1. PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER 53 Ill.App.2d 299, 202 N.E.2d 841 (1964)
Case Brief
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
All Rights Reserved.

2. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER
PURPOSE: Alexander illustrates the general principle that nonattorneys may not represent clients before the court while noting that rigid adherence to the rule may achieve unjust and impractical results.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
All Rights Reserved.

3. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER
CAUSE OF ACTION: Contempt of Court.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
All Rights Reserved.

4. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER
FACTS: When a jury could not reach a verdict in a case, the court ordered the attorneys to write a motion for mistrial. Defendant’s attorney was not present since he was involved in a trial elsewhere. A law clerk (Alexander) for defendant’s attorney was present and worked with the plaintiff’s attorney to write the order, after which the judge found Alexander in contempt of court.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
All Rights Reserved.

5. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER
ISSUE: Whether a law clerk can work with opposing counsel in drafting a motion for a mistrial and asking for a continuance.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
All Rights Reserved.

6. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER
HOLDING: Yes.
(in appropriate circumstances)
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
All Rights Reserved.

7. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER
REASONING: An order of court reciting the verdict of a jury or setting out its failure to agree on a verdict is the responsibility of the court and the court clerk is usually ordered by the court to enter an order showing the result of a jury’s deliberations. (continued)
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
All Rights Reserved.

8. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER
REASONING (continued): The preparation of an order with the collaboration of opposing counsel was a ministerial act for the benefit of the court and a record of what had transpired and not the unauthorized practice of law and could not therefore support contempt of court.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
All Rights Reserved.