FOP recommends 'no' vote for 10 Cook County jurists seeking retention

The Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago John Dineen Lodge No. 7 has made its endorsements for the November election. The entire endorsement list appears as a pop-up on top of the front page of the FOP website.

The FOP has made endorsements in many... but not all... Cook County judicial retention races. To be specific, the FOP has encouraged 'yes' votes for 46 of the 78 jurists on the ballot, 'no' votes for 10, and makes no mention of the 22 other judges seeking retention.

Those drawing negative recommendations from the union representing the Chicago Police rank and file are Appellate Justice David W. Ellis and Circuit Court Judges Carol M. Howard, Ramon Ocasio III, Erica L. Reddick, John H. Ehrlich, Michael Tully Mullen, Peter Michael Gonzalez, Lindsay Huge, James "Jamie" Shapiro, and Arthur Wesley Willis.

By making this list, Judge Mullen earns a unique distinction -- the FOP urges a vote against him, as do the authors of the strongly anti-police Girl, I Guess voters guide. (Question No. 1 in the Girl, I Guess criteria for evaluating judicial candidates is "Are you a cop?") I have no inside information on this, but I strongly suspect that drawing a negative recommendation from these diametically opposed groups is not a distinction that Judge Mullen would have voluntarily sought.

In the post linked in the preceding paragraph, I suggested that the basis of the negative Girl, I Guess recommendation came, at least in part, from Judge Mullen's ruling in a case involving the FOP. Injustice Watch made mention of this case in its summary regarding Judge Mullen:

Mullen has presided over an ongoing legal battle between the city of Chicago and the Fraternal Order of Police over whether most serious Chicago police disciplinary cases can be decided through closed-door arbitration. In March, he ruled that police officers could have serious disciplinary cases heard by arbitrators instead of the Chicago Police Board, but those hearings needed to be open to the public. The city and union have yet to agree on a new structure for arbitration hearings.

In 2017, Mullen dismissed a case brought by former Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn calling for the Chicago Board of Education to be transformed into an elected body rather than a body appointed by the mayor. Mullen ruled that mayoral control of the board does not violate the voting rights of Chicago residents.

Girl, I Guess may have been upset by the second cited ruling, too; we can't know for certain because Girl, I Guess did not explain any of its ratings, positive or negative, except for four 'super nos.' Of course, the FOP does not explain its ratings of judicial candidates either. But I will go out on a limb here and guess that the FOP was not overly concerned with the school board ruling cited by Injustice Watch.

I venture no opinion about the merits of Judge Mullen's ruling. But I will suggest that, in general, being a good judge doesn't mean making everyone happy (except, perhaps, in adoption cases) or even making one side happy and one side sad. Sometimes following where the law leads, as the Code of Judicial Conduct requires, 'unswayed by public clamor or fear of criticism' (Rule 2.4), and "without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question" (Rule 2.2, comment [2]), may leave everyone unhappy. It happens.

Without further preface, then, herewith the FOP's judicial endorsements (taken from the pages of its October newsletter):

Chicago Votes Voters Guide tracks Injustice Watch evaluations of retention hopefuls

What is Chicago Votes, you ask?

It descirbes itself as "a non-partisan, non-profit organization building a more inclusive democracy by putting power in the hands of young Chicagoans."

The group's "About Us" page elaborates:

We bring together young, driven Chicagoans who are ready to get their hands dirty and learn the grassroots basics of our democracy. Want to learn how to organize large-scale volunteer events (we got ya!), oversee a massive voter registration drive (you bet!), throw an awesome panel/debate/conference (who doesn’t?) We’re committed to educating, training, and empowering the next generation of Chicagoans and have designed our programs to act as springboards for young leaders to enter the life of political and public service.

The group touts its voter registration drives at Cook County Jail (registering over 5,000 new voters) and lobbying to make Cook County Jail the "first jail in the country to become a polling place during the 2020 Illinois Primary Elections." Scroll down on that same web page to find that Chicago Votes and the Illinois Alliance for Reentry & Justice have launched a court watching program, "sending community members inside Cook County Criminal Court to watch judges and collect data on bias and misconduct."

And what is the Illinois Alliance for Reentry & Justice, you ask? According to its webpage, the ILARJ is "accelerating the transformative realignment of power and accountability to reimagine and remake justice through the collective work of the community centering lived experience with participatory democracy models toward an abolitionist future."

Anyway, Chicago Votes has weighed in with a 28-page voters guide; that's the cover depicted above. It isn't easy to find on the Chicago Votes website; at least, it wasn't easy for me.

Then again, I may not be in the target demographic for the Chicago Votes folks (namely, "young people committed to dismantling systems that don’t serve us & reimagining new ones").

The judicial commentary is on pp. 21 and 22 of the guide. The retention judges information is on p. 22 (click to enlarge):

You will note the QR code linking to the Injustice Watch Cook County Judicial Elections Guide. While the Chicago Votes guide contains a typo or two, and does not accurately state the supermajority required for retention judges to keep their positions, it does list in red every judge who had any controversy, according to Injustice Watch, stating, "The judges highlighted in red either received a negative review or are marked for a negative controversy by Injustice Watch."

At least for those at whom the Chicago Votes guide is directed, this treatment presumably will lessen the 'yes' votes for the judges thus identified. It certainly appears to magnify the effect or impact of Injustice Watch.

Seventy-seven of 78 retention judges rated qualified by Chicago Bar Association? Not so fast, my friend!

Another college football weekend in the books -- and, while Lee Corso was again absent from the ESPN College Game Day desk, when it comes to the CBA judicial retention evaluations, his famous catchphrase comes to mind....

Lee Corso Not So Fast GIFfrom Lee Corso GIFs

FWIW reported on October 3 (post updated October 4) that 77 of 78 Cook County judicial retention hopefuls had been rated qualified by the Chicago Bar Association. That total included Judges Shannon O’Malley and E. Kenneth Wright Jr.

This is no longer the case.

Now, and apparently since sometime on October 11, if you click on the CBA Judicial Voters Guid or the 21-page General Election Smart Guide that is linked from that page, you will see that the ratings for Judges O'Malley and Wright are listed as "pending."

Why?

On October 2, Injustice Watch published a story about O'Malley and Wright, "Two Cook County judges claim homestead exemptions in Will County." The story, by Kelly Garcia and David Jackson, makes the case that neither Judge O'Malley nor Judge Wright actually live in Cook County.

The story notes that Wright has a condo in River North and a single-family home in Morgan Park, but that he has claimed a homeowners exemption since before he became a judge and, more recently, a senior citizen exemption, on a home in Joliet. O'Malley has an apartment in Schaumburg and a home in a Will County section of Aurora, according to the article. O'Malley or persons speaking on his behalf told Injustice Watch that he does not live with his wife in Aurora. But, the article continues,

When Injustice Watch telephoned his Aurora home on a recent afternoon, his wife answered and turned to her husband.

“Hey, Phil [the name by which Shanon O'Malley was formerly known], it’s the reporter,” she was heard saying.

In the background, O’Malley said: “Don’t tell her I live here.”

He declined to come to the phone.

The casual reader (FWIW must have some of these) may wonder why it is such a big deal where a judge lives.

The answer? It's a big deal because the Illinois Constituion sets certain, limited requirements for judicial service in Section 11 of Article VI of the Illinois Constitution. This provides, in pertinent part (emphasis mine):

No person shall be eligible to be a Judge or Associate Judge unless he is a United States citizen, a licensed attorney-at-law of this State, and a resident of the unit which selects him.

