Ohio residence of two people—who became the suit defendants.

The defendants had claimed that the reviews were constitutionally protected statements of opinion. They also sought to dismiss causes of action for invasion of privacy, trade libel and tortious interference with business relations on the ground that they are derivative of the defamation claims.

A trial judge in Licking County, Ohio, agreed with the defendants and dismissed the entire suit in December 2023. The appeals court reversed, allowing the defamation claims for 62 reviews, as well as the other causes of action.

“Both the client language reviews and the no communication reviews contain specific and unambiguous statements,” the appeals court said. “Whether a law firm called or did not call someone, followed-up or did not follow up with someone, and whether a reviewer had a case with appellant each have a commonly understood meaning. The language in these reviews is not so hyperbolic so as to undermine the reader’s impression that the reviews allege appellant did not return calls, follow up or were a client of appellant.”

The case is Amaro v. DeMichael.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Personal injury firm sues TD Bank after loss…

Law Firms

Personal injury firm sues TD Bank after loss in fraud scheme

By Debra Cassens Weiss

August 29, 2024, 12:19 pm CDT

A personal injury law firm has filed a lawsuit blaming TD Bank for its loss of about $146,000 in a check fraud scam.

The July 23 suit, removed to New Jersey federal court Monday, alleges that TD Bank should have warned New Jersey firm Nagel Rice about the cashier’s check that it deposited from a bank called BBVA because of a history of fraudulent checks claiming to be drawn from that institution.

Law.com has the story.

According to the suit, Nagel Rice received a cashier’s check for $148,950 from a purported client supposedly drawn from BBVA and deposited it in the firm’s account with TD Bank on Nov. 23, 2020. About two days later, Nagel Rice wired $146,250 to the bank account of the purported client.

On Dec. 1, 2020, Nagel Rice received a letter in regular mail from TD Bank dated Nov. 25, 2020. The letter advised Nagel Rice that the cashier’s check had bounced. Nagel Rice lost the entire amount wired to the client.

The suit alleges that the bank was negligent because of its failure to warn, and it violated a contractual banking relationship in which it agreed to safeguard Nagel Rice accounts.

Law.com described Nagel Rice as a high-profile personal injury firm that has many top verdicts and settlements in a list published by the New Jersey Law Journal.

Many other firms have lost money in similar scams, including several in New Jersey. The FBI warned about such scams in 2010, telling lawyers to beware of cients who make contact only by email, especially if they reside in foreign countries.

In one version of the scam, a purported client wants help collecting a debt, but the matter is quickly settled and the firm receives a phony check for the settlement money. The firm keeps a fee and wires the rest to the supposed client, only to find out later that the check has bounced.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Creative Legal Fundings company was ‘neither…

Criminal Justice

Creative Legal Fundings company was ‘neither creative nor legal,’ SEC official alleges

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 5, 2024, 9:08 am CDT

A California woman who created a company ostensibly to loan money to personal-injury attorneys is accused of spending millions of dollars in investor funds to support her “lavish lifestyle.”

Maria Dickerson, 47, of Sacramento, California, who is also known as Dulce Pino, is facing federal criminal charges and a civil lawsuit by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, according to Sept. 3 press releases here and here.

Reuters, ABS-CBN News and KGTV are among the publications with coverage.

ABS-CBN News described Dickerson as a “Filipino beauty queen.” She allegedly ran her company, Creative Legal Fundings, in the manner of a Ponzi scheme, paying guaranteed returns to early investors with money from later investors, according to the SEC suit.

The company did not lend money to lawyers and did not make other investments, the suit says.

“As alleged, Creative Legal Fundings’ operations were neither creative nor legal,” said Monique C. Winkler, director of the SEC’s San Francisco regional office, in the press release. “This was nothing more than fraud perpetrated against retail investors, many of whom were members of the Filipino American community.”

The Aug. 29 federal indictment charges Dickerson with 24 counts of wire fraud, one count of securities fraud and seven counts of money laundering. More than 140 people invested more than $10 million in the company, more than $4 million of which was lost during the course of the scheme, according to the indictment.

The alleged scheme lasted from about December 2020 through September 2023, the indictment says. The SEC suit focuses on March 2021 through May 2023. During that period, the SEC says, Dickerson sold interest in her company to more than 130 investors who paid $7 million.

She used at least $2.5 million for her personal benefit, according to the SEC.

Dickerson’s spending was apparent in her social media photographs, which showed her traveling on private jets, participating in adult pageants and sporting luxury goods, according to the Aug. 29 indictment. She is also accused of spending investor money on real estate, luxury vacations, home furnishings, appliances and “extensive gambling.”