Section 12(a) of Article VI of the Illinois Constitution states, in pertinent part, "A person eligible for the office of Judge may cause his name to appear on the ballot as a candidate for Judge at the primary and at the general or judicial elections by submitting petitions."

We don't have many objective means to measure judges. Temperament, certainly, but even scholarship and diligence and impartiality aren't really easy to quantify. (The judge who rules in your favor has all these sterling qualities, and more, in abundance... but the judge who rules against you? Maybe not so much.) Contrary to what some believe (I'm thinking of you, Injustice Watch) getting reversed isn't always necessarily an indication of judicial ineptitude. Appellate courts aren't infallible; they can be wrong, too. But we certainly can expect, and require, that judges will at least meet the bare constitutional requirements for holding the job.

And, yes, that a judge actually lives where he or she claims to live also goes to that individual's character and respect for the law.

These things are kind of important in a judge.

These things are so important that, when it was discovered that a judge lied about where he lived, falsely claiming to live in Cook County's 10th Judicial Subcircuit, in his parents' house, when in fact he and his family lived in the western suburbs, it was one of the bases cited by the Illinois Courts Commission in its decision removing that judge from the bench. See, In re Golniewicz, 02 CC 01, 4 Ill. Cts. Com. 9 (2004).

The Illinois Supreme Court later cited Golniewicz in Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill.2d 398 (2011). Chris Ward wanted to run for judge in the 4th Subcircuit of the 12th Judicial Circuit (Will County). But, while he was a Will County resident, when he filed his nominating papers, he was not in fact a resident of the 4th Subcircuit. Therefore, the court held, that he was not eligible to have his name put on the ballot (241 Ill.2d at 412-12) (empahses in original):

Pursuant to section 12, eligibility for judicial office is therefore a prerequisite to running for that office. Under section 11, eligibility requires that one be a "resident of the unit which selects him" Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, §11. While there may be contexts in which the language of article VI, section 11, is "arguably ambiguous" (Thies v. State Board of Elections, 124 Ill. 2d 317, 323, 529 N.E.2d 565, 124 Ill. Dec. 584 (1988)), the situation presented by this case is not among them. Giving sections 11 and 12 their plain and ordinary meaning, it is therefore clear that under our Constitution, candidates for the office of circuit, appellate or supreme court judge must be residents of the unit from which they seek election before they may cause their names to appear on the ballot for the primary election. See Maddux v. Blagojevich, 233 Ill. 2d 508, 514 n.3, 911 N.E.2d 979, 331 Ill. Dec. 749 (2009). If they are not residents, they are simply ineligible to run. If they attempt to run when they do not meet the constitutionally mandated residency requirement and manage to win the election, they will be subject to removal from office by the Illinois Courts Commission. In re Golniewicz, 4 Ill. Cts. Com 9, 39-40 (2004).

There is a third candidate on the retention ballot who ran into trouble for possibly fibbing about her place of residence: Beatriz Santiago was censured by the Illinois Courts Commission in 2016 for telling a mortgage lender that a home located just outside the 6th Subcircuit (from which she was elected) was in fact her primary residence where she lived and intended to live when it actually was not her primary residence. Though she had indeed lived there before she ran for judge and still owned the house after she moved back in with her folks, inside the 6th Subcircuit, in order to make the run. Whatever. Her defense to a claim that she was consititutionally ineligible to serve as a judge in Cook County's 6th Subcircuit was that she was only guilty of bank fraud... and, she said, she didn't do that on purpose either. I think because the residency question had been thoroughly litigated before her election, and it was determined that she had moved back in with her folks, the Courts Commission was willing to accept this explanation. (2016 FWIW coverage here.)

The point is, residency is a big deal. It is not just a matter of ratings; it is a potentially disqualifying, career-ending matter.

But first things first: There is a pending election and ratings to be determined.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers has already amended it findings in light of the Injustice Watch article concerning Judges Wright and O'Malley.

In its findings with regard to Judge Wright, the Council stated, in pertinent part,

It was recently reported that Judge Wright claims a senior homestead tax exemption on a residence in Will County, Illinois, while maintaining residency in Cook County for purposes of meeting residency requirements to be a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Judge Wright fully participated in the Alliance’s investigation process concerning this matter, and reported that he has corrected his tax exemption status.

Judge Wright's forthright handling of the matter, coupled with a strong history of professionalism on the bench, leads the Council to find him Qualified for retention.

On the other hand, with regard to Judge O'Malley, as FWIW has previously reported, the Council found Judge O'Malley not qualified for retention, albeit for reasons unrelated to the residency issue.

What one bar association does with late-breaking news, such as the residency questions involving Judges Wright and O'Malley, should not be taken as a prediction of how others, including the Chicago Bar Association, will choose to respond.

It is an indication of the increasing influence of Injustice Watch that its news coverage prompts the reopening of bar association candidate evaluations. More, certainly, to come.

On the judicial retention ballot, the default vote should be "yes"

In most elections, supporters of a candidate who wins 59% of the vote will use words like "landslide" to describe their favorite's splendid victory. "Landslides" are routinely declared when a candidate gets a significantly smaller percentage of votes.

In Illinois judicial retention elections, a judge who receives a 59% favorable vote has to look for a new job come the first Monday in December.

To remain in office, a judge must receive a better-than-60% "yes" vote (often expressed as 60% + 1). Historically, most Cook County judges have little trouble surpassing this minimum requirement, high as it may seem.

Indeed, for several consecutive elections (from 1992 until 2018) all Cook County judges won retention. In 2018 one judge was targeted for defeat by the Cook County Democratic Party (which historically had always supported all retention judges, even those first elected as *gasp* Republicans) -- and the targeted candidate lost. In 2020, the Party targeted a veteran judge and two judges in "judges' jail." One of the judges in judges' jail quit before the election; the other lost. The targeted veteran judge survived. In 2022, all the judges on the retention ballot won new terms.

So even the occasional judge who has incurred the wrath of powerful politicians or 'community activists' can survive on the retention ballot. And most judges do their necessary work unnoticed, safely out the politicians' reach.

But this rosy prospectus is darkened by the fact that, in any given retention election, 15 to 20% of the Cook County electorate reaching the retention ballot will vote "no" on every single judge. Every single judge -- no matter how universally praised by the bar associations -- no matter how highly praised by the press, dead tree or online -- no matter how mellifluous their surnames -- will get a "no" vote from 15 or 20 of every 100 voters. Second City Cop always urges voters to vote 'no' on every judge on the retention ballot.

In the 2022 retention election, for example, no judge reached an 80% yes vote (Judge Sophia Hall got the highest 'yes' vote -- at 79.24%. A few judges got more than 78%. Many judges were below 70%. (Source.) In 2020, only five judges (all female) secured more than an 80% "yes" vote -- and none of them got 81%.

So retention judges can count on a definite "no" vote from roughly 1 in 5 voters, no matter how what. (Under the circumstances, it is no wonder that some of them get a little squirrely at this time; if there are retention judges among your personal acquaintance, be understanding.)

Why do some judges perform less well than others?

Well... this is where bar association evaluations and media notoriety and special-interest groups like "Girl, I Guess" come into play. A judge who runs afoul of the bar groups, or has unfavorable press, will draw more negative votes than his or her better-regarded peers. Experts like Dr. Albert J. Klumpp will be able to quantify which groups had the most influence, but only after the fact. But the effects of unfavorable bar evaluations and negative recommendations from other groups are real, and they do depress the "yes" votes for retention candidates to a greater or lesser extent.

And then there are the selective "no" votes: Lawyers will vote against judges who did not (in the lawyers' subjective view) treat them, or their clients, with the respect they considered due. Some may vote on the basis of 'sour grapes' -- that judge ruled against me, so I will vote 'no' on that judge. And ordinary people, too: "No" on the judge who dinged them on the speeding ticket, "no" on the judge who handled the divorce, "no" on the judge who put the voter's relative in jail, "no" on the judge who didn't jail that trouble-making kid down the street. Any time a judge makes a decision, someone is likely to be upset. And, yet, a judge's job is to make decisions.

We have many very good, hard-working, scholarly judges in Cook County. Some smarter than others, some nicer than others, some perhaps a bit more diligent than others, too. FWIW does not make endorsements on individual candidates.

But I will make this suggestion: In the absence of a good reason to vote otherwise, I submit that the default vote for any judge on the judicial retention ballot should be "yes."

Now... what constitutes a good reason? That, Dear Reader, is up to you.

Chicago Council of Lawyers finds four Cook County judges "Not Qualified" for retention

The Chicago Council of Lawyers has released its Evalutaion Report for Cook County jurists seeking retention in the November 2024 General Eleciton. The second link in the preceding sentence will take you to the Council's complete report.

The Council found 74 of the 78 Cook County jurists seeking retention to be qualified to continue their judicial careers. Twelve of these 74 were rated "Well Qualifed" by the CCL, as FWIW reported earlier today.

Four judges, however, were rated Not Qualified for retention by the CCL. These are, in ballot order:

Hon. Kathy M. Flanagan

Hon. Kathy M. Flanagan was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1979. She was elected to the Circuit Court in 1988 and, since 2010, has been Supervising Judge of the Law Division, Motion Section. Her previous judicial assignment was in the Domestic Relations Division. Prior to becoming a judge, she was in private practice.

Judge Flanagan is nearly universally praised among practitioners for her punctuality, diligence, and legal knowledge. One respondent described her knowledge of civil procedure as “encyclopedic.”

The most significant concerns about Judge Flanagan relate to her judicial temperament and carryover from prior evaluations. While a minority of those interviewed support her and simply observe that she is stricter than other judges while managing her courtroom effectively and efficiently, a majority of those interviewed report that they have observed Judge Flanagan acting temperamentally, unprofessionally, and impatiently, with some noting that her behavior has become more erratic recently. She reportedly does not allow attorneys to argue their positions fully; refuses to accept case management orders that take into account unique circumstances of particular cases; schedules trials without regard to attorneys’ existing trial conflicts; imposes unduly severe consequences for failure to comply with rules; and, in general, lacks flexibility for matters outside of attorneys’ control.

While Judge Flanagan may have a well-intentioned desire to move cases along and clear backlogs within the Law Division, its manifestation as impatience, unprofessionalism, and disrespect to attorneys is a serious concern to the Council. This is particularly so given that these concerns have been raised for years, but Judge Flanagan does not appear to have successfully addressed them.

On balance, the Council finds her Not Qualified for retention to the Circuit Court.

Hon. Lisa A. Marino

Hon. Lisa Ann Marino was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1988. She was elected in 2012 and, since 2016, has been assigned to the First Municipal District as well as the Mortgage Foreclosure Section of the Chancery Court. Previously, she served in the Juvenile Justice Division. Prior to becoming a judge, she was a solo practitioner and an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney.

Many respondents raised concerns about Judge Marino’s legal ability, character, temperament, and diligence. These reports vary significantly from the investigation conducted in 2018, when Judge Marino was comparatively newer to her assignment in the Housing Section, and the Council found her qualified for retention. Complaints include repeated legal errors, anti-defendant bias, shouting from the bench, unpreparedness, and arriving late to the bench or taking excessive time to make decisions.

Given the breadth and volume of these concerns, the Council finds her Not Qualified for retention to the Circuit Court.

Hon. Ieshia Eshale Gray

Hon. Ieshia Eschale Gray was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 2002. She was elected to the bench in 2018 and, since 2022, has been assigned to Sixth Municipal District in Markham. Judge Gray presides over the new Sauk Village Restorative Justice Community Court. She previously served in the Fourth Municipal District. Prior to becoming a judge, she was an Assistant Public Defender and a Court Coordinator in the Civil Protection Division.

Judge Gray receives praise for her legal knowledge and ability, as well as her sensitivity to diversity issues and her efficient courtroom management when on the bench. However, some concerns were expressed about her work ethic in connection with the timing of her days off. While some practitioners report that Judge Gray has a good temperament and is impartial, a majority expressed serious concerns about these matters, with many noting that they would take a substitution of judge if assigned to her in the future. Several attorneys have suggested that Judge Gray personalized matters and treated them punitively after they presented positions with which she disagreed.

On balance, the Council finds Judge Gray Not Qualified for retention.

Hon. Shannon P. O’Malley

Hon. Shannon P. O’Malley was admitted to the bar under the name Phillip Spiwak in 1992; he changed his name in 2012. He was elected to the bench in 2018 and, since 2019, has been assigned to the Child Protection Division. He previously served in the First Municipal District. Prior to becoming a judge, he was in private practice.

Judge O’Malley’s legal knowledge and ability are considered average, although a minority of respondents felt it was below average with many attorneys questioning his ability to make well-reasoned decisions. Judge O’Malley is considered sensitive to bias and respectful to everyone, particularly the minors in his courtroom. However, there are many complaints about his courtroom management, which has not improved in his years on the bench. Delays in his courtroom can mean that a child remains in a group home, psychiatric hospital, or other placement longer than necessary.

The Council finds him Not Qualified for retention to the Circuit Court.

Advocates Society Judges' Night set for October 17

The Advocates Society will hold its annual Judges' Night on Thursday, October 17, from 5:00 to 9:00 p.m., at the Polish Museum of America, 984 N. Milwaukee Ave.

Event organizers promise no speeches and no assigned seating but, instead, good food, drinks, and socializing.

Tickets are $125 each for Advocates members, $150 for non-members. Sitting and retired judges will be admitted gratis, but are asked to register in advance.

Sponsorships are available: Red and White Sponsor - $250, Silver Sponsor - $500, Gold Sponsor - $1,000, and Platinum Event Sponsor - $1,500. In addition, a Food Sponsorship is available for $2,500 as is a $2,500 Beverage Sponsorship. Each sponsorship level carries with it an increasing number of benefits and perks.

For tickets, judges' resgistration, or detailed information about sponsorships, click on this page of the Advocates website.

CBA Barristers Big Band presents Four Seasons of Jazz on October 19

The Chicago Bar Association's Barristers Big Band will present its Fall Concert, entitled Four Seasons of Jazz, on Saturday, October 19, from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m., at Ganz Hall, in the Auditorium Building, 425 S. Wabash.

Tickets for the event are $15 apiece ($10 each for law students and students under 18) and are available at this Eventbrite link.

Chicago Council of Lawyers finds 12 Cook County jurists Well Qualified for retention

The Chicago Council of Lawyers has released its Evalutaion Report for Cook County jurists seeking retention in the November 2024 General Eleciton. The second link in the preceding sentence will take you to the Council's complete report.

The Council has found 12 of the 78 Cook County jurists seeking retention to be "Well Qualified," the highest rating issued by the Council for this retention election. In this post, we look at what the Council had to say about the one Appellate Court justice and the 11 Circuit Court judges (though one of these is currently serving on the Appellate Court) who received the Council's Well Qualified rating.

The Council also found four Circuit Court judges "Not Recommended" for retention. FWIW will look at those ratings in a different post.