When Dickerson was unable to raise new investor funds quickly enough, she shut down Creative Legal Fundings and opened a new company called the Ubiquity Group, the SEC suit says.

“Her scheme, however, remained the same,” according to the suit.

Mark Reichel, Dickerson’s lawyer, told ABS-CBN that his client started a “creative and honest plan to form a beneficial investment fund,” but it grew at an unmanageable speed. Many early investors solicited funds from others while making promises, often without Dickerson’s awareness, he said.

“Many investors made extreme returns on their investments and then refused to share their exorbitant returns with those they had brought in,” Reichel said. Dickerson was “trying to liquidate assets to make everyone whole when this arrest occurred.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Overwhelmed lawyer blew deadline and faked…

Ethics

Overwhelmed lawyer blew deadline and faked email to cover it up, disbarment order says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 6, 2024, 3:17 pm CST

A lawyer who became overwhelmed with her caseload has been disbarred for faking an email to make it appear that her personal injury client fired her before she missed the deadline to file his lawsuit.

The Georgia Supreme Court disbarred lawyer Andrea Jo Anne David-Vega in a March 5 decision.

Law360 has coverage, while the Legal Profession Blog published opinion highlights.

David-Vega submitted the fake email in her disciplinary case and in an October 2020 malpractice suit filed against her by the client. The fake email differed from other emails sent by the client, the Georgia Supreme Court said. It was in a different font and format; and it appeared to use perfect diction, capitalization and punctuation. She also faked a text and submitted it in the malpractice suit.

The ethics allegations against David-Vega were deemed to be admitted because she failed to file a timely answer to the ethics complaint by the State Bar of Georgia. She was, however, allowed to submit evidence in a hearing on aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

In that testimony, David-Vega admitted fabricating the email and text to make it appear that her client, Fadi L. Milan, had fired her before the statute of limitations expired.

Testifying in mitigation, David-Vega’s counselor said David-Vega had expanded her caseload in 2016 by becoming a special assistant attorney general representing the Georgia Division of Family & Children Services. As a result, she acquired 200 cases in Gwinnett County, Georgia, and 150 cases in a neighboring county. Yet she continued managing her own general practice.

“David-Vega became overwhelmed with her caseload,” the Georgia Supreme Court said, “but continued to take cases because she ‘did not know how to say no’ and felt unable to ask for help.”

David-Vega also helped with care for her mother and stepfather, who had become ill. She eventually “reached a point where she completely unplugged,” the counselor testified.

David-Vega had no prior discipline and expressed remorse for her actions. She also had a stellar representation among judges whom she appeared before.

Testifying in aggravation, Milan said he suffered permanent injuries to his eye, neck, head, back and brain in the auto accident for which he sought to file suit. He had debt collectors calling and couldn’t access his medical records that were being held by David-Vega.

Milan had retained David-Vega in August 2016, although there was no written contingency agreement, according to the Georgia Supreme Court’s opinion. She contacted the liability insurer for Milan but eventually cut off communication with the insurer.

David-Vega also failed to respond to Milan’s questions, even though he called her office over 65 times to ask about the status of his case between January 2019 and February 2020, the opinion said. He also continued to text and email her through April 2020.

Milan notified David-Vega that he was firing her in May 2020. The deadline for filing suit was August 2018. David-Vega falsely claimed that Milan fired her in March 2018, the opinion said.

Milan’s lawyer in the malpractice suit testified that David-Vega had lied, had failed to cooperate in the malpractice case, and had drawn out settlement negotiations for two years.

A special master had recommended a two-year suspension.

David-Vega did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal email seeking comment. The ABA was unable to leave a voicemail message for David-Vega at the number listed by the state bar because the mailbox was full.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Themis legal practice group represents female…

Women in the Law

Themis legal practice group represents female clients and their allies

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 11, 2024, 1:54 pm CDT

Two Chicago lawyers have created a practice group with a female focus.

The two lawyers, Allyson West and Kelly Olivier, “have built a rare legal team of their own—a practice by female trial attorneys, exclusively for female clients and their allies,” the Chicago Sun-Times reports.

The practice group, formed in 2022, is named after Themis, the Greek goddess of justice. The group is called Themis: Trial by Women, and it is part of Chicago personal injury and civil rights law firm Hale & Monico.

West and Olivier are unaware of other trial attorney groups run by women and focusing on women.

Nikia Gray, the executive director of the National Association for Law Placement, said she has never heard of a similar group.