The CCL's "Well Qualified" ratings for candidates on the 2024 retention ballot follow, in ballot order:

Hon. Thomas Hoffman

Hon. Thomas Hoffman was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1971. He was appointed to the Circuit Court in 1984 and elected in 1988. He was assigned to the Appellate Court, First District in 1993 and elected in 1994. He previously served in the Law Division. Prior to becoming a judge, he was an Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago and was in private practice.

Justice Hoffman is well known for his intellect, preparation, and active participation from the bench. He is praised for having a strong command of the appellate record and applicable case law, while being willing to apply a common-sense approach when appropriate. Some interviewed reported a sometimes “gruff” demeanor characterized by very pointed questioning, while others described similar behavior as Justice Hoffman being “involved” or “incisive.”

The Council finds him Well Qualified for retention to the Appellate Court.

Hon. Stuart Fredric Lubin

Hon. Stuart Fredric Lubin was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1974. He was appointed in 1991 and elected in 1994. Since 1991, he has been assigned to the Juvenile Justice Division and previously served in the First Municipal District. Prior to becoming a judge, Stuart Lubin was a career Assistant Cook County Public Defender.

Judge Lubin is regarded as an excellent jurist with very good legal ability. He is praised for his courtroom management skills, efficiently running court calls. He is reported to have a good temperament and to be helpful, patient, and respectful of all parties. He is praised for his integrity and impartiality.

The Council finds him Well Qualified for retention to the Circuit Court.

Hon. Carol M. Howard

Hon. Carol Howard was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1986. Judge Howard was elected in 2006 and, since 2009, has been assigned to the Criminal Division. Previously, she was assigned to the First Municipal District. Prior to becoming a judge, she was an Assistant Cook County Public Defender.

Respondents were overwhelmingly positive in their assessment of Judge Howard’s legal ability, demeanor, and integrity. She is described as respectful and professional, even in “chaotic environments.” Judge Howard is considered well-prepared, capable, and effective on the bench.

The Council finds her Well Qualified for retention to the Circuit Court.

Hon. Regina Scannicchio

Hon. Regina Scannicchio was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1989. She was elected to the bench in 2012, and, since 2022, has been Presiding Judge of the Domestic Relations Division, where she was previously assigned. Prior to becoming a judge, she was in private practice.

Judge Scannicchio is considered a dedicated and knowledgeable jurist, with an excellent courtroom demeanor. She is described as approachable and engaged as Presiding judge, as well as fair and considerate in court.

The Council finds her Well Qualified for retention to the Circuit Court.

Hon. Aicha Marie MacCarthy

Hon. Aicha Marie MacCarthy was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1997. She was elected to the bench in 2012 and, since 2013, has been assigned to the Probate Division. Previously, she served in the First Municipal District. Prior to becoming a judge, she was a solo practitioner and worked in government, at the Chicago Housing Authority and at the Chicago Department of Law.

Judge MacCarthy is considered to have excellent legal knowledge and ability. She is well-prepared and respected for direct and clear decisions. The issues in her courtroom can be complex and emotionally difficult, but she is adept at handling sensitive situations and known for treating everyone patiently, fairly, and with respect.

The Council finds her Well Qualified for retention to the Circuit Court.

Hon. Michael T. Mullen

Hon. Michael T. Mullen was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1981. He was elected in 2012 and, since 2013, has been assigned to the Chancery Division. Previously, he served in the First Municipal District. Prior to becoming a judge, he was in private practice and had served as a U.S. Attorney and in the Illinois Attorney General's Office.

Judge Mullen is described as a smart, kind, and well-organized judge. He is even-tempered and conducts his courtroom with patience and preparation. He is reported to be sensitive to issues of bias and good at maintaining order in his courtroom without losing his patience or becoming unkind. Feedback on Judge Mullen is uniformly positive.

The Council finds him Well Qualified for retention to the Circuit Court.

Hon. Kent Delgado

Hon. Kent Delgado was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1996. He was appointed to the Circuit Court in 2017 and elected in 2018. He is assigned to the Probate Division and previously served in the First Municipal District. Prior to becoming a judge, he was a solo practitioner and an Assistant State’s Attorney in Cook County.

Judge Delgado is generally described as knowledgeable in probate law. He is considered level-headed and respectful in the courtroom. Respondents noted his diligence, stating that he always provides the legal basis for his decision. He is described as always punctual, prepared, well-versed in the law and of optimal temperament. The steps he took during the first months of the pandemic and shutdown are said to exemplify his dedication to his duties, but also to the needs of the litigants.

The Council finds Judge Delgado Well Qualified for retention to the Circuit Court.

Hon. David R. Navarro

Hon. David R. Navarro was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1993. He was appointed to the Appellate Court, First District, in 2023. He was previously appointed to the Circuit Court in 2017 and elected in 2018. Prior to becoming a judge, he served in the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, as an Assistant State’s Attorney, and a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney.

Justice Navarro is reported to be a fair and knowledgeable judge. He is considered to have a fair and balanced approach, ensuring all parties receive equal treatment under the law. We note that he is being evaluated for retention to the Circuit Court, the position to which he was elected, and not the Appellate Court to which he is presently assigned.

The Council finds him Well Qualified for retention to the Circuit Court.

Hon. Tiana Ellis Blakely

Hon. Tiana Ellis Blakely was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 2004. She was elected in 2018 and has served in the Sixth Municipal District in Markham since that election. Prior to becoming a judge, she worked as an Assistant Public Defender in Cook County.

Judge Blakely is widely regarded as an excellent criminal judge by both state's attorneys and defense attorneys. She is considered fair and respectful with a balanced approach. She receives praise for her courtroom management with regard to both efficiency and impartiality.

The Council finds her Well Qualified for retention to the Circuit Court.

Hon. Scott D. McKenna

Hon. Scott D. McKenna was admitted to the bar in 1996. He was elected in 2018 and, since 2023, has been assigned to the Law Division. Previously, he served in the First Municipal District. Prior to becoming a judge, he was in private practice.

Judge McKenna is generally well-regarded as a professional, ethical judge, who runs a courteous, well-managed courtroom. He is prepared, knowledgeable and effective. Many respondents consider him to be “one of the best.” Overall, respondents offered high praise for this judge in all aspects of judicial qualifications.

The Council finds him Well Qualified for retention to the Circuit Court.

Hon. Erika Lynn Orr

Erika Lynn Orr was admitted to practice in 1998. She was elected in 2018 and has been assigned to the Domestic Relations Division in the Sixth Municipal District in Markham. Prior to becoming a judge, she was a solo practitioner.

Judge Orr is consistently described as knowledgeable about the law and consistent in applying the law to facts before her. Many respondents note that her background in finance serves her well in domestic relations. She is praised for her sensitivity to cultural issues that arise in family matters and ensures self-represented litigants in her courtroom understand the process without ever crossing into legal advice or advocacy. She is considered to have the highest integrity and to be diplomatic, sometimes stern, but always patient and fair.

The Council finds her Well Qualified for retention to the Circuit Court.

Hon. Athanasios (Tom) S. Sianis

Hon. Athanasios (Tom) S. Sianis was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 2004. He was elected in 2018, and, since 2021, he has been Supervising Judge of the Traffic Division and previously served in the First Municipal District. Prior to becoming a judge, he was a Special Assistant Attorney General and an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney.

Judge Sianis is very well respected by his colleagues and attorneys. He appears to value ongoing education, not simply in case law, but also in case management, diversity, and access to justice.

His rulings are characterized as fair and well-reasoned, and he is described as both patient and exemplary. Respondents remarked that he takes his role as judge seriously and is an excellent judge.

The Council finds him Well Qualified for retention to the Circuit Court.

Girl, I Guess weighs in on the judicial retention ballot

The Girl I Guess 2024 Progressive Voter Guide is out now (the first link here is to the Girl, I Guess website; the second is to the Google Doc that is the guide), urging voters to vote against the retention of 16 of the 78 jurists on this fall's Cook County judicial retention ballot. Here is a screengrab of the Girl, I Guess retention recommendations:

The reader will observe that four of these 16 negative recommendations are not just a "no" but a "super no."

Just an aside to the voting public: There is no "super no" option on the actual retention ballot -- even if you vote by mail.

However, the authors of the Girl, I Guess Guide do offer explanations for their "super no" recommendations, and only for these highly negative exhortations, and we will come to these in a moment.

First, though, for those who may not be familiar with this increasingly influential online publication, let me quote from the authors' description of the guide (emphasis in original):

Girl, I Guess is Jewish, Black, queer, trans, nerdy and dedicated to helping members of our community navigate a confusing ballot and identify the most progressive candidates. We also recommend you consult with progressive / radical organizers in your community, especially queer, trans, Black, and Brown folks!

The authors of the guide are Stephanie Skora, "a grouchy Jewish trans dyke, and an anarchist with a political science degree," and Raeghn Draper, "a pro-labor, queer, Black, non-binary babe who is bisexual only because they like the flag colors better than the ones for the pansexual flag." While both are involved with every race and endorsement covered in the guide, they have divided the coverage up and written separately about specific races. For example, Skora apparently prepared each of the "super no" explanations.

The Girl, I Guess Guide's retention coverage starts at p. 55 (of 65). It begins by throwing a bouquet in the direction of the Injustice Watch Judicial Voter Guide.

The Girl, I Guess guide does more than simply praise the "snappy coverage" of Injustice Watch; it clearly relies on it as well: Every judge with a "notable controversy" cited in the Injustice Watch guide received a negative recommendation from Girl, I Guess guide, including all four of the judges receiving a "super no."

But Girl, I Guess also recommends "no" votes on several judges who did not have 'notable controversies' according to Injustice Watch. Girl, I Guess offers four additional criteria by which it makes recommendations in judicial races (pp. 65-66):

1. Are you a cop?
2. Are you sketchy, suspicious, or have you done bad/controversial things in the past?
3. Are you a dumbass?
4. Do Bar Associations think that you’re qualified?

Bar ratings are only now starting to come out. The Chicago Bar Association ratings just came out last week; the Chicago Council of Lawyers released their ratings tonight (story to come). The Girl, I Guess Google doc may yet be amended as ratings trickle in.

With that caveat, here is what the Girl, I Guess guide says with regard to its "super no" statements (pp. 56-57) (links and emphases as in original):

E. Kenneth Wright, Jr.
The Dish:

Wright, Jr, who is 83 years old and running for retention for another 6-year term is unfortunately also a shady and unscrupulous character. He’s one of two Judges who was caught by the crack reporting team at Injustice Watch as claiming a Homestead Exemption on his property taxes outside of Cook County. For those of you, dear reader, who are not in the know about the ins and outs of Cook County property tax exemptions, a Homestead Exemption is the most common kind of homeowner tax exemption taken in Illinois, usable only on the owner’s principal dwelling place, meaning the place that they live the majority of the time. Wright, Jr. has claimed a homestead exemption on a property in Joliet (which sits in Will County) since 1978, and a Senior Homestead Exemption since 2018. Whoopsie! Illinois state law requires judges to live in the District that they represent, which Wright Jr. clearly does not. Vote NO on this judge who has been lying to Cook County voters for the 30 years that he’s been on the bench.

Mary Margaret Brosnahan
The Dish:

Brosnahan is a complete non-starter for Girl, I Guess for violating three of our four Judicial Evaluation Criteria (Bar Association Ratings pending for the fourth!) by being married to a cop with 43 allegations against him who’s already cost the City $9 million in misconduct settlements. Eww. She’s also had two murder cases reversed and determined unfair due to the “cumulative effect” of Brosnahan’s errors which impacted the “trustworthiness of the judicial process,” which sounds both sketchy and dumb to me. Vote NO on Brosnahan.

Maura Slattery Boyle
The Dish:

Slattery Boyle is a machine nepo baby, and was sent to the bench in 2000 on the back of a Daley endorsement. Bridgeport, am I right? Her rulings have been reversed at least 46 times during her tenure, she and her husband apparently don’t pay their taxes, and the City has sued her several times over building code violations. Whoof. Slattery Boyle barely won retention last time we covered her in 2018, and we’ve gotta hope that she doesn’t make it this time because Cook County has had quite enough of her. Vote NO.

Shannon O'Malley
The Dish:

O’Malley may not be a Libertarian (as far as we know), but he’s going to be this year’s Silly Name Caucus inductee for nomenclature-related shenanigans that loyal Girl, I Guess readers haven’t seen since the days of Benjamin Adam Winderweedle. According to Injustice Watch, O’Malley changed his name and party in 2018 (after running unsuccessfully for judge in two different Counties and Cook County State’s Attorney in 2004) to Shannon O’Malley from Phillip Spiwak. He claimed it was to honor a recently-passed mentor, but observers and reporters agreed that it was a naked attempt to improve his electoral chances, as it’s a well-known fact that Irish names do better on Cook County Judicial ballots, albeit only slightly. Well, apparently, it worked! O’Malley was elected in 2018 in his first electoral attempt since his name change. This would be just dumb and funny enough to maybe slide by with a disgruntled YES, but O’Malley unfortunately is also the second judges to find himself on the wrong side of the “she doesn’t even go here” scandal, with property tax exemption records also listing a Homestead Exemption for him in Will County. O’Malley claims that his wife lives in Will County by herself while he lives in Schaumburg, but… come on, man. It’s a judge’s duty to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, and this doesn’t pass the sniff test.

On top of all of this, I had multiple attorneys reach out to me who have tried cases in front of O’Malley, questioning in several ways his command of the law as it relates to Child Protection and Family Law cases, and noting his poor temperament in the courtroom. Vote NO.

Most of the above links in the Girl, I Guess narratives are to Injustice Watch, the Sun-Times, or the Tribune. But, with regard to Judge Slattery Boyle, there is also link to an ISBA News article from 2012. Slattery Boyle was comfortably retained in that election, as the linked story confirms, but, as Skora states, Slattery Boyle did have a fairly close call in 2018.

Although Girl, I Guess does not explain its other "no" recommendations, the bases of at least a few of these be reasonably determined without resorting to speculation. For example, Judge Colleen Reardon Daly is married to an ex-Chicago Police lieutenant, , according to Injustice Watch. That is obviously a major problem for Girl, I Guess.

Injustice Watch noted that Judge Michael Tully Mullen "ruled that police officers could have serious disciplinary cases heard by arbitrators instead of the Chicago Police Board," a very unpopular ruling among anti-police activists. Non-lawyers (and the authors of the Girl, I Guess guide are not lawyers) may not always fully appreciate that judicial ethics require judges to follow the law without regard to "public clamor or fear of criticism" and "without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question."

Given the "super no" recommendations given to two judges whose current residence is apparently in question, the reason behind the negative recommendation on Judge Beatriz Santiago is likewise apparent: Judge Santiago was accused of putting a mortgage on a home that she owned, outside the 6th Subcircuit from which she'd only just been elected, and claiming, in the mortgage documents, that this home was her principal residence. If that home actually was her principal residence at the time she applied for the mortgage, she might have been removed from office. As it was, the Courts Commission chose merely to censure her. (FWIW analysis of the Courts Commission's 2016 decision in Judge Santiago's case is here.)