“That’s definitely unique,” Gray told the Chicago Sun-Times. “I can see how an all-women legal team can help a woman feel more safe as a client, feel more understood, especially in more sensitive cases.”

The Chicago Sun-Times cited statistics showing that there are fewer female attorneys than male attorneys in leadership roles and a 2020 study about the tendency to discount the credibility of women reporting harassment by more powerful men.

“We’re not so naive to think that we’re going to change the systemic misogyny that’s been in place, especially in the legal profession, for hundreds of years,” Olivier told the Chicago Sun-Times. “That being said, we can make a change in our little corner of the universe and for our clients.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer seeks damages after his snowmobile…

Trials & Litigation

Lawyer seeks damages after his snowmobile crashes into Black Hawk helicopter

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 6, 2024, 10:01 am CST

A Massachusetts lawyer is awaiting a judge’s decision following a bench trial in his $9.5 million lawsuit alleging that the military was negligent for leaving a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter on a snowmobile route at dusk.

Jeffrey Smith of Massachusetts, a 43-year-old “small-town real estate lawyer” at the time of the March 2019 crash, said the unlit camouflaged helicopter was on an abandoned air strip in Worthington, Massachusetts, MassLive.com reports.

Smith’s injuries included 12 broken ribs and a punctured lung. He has undergone several surgeries, and he has lost most of the feeling on his left side, according to his lawyers.

“The last five years, there’s been surgery, recovery, surgery, recovery,” Smith told the Associated Press.

He works only part time, and he can’t use his left arm since the crash, he said.

Smith also sued the owner of the airfield, who settled for an undisclosed amount.

The government has argued that it can’t be sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act because the training crew’s conduct was policy-related. U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni of the District of Massachusetts rejected the government’s argument, made in a motion for summary judgment, in July 2022.

At the January bench trial, the government argued that Smith was wearing tinted goggles after dusk, and he told investigators that he was aware that a helicopter was in the area. Smith’s estimated speed was 65 miles per hour, and his blood alcohol level was slightly below the legal limit, they argued.

In Smith’s proposed findings of fact, he said his speed was was between 26 miles per hour to 39 miles per hour, as determined by his expert. Before the accident, he had consumed two beers, two Adderall and one Suboxone that had been prescribed by his doctor. A witness said he was not intoxicated.

“When Mr. Smith finally was able to see the helicopter, it was too late,” according to the proposed findings of fact.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Chicago isn’t liable for bicyclist injured…

Tort Law

Chicago isn’t liable for bicyclist injured by pothole on road that wasn’t designated bike route, court rules

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 2, 2024, 3:37 pm CST

A bicyclist who wasn’t on a designated bicycle route when he was injured by a pothole can’t recover from the city of Chicago, even though there was a Divvy bicycle rental station nearby, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled last month.

The state supreme court ruled against bicyclist Clark Alave, who said he was thrown from his bicycle after striking the pothole in 2019, fracturing his teeth, injuring his hip and shoulder, and causing facial cuts and scars.

The Chicago Sun-Times, the Cook County Record and Capitol News Illinois via WTTW have coverage.

The Illinois Supreme Court interpreted the Illinois Tort Immunity Act, which said cities have a duty to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition for use by people “intended and permitted” to use the property.

Chicago permits bicyclists to use any roadway that motorists use, but that doesn’t mean that bicyclists are intended to use all those roadways, the Illinois Supreme Court said in its Dec. 14 opinion.

In Alave’s case, he was riding on a road without a designated bike lane and signage, indicating that the city did not intend him to be using the road, the state supreme court said.

The presence of a Divvy station about 100 feet away only establishes that the city permitted bicycling on the road—not that it intended it, the state supreme court said. The Illinois Supreme Court noted that city code allows bicyclists to ride on the sidewalk to access the nearest bicycle lane; in this case, the nearest bicycle lane was one block away, the city said.

Michael S. Keating, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of the advocacy nonprofit Ride Illinois, said in a statement the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision affirmed “harsh precedent” that distinguished between permitted and intended users of roads, according to the Cook County Record.

“This holding simply does not reflect that massive surge in bicycling that has occurred in Chicago, the suburbs and throughout the rest of Illinois,” Keating said. “On that fact alone I think the Illinois Supreme Court should have clarified more specifically what ‘intended’ means beyond just the presence of bike lanes, a bike map or signs.”

Keating did, however, praise the Illinois Supreme Court for a Nov. 30 decision holding that an uninsured motorist policy must cover a policyholder’s son who was injured by a hit-and-run driver while riding his bicycle.