Advocates Society recommends 40 Cook County Circuit Court judges for retention

Updated 10/5/24

The Advocates Society has released a list of 40 Cook County Circuit Court judges and one McHenry County judge that it recommends for retention on the November ballot. The announcemet is reproduced above. The McHenry County judge is 22nd Circuit Chief Judge Michael J. Chmiel. The 40 Cook County judges are:

1. Ronald Bartkowicz
2. Mary Brosnahan
3. Joel Chupack
4. H. Yvonne Coleman
5. Adrienne Davis
6. Daniel Degnan
7. Kent Delgado
8. John Ehrlich
9. Ellen Flannigan
10. Peter Gonzalez
11. Ieshia Gray
12. Jack Hagerty
13. Robert Harris
14. Lindsay Huge
15. Lionel Jean-Baptiste
16. Preston Jones, Jr.
17. Martin Kelley
18. Kathaleen Lanahan
19. Stuart Lubin
20. Lisa Ann Marino
21. Diann Marsalek
22. Thomas McGuire
23. Scott D. McKenna
24. Michael T. Mullen
25. Shannon P. O'Malley
26. Erika Orr
27. Linda Perez
28. Marian Perkins
29. Clare J. Quish
30. Joanne Rosado
31. Stephanie Saltouros
32. Beatriz Santiago
33. Debra Seaton
34. James Shapiro
35. Tom Sianis
36. Rosa Maria Silva
37. Maura Slattery Boyle
38. James Varga
39. Andrea Webber
40. Jeanne Wrenn

Tickets available for October 18 Illinois Bar Foundation Gala

The Illinois Bar Foundation will hold its 2024 Gala on Friday, October 18, at the Old Post Office, 433 W. Van Buren. This black tie event will begin with a VIP reception at 6:00 p.m.; a general reception will follow at 6:30 p.m. A full seated dinner and program will follow the receptions, with live and silent auctions, dancing, and cocktails.

At the program, the IBF will bestow its Distinguished Award for Excellence on Jay Edelson of Edelson PC, saluting his "leadership in the Illinois legal and philanthropic communities coupled with his dedication to serving others through the practice of law." In addition, event organizers promise "a little whimsy."

Tickets for the event are $500 apiece, although discounted tickets (for $400 each) are available for nonprofit and government attorneys and judges. Complimentary valet parking and coat check are avaialble, but these tickets do not include admission to the VIP reception.

Event tickets that include admission to the VIP reception are $1,000 each.

Sponsorships are also available (Benefactor - $10,000, Gala Partner - $25,000, Gala Cornerstone - $50,000, Presenting Sponsor - $75,000). Each increasing level of sponsorship comes with increasing perks and numbers of VIP tickets. For a complete list of all available sponsorships, or to simply order tickets, click on this page of the IBF website. While the physical program book is already at the printer's, there are still opportunities to be included in the digital program book.

In addition, the IBF is hosting a raffle offering a five-night stay for two to the winner's choice of Tuscany, Bali, Thailand, Paris, or Greece. For more information about the raffle, visit this page of the IBF website. Questions about the Gala may be directed to Jessie Reeves, Director of Events & Administration, at jreeves@illinoisbarfoundation.org.

October 24 fundraiser for Judge de Castro

It wasn't supposed to be this way. Pablo de Castro won his Democratic primary race this past March and then, in April, since he (and all countywide Cook County judicial candidates) had no Republican opposition, the Illinois Supreme Court gave de Castro an early start on his judicial career.

Now, however, de Castro finds that he is not unopposed after all.

Thus, Judge de Castro's supporters are planning a fundraiser for his fall campaign. The event is set for Thursday, October 24, starting at 7:00 p.m., at Sketchbook Brewing Co., 4901 Main St., Skokie. Jazz singer and songwriter Kurt Elling will perform.

Tickets are $150 each. Sponsorships are available (Friend - $250, Supporter - $500, Host - $1,000). Tickets are available at this DemocracyEngine link on the candidate's website. And, who knows? Perhaps that QR code in the graphic above may also do something, for those who know how to work such things....

Probate Division update: Docket books out, screens and keyboards in

A note and an accompanying photo from the Chief Judge's Office:

Cook County Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans met with Probate judges and staff on Friday, September 27 to celebrate the opening of new Probate Division Courtroom 1813. This new courtroom replaces the antiquated docket room and is updated with high tech equipment which will improve access to justice for lawyers and litigants. As of October 1, 2024, cases assigned to guardianship of minors' estates Calendar 1, are being heard in the new courtroom by Judge Daniel R. Degnan. Pictured are Judge Terrence J. McGuire, Chief Judge Evans, Judge Degnan (seated), Presiding Judge Daniel B. Malone, Judge Susan Kennedy-Sullivan, and Judge Amee Alonso.

I wonder if there are any docket books left in the Daley Center; this may be the finish. When I started out, there were docket books in every division. Unlike a lot of court files, the old books were too big and heavy to grow legs and walk away. The status of any given case could be ascertained, even if the file jacket was missing. Or, and this sometimes proved to be the case, the file was not missing, but actually accounted for, only in another location, such as a courtroom.

Technology is great -- you're reading this, aren't you? -- but it is subject to hacking by enemies foreign and domestic, sunspots, power outages, and (perhaps, someday) control of all those AI entities we're so heedlessly setting up and letting loose. Is there no one left who saw James T. Kirk or Dr. Who fight existential battles with megalomaniacal machines? Those old TV shows were warnings, people....

Seventy-seven of 78 Cook County jurists recommended for retention by the Chicago Bar Association

Updated 10/4/24 after CBA's release of explanation for its recommendation regarding Judge Marino

The Chicago Bar Association released its "Judge Smart" Guide for the upcoming election.

The headline here has the main story: The CBA has recommended retention for 77 of the 78 Cook County jurists seeking new terms. That number includes both of the Appellate Court justices seeking retention, as well as 75 out of the 76 Circuit Court judges seeking new six-year terms. The only judge not recommended for retention was Judge Lisa Ann Marino.

The CBA JEC has released the following explanation of its rating regarding Judge Marino:

Judge Lisa Marino has been found “Not Recommended” for retention as a Circuit Court. Judge Marino was admitted to practice in 1988 and was elected as a judge in 2012. She has been sitting in the First Municipal District, Housing Section, since 2016. Significant concerns about Judge Marino’s knowledge of the law, temperament, and diligence resulted in the “Not Recommended” finding.

The CBA did not recommend Marino for retention in 2018; as in 2024, in 2018 Marino was the only retention judge receiving a 'not recommended' rating from the CBA. Marino's biography on the Cook County Retention Judges website correctly notes that the CBA did rate Marino qualified when she was elected to the bench in 2012.

The CBA no longer explains its reasons for rating retention judges qualified.

The CBA "Judge Smart" Guide also discloses the CBA's rating for Republican countywide candidate Tien H. Glaub. (Glaub was not a candidate in the Republican primary and was not therefore not evaluated at that time.) But Glaub did file for associate judge in 2021, and the CBA did issue an unfavorable rating then. That rating was not changed for this election:

Pursuant to section 34, rule 27.4 of The Chicago Bar Association’s Judicial Evaluation Committee’s Governing Resolution, The Executive Committee has voted that Tien H. Glaub’s prior finding of NOT RECOMMENDED shall stand.

FWIW has not yet done an Organizing the Data post on the now-contested countywide Flannery vacancy, pending the release of all bar evaluations of Glaub's candidacy.

Voters can read the CBA's evaluations for all candidates on the November ballot, but with the exception of the race for the Flannery vacancy and four suburban subcircuit races, all judicial elections on the November ballot in Cook County are uncontested.

FWIW has published Organizing the Data posts in those four subcircuit races. These posts contain the CBA's explanation of its ratings of the competing candidates. These posts may be found at these links:

• Organizing the Data: 18th Subcircuit - Converted from Associate Judgeship of Linn;
• Organizing the Data: 12th Subcircuit - Dickler vacancy;
• Organizing the Data: 12th Subcircuit - Quinn vacancy; and
• Organizing the Data: 12th Subcircuit - Schleifer vacancy.

Appellate Lawyers Association needs sponsors, judges for November Moot Court competition

The Appellate Lawyers Association is looking for judges and sponsors for its annual Hudson Memorial Moot Court Competition, to be held November 1 and 2. The Friday, November 1 sessions will be held at DePaul University College of Law, while the Saturday, November 2 sessions will be conducted at the Daley Center.

Non-ALA members are welcome to serve as judges or brief graders.

Or sponsors.

Or all of the above. Actually, the ALA would be probably be pleased as punch were you to volunteer to judge and write a check as a sponsor.

There will be three sessions for the tournament's November 1 first round, at 9:30 a.m., noon, and 3:30 p.m. Thirty-four judges are needed for each session. Ten judges will also be needed for the quarterfinal round of the competition, on November 2, at 9:30 a.m. (Actual Appellate Court Justices will judge the semi-final and final rounds.)

The ALA will also need 34 brief graders.

To volunteer for one of these slots, click on this page of the ALA website and follow the applicable link.

Judges will receive CLE credit for their service. The Supreme Court Rules do not permit graders to receive CLE credit. (Personally, this seems backward to me: Grading the briefs seems at least as credit-worthy as serving as a judge at one of these compensations -- but, to date, the Supreme Court has not solicited my views on the subject.)

Now... about those sponsorship opportunities.... The ALA is offering four levels of sponsorship (Bronze - $250, Silver - $500, Gold - $750, and Platinum - $1,000). Only two Platinum sponsorships are available.

The benefits appertaining to each level of sponsorship may be found by following the applicable links from this page of the ALA website. Yes, it's the same page as the one linked above. But you are clicking to a different link from this page.

Unless, of course, you offer to both judge and sponsor. Which, as noted, the ALA would like very much....

LAP Awards Dinner set for October 10 at Brookfield Zoo

The Illinois Lawyers Assistance Program will hold its annual Awards Dinner on Thursday, October 10, from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m., at the Brookfield Zoo. Registration for the event closes a week from today, on October 4.

Tickets for the event are $150 apiece, and are available from this Eventbrite link. Sponsorships are available (Friends of LAP - $250, Bronze - $500, Silver - $1,000, Gold - $2,500, Platinum - $3,500, or Presenting - $5,000). Each sponsorship level has an increasing number of perks, including numbers of event tickets, social media mentions, or recognition during the event itself. Presenting sponsors will be invited to address the gathering. In addition, LAP is seeking beverage and music sponsors, for $1,500 each. These last are exclusive sponsorships and may not be available long. Information regarding each level of sponsorship can be found, and donations of any amount can be made, at this Eventbrite link.

Ticketholders will be admitted to the zoo beginning at 3:00 p.m. They will thus have the opportunity to see for themselves, prior to the start of the scheduled program, whether something's happening at the zoo. (Personally, I do believe it, I do believe it's true.)

According to the Illinois Courts website, First District Appellate Justice Jesse G. Reyes will be the honored guest and speaker at this event. LAP will present these awards at the October 10 awards dinner:

• Michael J. Howlett Jr. Award - Lester Munson
  Awarded to an individal in recognition of their promotion of the goals and missions of LAP within the legal community.


• Hon. John Powers Crowley Award - Cook County Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans
  Awarded to a member of the judiciary who has contributed to the goals and mission of LAP; a special honor, awarded as warranted.


• Carl H. Rolewick Award - Matthew S. Sims
  Awarded to an attorney who has contributed to the goals and mission of LAP.


• Executive Director Award - Roueen Rafeyan, M.D.
  Awarded to an individual or organization that the Executive Director feels has supported her in her work at LAP.


• Daneen Fitzpatrick Berres Award - Lisa G. Williams
  Awarded to a member of the LAP Women's group who has contributed to the goals and mission of LAP, and who has demonstrated a commitment to helping other women in the group by acting as a role mode and peer support person.

Silent auction and raffle items are are also needed. Contact cramski@illinoislap.org to arrange for auction donations.

Because service in the Illinois General Assembly did not come with enough perks already....

Reminiscent of the late Sydney J. Harris, here's a thing I learned en route to looking up other things....

Effective January 1, 2025, the Illinois Supreme Court has amended Supreme Court Rule 795 (CLE accreditation standards and hours), by adding a new subsection (d)(13), which provides:

Service as Elected or Appointed Member of the Illinois General Assembly. An attorney elected or appointed to the Illinois General Assembly earns three hours of general MCLE credit by attending at least one day of one qualifying legislative session. A "qualifying legislative session" is any official regular, special, or veto session of the Illinois General Assembly for which the member is present in the Illinois House of Representatives or Illinois Senate chambers or any official committee or subcommittee meeting of the Illinois House of Representatives or Illinois Senate for which the representative or senator is present. Credit for this attendance is limited to 3 hours for each qualifying legislative session and is capped at 12 hours in each two-year reporting period. There is no carryover of these credits to another two-year reporting period and no professional responsibility credit is available. The attorney must report the credit earned from this activity to the MCLE Board using the Board's online submission process no later than the reporting deadline for the reporting period in which the attorney earned the credit. Newly admitted attorneys do not earn Illinois MCLE credit under this provision.

It's not a complete get-out-of-CLE-free pass for lawyer-legislators: Hauling one's carcass down to Springfield and staying the day provides only a maximum of 12 of the required 30 CLE hours in any one reporting period (and only three in any given session) -- and the honorable member must still enter his or her attendance in the now-usual online manner (the dozen hours are not assumed or automatically conferred). Moreover, these are general credits only, meaning attendance doesn't count toward the various professional resopnsibility hours requirements.

Still... was there really a burning need for this? Were significant numbers of lawyer-legislators working so diligently on the people's business that they were failing to attend to their own CLE requirements? One guesses that Someone Important must have asked for this... but FWIW does not have the investigative resources to find out who that Someone Important might be.

Local Federal Courts again sponsor Bill of Rights Day contest

Like me, perhaps, some of you are still a bit giddy from your recent Constitution Day celebrations.

So be it. The Constitutional calendar moves on.

And, as we approach this year's Bill of Rights Day (December 15, for those of you who may have forgotten), the United States Courts of Appeals along with the United States District Courts in the Seventh and Eighth Circuits, are hosting the fifth annual Bill of Rights Day contest for students in grades 5 to 12 in Illinois (and elsewhere in the 7th and 8th Circuits). The contest is being conducted under the auspices of the Judicial Learning Center.

While there are (presumably) very few middle school and high school students among FWIW's regular readers, a great many FWIW readers have children or grandchildren who do fall in the target demographic. Some of us have middle school or high school teachers in our families, and among our friends and neighbors, as well. So we can alert them.

Pass the word to your kids, grandkids, friends, and family as follows:

Students in grades 5-12 from Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin are encouraged to submit art and essays on the importance of the Bill of Rights. Creativity is encouraged.

A grand prize winner from each grade level category will be awarded a $500 cash prize, be able to take part in a virtual event on Wednesday, December 4 with Federal Judges and other legal experts on the enduring rights afforded to Americans by the Bill of Rights, and have their name and submission shared on the websites of the participating United States District Courts. Finalists from each grade level category will receive a $50 prize.

There are four grade level categories: Grade 5-6, Grades 7-8, Grades 9-10, Grades 11-12.

Submissions will be accepted during the fall semester, through 5:00 p.m. on Friday, November 1, 2024.

Finalists will be notified by Thanksgiving and grand prize winners will be announced at the virtual event on December 4. A finalist must be present to win the grand prize.

Detailed contest prompts, guidelines, and online submission form can be found here: JudicialLearningCenter.org/bill-of-rights-day.

Teachers: Be sure to tell your students to list you on their submission forms. All teacher names submitted will be entered into a raffle for valuable gift cards. The more students you have enter the more chances you have to win.

Please also note: There is a bulk-submit option for teachers. Contact the Judicial Learning Center through the website for instructions on how to submit for your entire class. Teachers are strongly encouraged to use the bulk-submit option if multiple students are entering.

Persons not entering the contest who may nonetheless have a rooting interest in the proceedings are welcome to attend the virtual event on December 4 at 6:00 p.m. Central/7:00 p.m. Eastern. Attendees will also have the opportunity to win prizes.

Event registration is required. To register, click JudicialLearningCenter.org/bill-of-rights-day.

CBA issues updated ratings for 12th Subcircuit candidates

FWIW has confirmed this morning that the Chicago Bar Association has found 12th Subcircuit candidate Pamela Curran Smith (pictured at left) "Qualified" in her bid for the Quinn vacancy.

My earlier post profiling the Quinn vacancy has been updated accordingly.

Readers scrolling to the comments in the linked post will see that that candidate called me out for publishing the CBA's "not recommended" rating; she expressly denied that she "declined to participate" in the CBA's screening process. I had relied on the rating issued with the CBA's Voters' Guide for the March 2024 primary in preparing my post.

In my experience, bar ratings, once issued (and once the regular appeal process has been exhausted), do not change between the primary and general elections. I can recall an instance where a candidate rating was withdrawn (only to be reinstated later) -- but, until now, I can not recall a single instance where this kind of change has occurred.

The operative words in the preceding sentence are "until now."

In the course of investigating the question this morning I learned, from a reliable CBA source, that there were a few candidates who received "Not Recommended" ratings during the primary season because "we did not receive their completed questionnaires in time to conduct an investigation. Part of this turned out to not be completely their fault and we decided in all fairness to allow them to submit their questionnaires and go through our process."

Ms. Smith was one of the candidates who was allowed to proceed with the screening process after this determination was made.

The CBA also today provided FWIW with an updated "Qualified" letter to 12th Subcircuit candidate Alon Stein (Dickler vacancy). He was rated "Qualfied" for the primary as well, and, as I had done with Ms. Smith, I had used the language from the CBA's primary voters' guide in my Organizing the Data post. However, since the language of the CBA's explanation of its rating has changed, I have updated that post as well, to reflect the CBA's current language.

Finally, the CBA has advised FWIW that its general election voters guide (the Smart Guide) should be available soon. FWIW will have that guide when available.

Organizing the Data: 18th Subcircuit - Converted from Associate Judgeship of Linn

There are only five judicial vacancies on the Cook County ballot this November in which voters have any choice whatsoever. All of the other races were decided in the March Democratic primary. One of these contested races is in the new northwest suburban 18th Subcircuit. This post looks at the candidates for that vacancy.

Candidates are listed in punch number order. This year, that means the Democratic candidate is listed before the Republican candidate.

This post may be updated with new, additional, or corrected information, as it becomes available.

One final note: Each candidate may have endorsements from persons or groups not shown below. These are typically found on the candidate's websites. FWIW only publishes endorsements that it can independently verify.

John Hock - #92

Campaign Website

John Hock: In his own words

Bar Association Evaluation Narratives

The Chicago Bar Association says:

John Hock is "Qualified" for the office of Circuit Judge. Mr. Hock was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 2009. He is an Assistant State's Attorney for Cook County currently working on post-conviction matters. He previously served as a public defender. Mr. Hock is well regarded by his peers and judges before whom he has appeared for his even temperament, integrity, and work ethic.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

John Hock was admitted to the Florida bar in 2007. He has been with the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office since 2022 and is assigned to the Special Litigation Unit where he manages a caseload of serious felony cases. He did civil litigation in Florida from 2007 to 2009. He then worked until 2011 for the Will County Public Defender’s Office. From 2011 to 2013, he worked for a private law firm doing civil litigation, and from 2013 to 2022 he worked for the Lake County Public Defender’s Office. He is considered to have good legal ability. He has substantial litigation experience in both civil and criminal law matters. He is reported to have a good temperament. The Council finds him Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Mr. John Hock was admitted to the Illinois bar in 2009 and was admitted to practice in Florida in 2007. He was employed with a civil litigation firm in Florida until 2009, when he obtained his Illinois license and started with the Will County Public Defender. After working for Cremer Law focusing on commercial and international litigation for two years, he spent nine years with the Lake County Public Defender. Since 2022 he has been an assistant state’s attorney with Cook County, focusing on post-conviction matters in the Special Litigation Unit. He has been a presenter on legal topics and a committee member for the Northwest Suburban Bar Association.

Attorneys consider him to be an expert in his field of prisoner petitions. He handles all cases without bias, follows the law, and is diligent in his work. ISBA finds John Hock qualified to be elected to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Other Bar Association Evaluations

Arab American Bar Association: Recommended

Asian American Bar Association: Not Evaluated (through no fault of candidate)

Black Men Lawyers' Association: Recommended

Black Women Lawyers' Association: Recommended

Cook County Bar Association: Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers: Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois: Qualified

Chicago's LGBTQ+ Bar Association (LAGBAC): Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Women's Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Endorsements

Chicago Federation of Labor
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 399
Teamsters Joint Council No. 25
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 134
Teamsters Local 700

------------------------------------------------------

Lynn Terese Palac - #93

Campaign Website

Bar Association Evaluation Narratives

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Lynn Palac is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. Palac was admitted to practice law in 1999. Ms. Palac has been practicing law in Cook County for 25 years and has significant litigation and trial experience, primarily in criminal cases. Ms. Palac is well regarded by judges and opposing attorneys for her legal knowledge, pleasant demeanor, and work ethic. She is also praised for her community involvement.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Lynn T. Palac was admitted to practice in 1999 and served as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney for 10 years before she left that office to do criminal defense work. She also is employed by Catholic Charities where she provides training in domestic violence and domestic relations cases.

Lynn T. Palec is considered to have good legal ability and temperament. She is praised for her litigation skills. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Ms. Lynn Terese Palac has been licensed since 1999. After spending ten years as an Assistant State’s Attorney, she worked with several firms focusing on criminal, traffic and family law, before opening her own practice in 2015. She is also a Supervising Attorney for Catholic Charities Legal Assistance, where she trains other attorneys and represents clients of Catholic Charities, mostly in the domestic violence area. She is a member of several bar associations and has been Chair of the Northwest Suburban Bar Criminal Law Committee.

While attorneys considered her to be fair, punctual and a hard worker, concerns were raised about the depth and breadth of her litigation experience since leaving the State’s Attorney’s Office in 2009. ISBA finds Lynn T. Palac not qualified to be elected to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Other Bar Association Evaluations

Arab American Bar Association: Recommended

Asian American Bar Association: Recommended

Black Men Lawyers' Association: Recommended

Black Women Lawyers' Association: Recommended

Cook County Bar Association: Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers: Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois: Qualified

Chicago's LGBTQ+ Bar Association (LAGBAC): Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Women's Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended