Who Sits Where: Bastille Day Edition

Updated 7/19/26

I am keenly aware nominating petitions for the 2027 mayoral election can not be circulated until July 28. It is therefore far, far, far too soon to be thinking about the 2028 Cook County judicial primary. At least for normal people.

But normal people are not in charge of our political system... politicians are. (If more normal people got directly involved in our political system, maybe some of those dominating the process now could be pushed back to the fringes, where they belong. But I digress.)

Those who hope to secure Cook County judgeships, even if they are mostly normal, or at least partially normal, have little choice but to start peering into the distant future, looking past the 2027 mayoral, and considering what may be available in March 2028 (or maybe February -- there has been talk of moving the primary up to benefit Gov. Pritzker's presidential ambitions).

There will eventually be, in addition to the vacancies listed below, ten subcircuit vacancies, two each in the new subcircuits 16-20. So far, only two have been allocated: the vacancy created by the retirement of Associate Judge Sybil C. Thomas has been assigned to the 19th Subcircuit, while the vacancy created by the February passing of Associate Judge Scott Norris has been assigned to the 20th. Obviously, there will be more retirements in the coming months and new vacancies will need to be added for these.

For the present, however, the list below is as accurate as I can make it... and thanks to reader input since this post first appeared, it is much more accurate now.

When this post first appeared, I went out on a limb just a bit in assigning the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Sophia Hall to the 15th Subcircuit. Here was my thinking: Judge Hall was the last serving judge who was elected prior to the adoption of the original subcircuit system, in 1992. Before we had subcircuits, we elected judges countywide, citywide, or suburbs-only. The citywide and suburbs-only seats, when they opened up, were assigned to the original subcircuits (1-15). The order of assignment was determined by lottery, the results of which were memorialized in a Supreme Court order. The last pre-1992 judge to retire before Judge Hall was Judge Irwin J. Solganick; his vacancy was assigned to, and filled from, the 7th Subcircuit in 2024. Per that venerable Supreme Court order, I believed Judge Hall's vacancy would have been assigned to the 15th Subcircuit.

On the other hand, at least according to its website, the Supreme Court believes Judge Hall's vacancy should be filled from the 5th Subcircuit. I've updated accordingly. (But I'd still like to know how Judge Hall's vacancy was allocated; hopefully, someone will educate me. Lord knows, I could use it.)

All errors or omissions in the following list are mine alone. Updates to the this post will be made, or new lists put up, as events warrant. Herewith, then, the list:

Supreme Court Vacancy

Vacancy of the Hon. Mary Jane Theis - Sanjay T. Tailor

Appellate Court Vacancy

Vacancy of the Hon. Terrence J. Lavin - Unfilled

Countywide Circuit Court Vacancies

Vacancy of the Hon. Daniel J. Kubasiak - Unfilled
Vacancy of the Hon. Kelly M. McCarthy - Not Seeking Retention
Vacancy of the Hon. Diana Rosario - Unfilled
Vacancy of the Hon. Shelley Sutker-Dermer - Not Seeking Retention

Subcircuit Vacancies

1st Subcircuit
Vacancy of the Hon. Donna L. Cooper - Not Seeking Retention

3rd Subcircuit
Vacancy of the Hon. Kenneth J. Wadas - Not Seeking Retention

5th Subcircuit
Vacancy of the Hon. Sophia Hall - Unfilled

9th Subcircuit
Vacancy of the Hon. Sanjay T. Tailor

12th Subcircuit
Vacancy of the Hon. Pamela E. Loza - Unfilled

Nominations due for John Paul Stevens Awards by August 10

The Chicago Bar Association is accepting nominations for its annual Justice John Paul Stevens Awards. Established in 2000, the award is presented annually to Illinois lawyers and judges whose careers best emulate Justice Stevens’ integrity, legacy of service to the bench and the bar, and commitment to public and community service. This year's awards will be conferred at a luncheon on October 20 at the Union League Club of Chicago.

Nominations with supporting materials or information should be sent to the Justice John Paul Stevens Award Committee by August 10, c/o CBA Executive Director Beth McMeen at bmcmeen@chicagobar.org.

Persons thinking about making nominations may find this list of past honorees helpful:

• 2025 - Aurora Austriaco, John Bouman, Chief Judge Virginia M. Kendall, Michael R. Lufrano, and Professor Michael P. Seng;
• 2024 - Judge David H. Coar, Daniel A. Cotter, David A. Decker, Nina Fain, E. Lynn Grayson, John J. “Jack” Jiganti, and Justice Margaret Stanton McBride;
• 2023 - Dan L. Boho, Patricia Brown Holmes, Daniel M. Kotin, Professor Ann Lousin, Mary Smith, and Barry C. Taylor;
• 2022 - Judge Arnette R. Hubbard, Judge Thomas R. Mulroy (Ret.), Steven F. Pflaum, Lowell Sachnoff, and Sandra S. Yamate;
• 2021 - Karina Ayala-Bermejo, Anne L. Fredd, Chief Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, Larry Suffredin, and Judge James E. Snyder;
• 2020 - Marisel Hernandez, Jennifer Nijman, Terrence Murphy, Zaldwaynaka (Z) Scott and Judge E. Kenneth Wright Jr.;
• 2019 - Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, Hon. Lori E. Lightfoot, Judge William D. Maddux (ret.), Judge. Sheila M. Murphy (ret.), Joseph A. Power, Jr. and Mark L. Rotert;
• 2018 - Laurel G. Bellows, Carol A. Brook, Kevin P. Durkin, John N. Gallo, Terri L. Mascherin, Judge P. Scott Neville, Jr., Justice Jesse G. Reyes, Judge Mary K. Rochford, and Tina Tchen;
• 2017 - Judge Ruben Castillo, Robert A. Clifford, Judge Nathaniel R. Howse, Jr., Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow, Richard J. Prendergast, Larry R. Rogers, Sr., Ronald S. Safer, Justice Mary Jane Theis, and Dan K. Webb; and
• 2016 - George B. Collins, Brian L. Crowe, Thomas A. Demetrio, Thomas Anthony Durkin, J. Timothy Eaton, Josie M. Gough, Joan M. Hall, Eileen M. Letts, and Joseph L. Stone.

ISBA presents free July 30 CLE program: Law Motions, Commercial Calendar, and Courtroom 1501/Arbitration-Best Practices

The details are provided in the event poster, above. But, to summarize, the program will be presented in Courtroom 1501 of the Daley Center on Thursday, July 30, from noon to 1:30 p.m. Presenters include Hon. Jonathan Clark Green, Circuit Court of Cook County; Kim Atz O’Brien, Arbitrator Administrator, Circuit Court of Cook County; Hon. Stephanie Saltouros, Circuit Court of Cook County; and Hon. Alon Stein, Circuit Court of Cook County. Judge Stein will double as moderator.

The seminar is free, but registration is required (and space is limited). If the QR code on the poster doesn't work, visit this page of the ISBA website to register.

Where are all these eyeballs coming from?

I've been on Blogger, a Google company, since I started FWIW in 2006.

Yeah, I know, Google doesn't usually keep products alive for 20 years, but (knock wood) Blogger has been an exception.

Blogger didn't always track page views. I spent a good chunk of the day trying to track down when Blogger began counting page views on FWIW. Yes, I realize I'm the only one who cares.

I could not track the exact date down. Google was counting pages by 2015, obviously, when I reported that I'd reached 1,000,000 page views. Before Google undertook this task, I used a product called Sitemeter. While flailing around my self-dug rabbit hole this afternoon and evening, I confirmed that I was still relying on Sitemeter in 2011.

What got me started on this was the length of time it took to reach each million-page-view milestone. I laid all this out in my post about my six millionth page view... just this past January. At the time, I was pretty geeked because I'd gone from 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 page views in only about 292 days... under 10 months.

But... if you look at the screenshot I took off my site dashboard early this afternoon, I had over 7.76 million page views here. In not even six months, I've gone from 6,000,000 to shouting distance of 8,000,000.

It strikes me that there aren't that many people interested in Cook County judicial elections and social gatherings for the local bench and bar. Even if they visit often. Really often.

In fact, my best guess is that FWIW blew past the 7,000,000 page view mark some time in May. It's not like I was putting up all my Pulitzer-ready material in May; actually, I spent a good chunk of that month at Northwestern Hospital (thank you, I'm doing much better lately).

And how the heck did I get 47,315 page views on Friday?

Obviously, I'd like to believe that these page counts are 100% accurate... but... even if they are, I can't imagine that all these views come from people who are actually interested in the content I present on FWIW.

On the other hand, it is undeniable that traffic is up. Moreover, when I look at the page views on specific posts, I am gratified to note that the four posts I put up in 2017 proposing that Illinois move to a zero-based discovery system in civil cases, have attracted a lot of attention of late. All four posts are generating roughly equal traffic; that means people are reading each post in the series.

If you're interested, here's the series:

• Reforming civil discovery – Part 1 – the problem of human nature;
• Reforming civil discovery – Part 2 – preserve the civil justice system by adopting zero-based discovery;
• Reforming civil discovery – Part 3 – how zero-based discovery can work; and
• Reforming civil discovery – Part 4 – one more post on zero-based discovery.

I reread these posts recently. I stand by them; I think they're still timely. Maybe some of the recent readers of these posts will agree. Hopefully, some of these may be in a position to implement these proposals. I can dream, can't I?

CBA Flash Fiction contest now underway; entries due by July 31

If you are a CBA member, the Editorial Board of the CBA Record invites and encourages you to participate in this year's Flash Fiction Creative Writing Contest.

Entries must be 1200 words or less -- which is tough right there, inasmuch as most lawyers need a thousand words at least to say 'good morning' -- and the use of ChatGPT or similar AI is prohibited, so you'll have to write it all yourself. Topics do not need to be related to the legal field but must be original works, rated PG, and previously unpublished. The CBA will retain nonexclusive rights to all materials published by the CBA.

Not every CBA member is eligible to enter: CBA board members and officers, CBA staff, and CBA Record Editorial Board members may not submit entries. I'm a CBA member, and I'm also not allowed to enter this year's contest... but for a pretty good reason: I won last year's contest -- the CBA still has my story, "He'll Have Plenty of Time to Write Now," available online.

The deadline to enter the contest is Friday, July 31. Email submissions to CBARecord@chicagobar.org

The first prize winner will have their work published in the CBA Record and receive a $100 Amazon gift card. Second and third place winners will have their work published on the CBA's website in the CBA Record online edition.

Submissions will be judged by members of the CBA Record Editorial Board and a “celebrity” judge (TBA), will assist in judging the final round. Writers are asked to adhere to the CBA Writer’s Guidelines. The CBA Record Editorial Board will make the final decision regarding publication of any piece submitted.

Another one for the planners out there....

Actually, the date for the Illinois Judicial Council's 44th Annual Installation and Scholarship Reception is only about 60 days hence.

For me, now, no longer engaged in the hurly-burly of a litigation practice, 60 days seems like a fairly spacious interval of time -- and it is: A whole lot of things can happen in 60 days' time. Germany invaded France on May 10, 1940; France surrendered on June 22. That was only 43 days -- 46 if you count all the way to June 25, when the surrender went into effect.

On a more positive note, the gestation period for a litter of puppies or a litter of kittens is also about 60 days, give or take, depending on the breed.

But I am not so far removed from the active practice of law that I no longer recall that, for a lot of lawyers, 60 days is pretty much equivalent to 'tomorrow' for persons in other walks of life. Jones is unavailable for her deposition in the Smith v. Jones case? Get another date... and, by the time everyone compares calendars, the new date is at least 60 days out.

Actually, there was one time... I was on the phone with opposing counsel and she was pressing for the deposition of my client. I don't remember why the client was never available, whether it was a chronic problem, or just a string of unhappy coincidences that he was always unavailable on any of the various dates set for him to be deposed. We were talking about still another date, but now I had a problem: "My wife is expecting, and the date you're proposing is right around her due date."

Opposing counsel was not buying. "No chance I'm falling for that one," she fumed, "you've used this excuse on me before. Last year. Same case. Same deponent."

"Yes," I admitted -- counsel had not misremebered our prior discussions -- "but this is a different baby."

As it happens, my oldest two kids are 15 months' apart.

(In any event, counsel gave in on a longer date and, eventually, we settled the case. I don't remember if we ever did produce the client for his deposition.)

And, of course, such conversations could never, ever happen now -- I'm here recalling events that took place in the 1980s -- which to my ear sounds less terrible than saying that this phone conversation occurred more than 40 years ago -- and certainly the pace of litigation has drastically increased in the intervening years.

But even at the modern, increased tempo, 60 days for lawyers isn't that long at all. I'll try and remember to be less snarky about 'planners' going forward....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basket of puppies photo by Chathura Anuradha Subasinghe (@chathuraanuradha)

Decalogue Society Annual Installation & Awards Dinner set for July 29

The Decalogue Society of Lawyers will hold its 92nd Annual Installation and Awards Dinner on Wednesday, July 29, starting at 5:00 p.m., at the Old Post Office, 433 W. Van Buren.

Tickets for the event are $275 each ($225 for Decalogue members). Students can purchase tickets for $36 apiece. Tickets are available at this link.

Judge Lori Rosen will assume the presidency of the Decalogue Society at this event. The DSL will confer the following awards:

• Courage in Advocacy Award: Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton
• Hon. Charles E. Freeman Judicial Merit Award: Judge Timothy C. Evans
• Award of Excellence: Representative Tracy Katz Muhl
• Presidential Citation: Robert M. Karton
• Intra-Society Award: Kim Pressling
• Hebrew University Fellowship Award: Judge Barry Goldberg

And, of course, there are a host of sponsorship opportunities available. A complete list may be found by clicking here. The deadline for sponsorship registration is July 24.

A real opportunity to be heard...

The Chicago Bar Association Chorus is seeking new members. All the pertinent information is contained in the flyer above, including the email address of the contact person, Erin Perkins.

One caveat: If crows flock when you sing in the shower, you may wish to take up bowling instead. The CBA is not promising to provide vocal transformations. Thus, as you will note when you review the flyer carefully, while the CBA Chorus is not requiring auditions, they do tactfully suggest that some previous experience might be helpful... probably for everyone concerned.

Happy Birthday, America!

On this 250th anniversary of American independence, I have nothing to give my country but my gratitude. Gratitude to my ancestors for coming to this great land. Gratitude to the United States of America itself, the greatest nation in the history of the world.

I doomscroll too frequently on X (or Twitter, if you must) and, in many posts on that site, I have confronted the notion that some Americans are not patriotic; indeed, there is allegedly a belief that patriotism is a mere partisan construct; that only members of one party may be partiotic, whilst members of the other party, if they express the barest patriotic sentiment at all, must, in the same breath apologize for our country's shortcomings.

I realize that, in a nation of 342 millions, there must be some who harbor such stupid opinions. Some academic poseurs were spouting this kind of nonsense when Nixon was still in the White House. There are undoubtedly more such misguided persons these days, since the balanced teaching of history and civics, with any sense of context or perspective, has gone the way of the horse and buggy.

Yes -- granted -- America is not perfect. It has not always lived up to its highest ideals. Neither have you. Because you are human. Humans are imperfect. Things that humans make, like governments and nations, are necessarily imperfect, too. Only God is perfect. All we mere humans can do is strive to do better. And, in the course of its 250 years of independence, America has gotten better and better. Not in a straight line, perhaps, and we can have an honest debate on where we have faltered and where we have surged ahead. But, on balance, we live in the greatest nation that has ever been.

I sincerely believe that, the negative types notwithstanding, most Americans -- the vast majority -- are as proud and grateful as I am today, on America's 250th birthday. May God continue to bless our beloved nation, and may we continue to be worthy of the blessings received.

Coming Tuesday: Advocates convene roundtable discussion among judges of the Law Division and Civil Motion Sections

The Advocates Society will offer dinner and an hour and a half CLE program at their upcoming general meeting, Tuesday, June 9, starting at 6:30 p.m., at the Copernicus Center, 5216 W. Lawrence. The details and list of speakers is on the program flyer, reproduced above.

The cost (including dinner) is $30 ($20 for Advocates members). Sponsorships are also available, for $200, which also includes dinner and the CLE program. Tickets are available at this page of the Advocates website. The QR code on the poster might work as well; it's just that I never vouch for such things.

AI 2035: The Legal Profession and the Judiciary in the Age of Artificial Intelligence - 3-day seminar next week

The Chicago Bar Association will offer a three-day symposium, "AI 2035: The Legal Profession and the Judiciary in the Age of Artificial Intelligence," from May 11 to May 13, at Venue Six10, 610 S. Michigan Avenue. Organizers promise three full days of programming with jurists, technical experts, academics, and seasoned attorneys discussing how AI is transforming the legal profession. The seminar is designed help members of the legal community better understand Artificial Intelligence (AI) and provide guidance on its implications for the legal profession. Participants will be eligible to receive up to 18 hours of CLE credit.

CBA President Judge Nichole C. Patton declared AI her theme at the start of this bar year, sharing that she believes “we are standing at a consequential crossroads in our profession, a moment that will define how we practice law and what it means to be a lawyer in the decades ahead. AI has already transformed the legal profession and will continue to do so. This symposium is designed for legal professionals who want to stay ahead of both ethical obligations and competitive change and have the opportunity to learn, debate, and start shaping what legal practice will look like in the years to come.”

The event will feature keynote addresses from leading AI experts, interactive CLE sessions, live technology demonstrations, panel discussions on emerging ethical challenges, and networking opportunities designed to foster collaboration across practice areas.

Charles Elliott, the Head of Industry Architects for Google will present the opening plenary keynote presentation “AI Fluency for Lawyers: From Intimidation to Competence – A Practical Playbook for the Next Decade,” on Monday, May 11 at 9:00 a.m. Judge Jeffrey A. Goffinet of the Circuit Court of Williamson County and Co-Chair of the Illinois Supreme Court AI Task Force, will present during the May 11 luncheon on “Same Rules, New Tools: What the Illinois Supreme Court’s AI Policy Means for Judges and Lawyers-In Court, In Chambers and In Filings.”

The May 12th plenary session “AI Regulation and the Law: What Lawyers Need to Know About Emerging Federal, State and Global Frameworks,” will feature panelists Adam Aft, Partner, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Jessi Brooks, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, Ribbit, and Eric Posner, Professor, The University of Chicago Law School. The May 12th luncheon session, “The In-House AI Equilibrium: An Intersection Where Business Operations Meets Legal Governance,” will feature panelists from the Chicago Cubs, including Chase Carpenter, Vice President, Strategy and Analytics; Steve Inman, Vice President, Technology; Taylor Riskin, Associate General Counsel; and Michael Lufrano, Executive Vice President, Community, Government and Legal Affairs.

The May 13th plenary session “Human + Machine Collaboration: Redesigning Legal Workflows for the Next Decade,” will feature panelists Alicia Hawley of Counsel, K&L Gates LLP, Daniel Linna Jr., Director of Law & Technology Initiatives, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, and Michael O’Malley, Executive Director, Illinois Property Tax Appeals Board.

Attendees will gain practical insights into implementing AI tools in their practice, understand regulatory developments, and participate in shaping the future of the legal profession in an increasingly digital world. Each day will explore a distinct dimension of AI’s impact on the law—foundational knowledge, applied ethics and innovation, and forward-looking mastery. Attendees will be invited to breakout sessions across three tracks -- Litigation, Transactional, and Administrative/Operational -- designed to unpack AI’s impact across practice areas.

The cost to attend the entire three-day seminar is $650 ($550 for CBA members). One-day passes are also available for $500 ($400 for CBA members). For more information on fees, sessions, and speakers, visit: www.chicagobar.org/AI2035CLE.

AI 2035: The Legal Profession and the Judiciary in the Age of Artificial Intelligence sponsors include the Innovator Sponsor, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton; the Accelerator Sponsor, LexisNexis; and the Integrator Sponsors, Relativity, Spellbook, Thomson Reuters, Bloomberg Law, and Consilio.

Coffee Break Sponsors include Corboy & Demetrio and Levenfeld Pearlstein.

Other supporters include Dykema, K&L Gates, Taft, and Aronberg Goldghen.

Exhibitors include August Law, Clio, Concorda, Framework IT, InfoTrack, and Percipient.

For the planners among you

You know who you are....

Golf outing season is officially upon us... IJC golf outing set for June 18

Our rollercoaster spring continues in Chicago... 80° today... but, after today, maybe no more than 60° until the end of the week.

Nevertheless, golf weather will eventually arrive, and the Illinois Judicial Council is hoping it will be here by June 18.

The cost to participate is $130 per golfer (there is a dinner-only option for $65 per ticket).

There are also sponsorship opportunities: Hole sponsorships are $150 each. An Awards Sponsorship can be had for $1,000. This includes a golf ticket, as well as special acknowledgement during the outing. There are also Bronze ($500), Gold ($1,500), and Platinum ($2,500) Sponsorships, with increasing benefits for each.

The deets, as the kids probably no longer say, can be found by registering for the event. For the technologically ambitious, there is a QR code in the event poster, reproduced above. For those who are as yet wary of those seemingly random dots and squiggles, I can offer this link.

Under Siege: The American Judiciary and the Rule of Law - seminar tomorrow

Updated to add appearance by Sen. Dick Durbin...

This is a low-cost ($25 to attend in-person, free online), five-hour CLE presentation set for tomorrow, May 5, from 9:00 to 4:30. It looks like the main room may already be filled, but, as of this morning, it also appears that registrations for an overflow room are being accepted. To register, click on this page of the CBA website.

Here is the schedule for tomorrow's presentation:

9:00 a.m. – Welcome and Introduction

Hon. Nichole Patton, CBA President
Daniel J. Cummins, The Cummins Family Justice Foundation

9:15 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. - The Landscape of Attacks on Judges

Individual judges are increasingly under political and physical attack based on their rulings or perceived philosophy. While there are some historical precedents, particularly during the Civil Rights Era, currently with doxxing, swatting, calls for impeachment, and threatening pizza deliveries, the level and frequency of the current vitriol and the personal impacts on judges and their families are unprecedented. These threats not only impact these individual judges, they pose systemic assaults on the rule of law.

Moderator: Hon. Jeremy Fogel (ret.), Executive Director, Berkeley Judicial Institute

Recorded remarks: Hon. Esther Salas, U.S District Court for the District of New Jersey

Panelists:

Hon. Joan Lefkow, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Hon. P. Scott Neville, Jr., Chief Justice, Illinois Supreme Court

Hon. James L. Robart, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington

10:45 a.m. -12:00 p.m. – Judicial Independence Under Pressure: Ethics, Constraints, and Public Engagement

What are the ethical guidelines for judges speaking out to address the critical issues of attacks on judges and on their judicial independence? What are the constraints? How does this issue intersect with ethical guidance encouraging judges to reach out to their communities? What is the role for lawyers, bar associations, retired judges, and others to serve as advocates for judicial independence?

Moderator: Hon. M. Margaret McKeown, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Panelists:

Hon. Virginia M. Kendall, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Hon. Debra L. Stephens, Chief Justice, Washington State Supreme Court

Charles Gardner Geyh, Distinguished Professor and John F. Kimberling Professor, Indiana University Maurer School of Law

12:15 p.m. – 1:15 p.m. Luncheon

Hon. Stephen Breyer (ret.), United States Supreme Court

Hon. Diane P. Wood (ret.), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; Director of the American Law Institute and Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School

Moderator: Hon. M. Margaret McKeown, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

1:30 p.m.– 2:45 p.m. – Protecting the Integrity of the Judicial Disciplinary Process

Increasingly, parties outside the judiciary have alleged ethics violations in criticizing judges for their rulings and speech. The panel will examine such efforts, including investigations at the federal level and attempts in some states to politically influence judicial ethics oversight bodies. The panel will also discuss the importance of creating independent disciplinary-enforcement structures that include judges, lawyers, and non-lawyers as a way to maintain ethical boundaries and public confidence in the judiciary.

Moderator: Robert H. Tembeckjian, Administrator & Counsel, New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct

Panelists:

Robert P. Deyling, Assistant General Counsel, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Hon. Teri L. Jackson, Presiding Justice, California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five

Paula Wolff, Illinois Courts Commission

Vincent E. Doyle III, Partner, Connors LLP

UPDATED: Outgoing Illinois Senator Richard J. Durbin is now expected to offer remarks at about 2:45 p.m.

3:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. – Where Do We Go from Here? Lawyers, Institutions, and the Duty to Safeguard the Rule of Law

Where do we go from here? Members of the legal profession have a sworn duty to defend the Constitution, the rule of law and the justice system. As bar associations and as individual lawyers what are our responsibilities and avenues for defending the rule of law? What can and should each of us be doing to protect this most precious aspect of our democracy?

Moderator: Robert Cummins, The Cummins Law Firm, P.C.
Panelists:

James Alfini, Dean and Professor Emeritus South Texas College of Law Houston

Michelle Behnke, President, American Bar Association; Senior Counsel, Boardman Clark

Hon. Rubén Castillo (ret.), U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Daniel A. Cotter, Member, Aronberg Goldghen

Hon. Jeremy Fogel (ret.), Executive Director, Berkeley Judicial Institute

Maurice Possley (ret.), Chicago Tribune

Joseph H. Thompson, Founding Partner, Thompson Jacobs PLLC; Former Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota

Andrew W. Vail, Partner, Jenner & Block

Elizabeth Wright, Executive Director, Utah State Bar

David Zimmer, Partner, Zimmer Citron & Clarke

4:30 pm - Closing Remarks

Molly Cummins, The Cummins Family Justice Foundation

A reception will follow the seminar for in-person registrants.

Registrations close TODAY for SWBA, SSBA Judges Night

Details are on the event poster, reproduced above. There are sign-in links on the Southwest Suburban Bar Association homepage and on this page of the South Suburban Bar Association website.

Odom, Sackey among seven new associate judges announced today

The Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts has counted the votes cast by the eligible Cook County Circuit Court judges and certified the election of the seven new Cook County associate judges. The winners are:

• Matthew J. Canna,
• Tene McCoy Cummings,
• Juanishá N. Dotson,
• Alexander D. Marks,
• Ginger L. Odom,
• Nickolas G. Pappas, and
• Linda Sackey.

Odom and Sackey had been serving as Circuit Court judges pursuant to appointments from the Illinois Supreme Court, but had been unsuccessful in their bids to hold those seats in the this year's primary.

Two upcoming dates for CBA musicians

The above poster is for the Saturday, May 9 concert by the Chicago Bar Association Symphony Orchestra and the CBA Chorus at St. James Cathedral, 65 E. Huron. The program will welcome Lisa Fredenburgh as the newly appointed Director of the CBA Chorus. Details of the program are shown on the event poster.

Advance tickets for the concert are available at this Eventbrite link. Tickets will also be available at the door, starting a half hour before the 7:30 p.m. curtain, but the at-the-door price is $25 each ($20 for persons under 18 or law students).

In addition -- before the concert -- at noontime on Wednesday, May 6, the Chicago Bar Association Symphony Orchestra will participate in the CBA YLS Law Week Program in the Daley Center Plaza. The YLS will present its Liberty Bell Award, given each year during Law Week to a non-lawyer who has contributed to the administration of justice, during the program.

The CBASO will contribute musical selections before and after, including Fanfare for the Common Law (composed by CBA member Michael D. Poulos in honor of past CBA Second Vice-President and Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens) and a selection of Sousa marches (yes, including the Liberty Bell March, obviously, although you may know it by another name).

There is no charge to attend the Daley Center event. It being springtime in Chicago, winter coats or sunscreen may be required -- and possibly both, inasmuch as the program is expected to last approximately one hour.

Two current stories on CWBChicago that merit discussion by the bench and bar

The Saturday murder of a Chicago Police officer, and the grave wounding of his partner, at Swedish Covenant Hospital, is being covered everywhere at this point. The suspected murderer, now in custody, is a seven-time convicted felon "who is also an active parole absconder and electronic monitoring escapee with cases pending for armed carjacking and armed robbery," according to this April 27 article on CWBChicago. Other media outlets have also reported the suspect's lengthy criminal history.

Social media outlets are aflame with varying degrees of outrage, charges and countercharges of partisan hypocrisy, and judge shaming. Feel free to visit those if you are interested in the generation of more light than heat.

Today, though, I would like to ask FWIW readers to try to step back from the strong emotions of the moment and consider some questions raised by two additional stories on CWBChicago, "Judge pointed to SAFE-T Act, freed suspected cop killer on ankle monitor ‘over the state’s rigorous objection’" (posted early this morning), and "With cop killer case, Chief Judge’s electronic monitoring overhaul appears to have failed in spectacular fashion" (posted last evening).

As lawyers, we have a role in reminding the public that judges must follow the law.

Indeed, judges must follow the law, even if the law is stupid, unpopular, or even dangerous, just so long as the law is constitutional. ("The wisdom of the enactment of any law is vested in the discretion of the Legislature, and courts cannot declare the laws invalid because they are unwise or unreasonable." People ex rel. Shultz v. Russel, 294 Ill. 283, 286 (1920).)

The SAFE-T Act is constitutional. Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248.

But that is not the end of the discussion. It is merely the starting point: Since the SAFE-T Act is constitutional, our judges must follow it. Tim Hecke's article about the December 11, 2025 hearing before Judge John Fitzgerald Lyke, Jr., which concerned the possible pretrial detention, on other charges, of the individual now accused in the murder of a police officer, provides a useful example for our conversation: In light of what was before him at that time (and not in light of what has allegedly transpired since), did Judge Lyke correctly apply the SAFE-T Act in deciding against further detention of Alphonso Talley?

Judges, fellow lawyers, quirites, I think there must be three possible answers to this question: First, yes, Judge Lyke did correctly follow the SAFE-T Act, and, under the law, he could not have further detained Talley. Second, yes, Judge Lyke correctly followed the SAFE-T Act, but he also had discretion, still within the letter of the law, to keep Talley in pretrial detention. Or, third, no, Judge Lyke did not correctly follow the SAFE-T Act, pursuant to which Talley should have remained detained. (Perhaps there are other possibilities, and, if you think that this is the case, I would earnestly ask you to tell me what those might be.)

But... assuming these three possibilities... here is where I beg you to come forward and answer these follow up quesitons. Let's work backwards on these:

• Assuming the third option, that the judge incorrectly applied the SAFE-T Act, what specific provisions of the law did the court fail to sufficiently consider, or give sufficient weight, in coming to an incorrect conclusion?


• Assuming the second option, that, though the judge correctly followed the SAFE-T Act, he could have nevertheless reached the opposite conclusion, and maintained Talley in custody, what provisions of the Act should the court have cited and relied upon in order to keep Talley in jail?


• Assuming the first option, that the court had to release Talley in order to comply with the SAFE-T Act, are there specific, concrete amendments to the SAFE-T Act that you can suggest that would have given the court the tools to keep Talley in custody?

Some segments of the public insist repeal is the only remedy. I don't think repeal is politically viable in the foreseeable future, no matter what further tragedies occur. Too many prominent people would see any attempt at repeal as an attack on their good intentions. I prefer to assume that most of us -- nearly all of us -- have good intentions. But good intentions do not automatically translate to good policy. Since we are lawyers, we can formulate, and advance, specific, practical solutions that honor the good intentions of the original drafters while actually enhancing opportunities for public safety. What can you offer?

The recognition that most of us have only good intentions at heart brings me, briefly, to the second cited CWBChicago story about the apparent problems in monitoring criminal defendants who are not detained pretrial, problems also illustrated by the Talley case. I assume that the courts, prosecutors, public defenders (and private defense counsel, where applicable), and the employees of the Chief Judge's office all have the best intentions to make electronic monitoring work. But is it a sin and a shame to further assume that, perhaps, just perhaps, some persons accused of crimes, who are granted the privilege of electronic monitoring before their trials, might not share the same good intentions as these others?

What specific reforms or revisions can we advance to enhance the goal of keeping electronic monitoring available as an option without endangering the public? What options do we have under current law to restrict electronic monitoring in cases, such as appears to have happened in the Talley case, for accused persons who abuse the wholesome or appropriate opportunities that are supposed to be afforded by electionic monitoring? Are changes in the applicable laws necessary? Specifically, what changes need to be made?

I'd love to be able to offer a comprehensive reform program here, but, at this time, I do not think I can. I did not practice in the area of criminal law. Now -- of course -- this being the Internet -- ignorance or inexperience seems to provide no brake on persons shouting, with every indicia of certitude, exactly what must be done and how. I choose not to do this... although I reserve the right to develop and refine opinions in my own good time.

But, for now, I turn instead to you, FWIW readers. I know a lot of you deal with the SAFE-T Act every day. You are acquainted with, and even well-versed in, the growing body of case law that has arisen following pretrial detention hearings. I ask you to strongly consider sharing your expertise with us all. Let us help the public by helping each other to better apply a law that seems, despite the best of intentions, to be tragically flawed. If changes in the law are warranted, let us help the legislature make specific changes that will benefit the law-abiding public.

In other words, leave a comment here. Use your own name, too. Maybe you can become someone that serious journalists can turn to for explantions on these issues.

Decalogue CLE offers hopeful sentiment: It's never too late for a pretrial settlement conference

The Decalogue Society of Lawyers will present a free CLE program entitled "It's Never Too Late For A Pretrial Settlement Conference, on Tuesday, May 19, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 1501 of the Richard J. Daley Center. A panel of veteran judges will offer advice and suggestions on how to best prepare for, and succeed at, a pretrial settlement conference.

The panel includes (in alphabetical order) Judge Frank Andreou, Judge Marie Dempsey, Judge Thomas V. Lyons II, and Judge Brendan O'Brien. Judge Alon Stein will moderate the discussion, as well as participate as a speaker, as is only appropriate, since the program is being held in his courtroom. Details about the event, and a QR code from which to register for the seminar, are included in the event poster, reproduced above. Registration may also be completed at this page of the Decalogue website.

Wake and funeral arrangements announced for former Appellate Court Justice Gino DiVito

Former Appellate Court Justice Gino DiVito will be waked next Thursday evening, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., at Donnellan Family Funeral Services, 10045 Skokie Boulevard, in Skokie. The funeral Mass will be offered Friday, May 1, at 10:00 a.m., at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church in Glenview.

Justice DiVito stepped down from the Appellate Court in 1997, but continued to practice law for many years afterward. In later years, we were actually on opposite sides of an appeal (though there was no oral argument). On another occasion, DiVito attempted to mediate a convoluted coverage matter in which I was involved. It was a truly thankless task -- condominium cases can be quite bitter -- and a happy resolution was likely doomed from the outset because, pursuant to orders of court that I was unsuccessful in overturning, my carrier was effectively funding both sides of the litigation.

It is very difficult to persuade warring parties to make peace where the costs of their conflict are being picked up by others. In this, at least, what is true in global strategy is at least as true in the Circuit Court of Cook County. But I remember, and appreciate, Justice DiVito's efforts on that occasion.

Because he left the bench so long ago, it is quite likely that most FWIW readers would not have appeared before Justice DiVito in court. I did. One matter where I appeared in front of him comes immediately to mind. (He wrote the opinion ruling against me... but, then again, who didn't serve on the Appellate Court and rule against me at least once?) But my 'war stories' from that case don't really involve Justice DiVito. Therefore, having no really good anecdote of my own to share, let me instead refer the reader to the obituary posted on the Supreme Court's website and Justice DiVito's biography on his own firm's webste.

Requiescat in pace.

Dr. Klumpp: Analyzing the results of the March 2026 Cook County judicial primary (Part Two)

FWIW is once again pleased to present a Guest Post by Albert J. Klumpp, a PhD in public policy analysis with a national reputation for expertise on judicial races, the author of several scholarly works analyzing judicial elections, and a generous and frequent contributor to FWIW for many years.

This is Part Two of a two-part series; Part One appeared yesterday afternoon.

by Albert J. Klumpp

The small data set from the March 17 primary precludes any of the more advanced number-crunching that I’ve done for past primaries. But we can at least look at some scatterplots that give insight into the two countywide Circuit Court contests... and that explain how a slated candidate lost decisively.

Figure 2 shows vote percentages for Ashonta Rice, who won her two-candidate contest for the Coghlan vacancy with 60.4% of the vote. Each ward and township is represented by one dot, and the numbers on the horizontal axis represent the Black percentage of each place’s population. As we can see, even in places with very few Black voters, Rice came out slightly ahead. Specifically, in the 54 wards and townships that are 20 percent Black or less, the median vote for Rice was 53 percent. Which makes perfect sense, since Rice held the gender advantage, but was not the slated candidate. But as the plot shows, for the other 26 places with higher Black proportions, her vote percentage increased to as much as 77 percent. It went no higher, because some Black voters stuck with the party slate, but it was more than high enough.

Figure 3 shows her opponent Michael Cabonargi’s vote percentages based on percentage of white population. Cabonargi won in only 14 of the 80 wards and townships, and even in the most heavily white places his support rose no higher than 64 percent. The gender variable tends to be relatively strong in many white-majority areas, and party slating tends to be relatively less valuable in some white suburban townships, and both of those hurt Cabonargi. An Irish surname would have fared better -- in fact, Italian surnames have tended to fare slightly worse than average -- but that would not have made up anywhere near enough of the difference. And not having the first ballot position made his situation even worse.

Contrast the Coghlan contest with the 56.8% victory by Luz Maria Toledo in the contest for the Cobbs vacancy. Figure 4 shows Toledo’s vote percentages by percentage of Hispanic population. Note that there was no gender advantage to gain in this contest, since both candidates were female. And so, as the slated candidate, Toledo had an advantage that was not neutralized as Cabonargi’s was. As the plot shows, she won 72 of the 80 wards and townships, even many with little Hispanic population. So she did not need any name-based boost from Hispanic voters -- but she got it, with heavily Hispanic places giving her as much as 82 percent.

Figure 5 shows the vote for her opponent Linda Sackey based on Black population. Compare it to Figure 2. It shows that with a more generic name, Sackey did not attract the Black support that Rice did. In this contest, as in the other, the name game was decisive.

One final point to make about the Coghlan contest. Anyone who received the multiple mailings sent by the Cabonargi campaign might wonder about the impact of campaign activity. Through the first quarter of 2026 his campaign reported more than $240,000 in spending, the third-highest amount of any candidate (behind only two candidates in the typically big-spending 8th Subcircuit), and roughly $180,000 more than was reported by his opponent. But, as I explained in 2011 in a DePaul Law Review article, in countywide contests even a large spending advantage translates into only a very small shift in vote percentage. A campaign fund of this size would have had far more impact in a subcircuit contest, where money has a much more substantial impact. Possibly enough to be decisive. But here it was largely wasted.

*      *      *      *      *      *

Typically I end these FWIW posts with a qualifier about statistical estimates and margins of error. But with no statistical estimates to provide this year, I’ll instead mention once more the issue of the gradual decline in numbers of candidates seeking elective vacancies in Cook County. I dug into this trend in detail in a CBA Record article last year (available here), hoping to cast light on the situation. Because, obviously, an elective system cannot function without candidates.

Dr. Klumpp: Analyzing the results of the March 2026 Cook County judicial primary (Part One)

FWIW is once again pleased to present a Guest Post by Albert J. Klumpp, a PhD in public policy analysis with a national reputation for expertise on judicial races, the author of several scholarly works analyzing judicial elections, and a generous and frequent contributor to FWIW for many years.

This is Part One of a two-part series; Part Two will appear tomorrow morning.

by Albert J. Klumpp

Over the years it’s become a regular part of my elections research: sketching out for FWIW the important facts and figures from the judicial voting in our county’s primary and general elections. Unfortunately that task is becoming more and more difficult as time passes, because of the continuing decline in candidates seeking judicial vacancies.

Less competition means fewer votes to study and fewer valid conclusions that can be drawn. In particular, the kind of detailed statistical analysis that I’ve done in the past becomes unworkable due to insufficient data. And last month’s primary was the least competitive in several decades, with just 12 contests among 29 total judicial vacancies -- only two of those countywide -- and a total of only 46 candidates.

But if only by eyeballing and relying on past results for guidance, we can still get a basic picture of the March 17 results and what produced them.

First, voter turnout and participation. Total turnout for the primary was 24.9 percent. As Figure 1 shows, this does represent an uptick from the all-time low levels of the two previous primaries. However, those primaries had no significant contests at the top of the ballot to attract the attention of potential voters. This year there was a closely contested U.S. Senate race and several very competitive U.S. House races that all drew substantial campaign activity and media coverage. So it cannot be concluded that the uptick is the start of any larger trend of a rebound in voter turnout. At least not yet.

Participation in judicial voting by the voters who did turn out was high. The vast majority did complete the judicial part of the ballot. For instance, the two countywide contests saw votes from 84.3 percent of Democratic voters -- the second-highest total ever. But again, this cannot be seen by itself as anything meaningful, since there were so few contests on the ballot this year.

As for what influenced the choices made by those voters, several general statements can be made:

• The single most valuable attribute throughout our history of primaries has been gender -- a pro-female vote that has almost always produced an advantage per contest well into the teens percentage-wise. This year female candidates won in five of the seven contests between at least one female and one male, and the vote percentages of female candidates relative to their other attributes suggest a boost consistent with past years.


• In only five of the 12 contests was there a substantial difference between or among any of the candidates in ratings from bar associations and other non-party information sources. The higher-rated candidate, or one of the higher-rated candidates, won in all five instances. However, those candidates generally had other advantages as well, so while it’s likely that those sources were of some limited value, as is usual, it can’t be said for certain.


• Political endorsements in subcircuit contests produced mixed results. In some contests it seemed to be of some value, but in others it made little difference. Countywide, the Democratic Party’s slating appeared to provide its usual double-digit boost, despite one of the two slated candidates losing decisively (more on that to follow).


• Ballot position has historically been worth several percentage points, and this year 10 of the 12 contests were won by the candidate in the first ballot position. The two exceptions were lone females running against one or two males. While the size of this effect is not large, it turned out to be the deciding factor in both of the late-decided contests in Subcircuits 1 and 8. Both of those winners were in the first ballot position, and without that favorable lottery result neither would have won.


• Campaign spending was roughly on par with the three previous primaries this decade, continuing the trend of greater spending over the past several decades. But as this year’s numbers show, simply outspending opponents is no guarantee of success. Of the six candidates who have reported at least $100,000 in spending through the first quarter of the year, five of them lost.

Part Two of this article can be found by clicking here.

Jury Trial vs. Bench Trial vs. Court Annexed Arbitration: Zoom CLE promises tips from judges on how to succeed in each of these

The Decalogue Society of Lawyers is offering a lunchtime Zoom CLE on Thursday, April 30, from 12:15 to 1:15 p.m., at which a panel of judges will discuss the different things that they want litigators to keep in mind when preparing for jury trials, bench trials, and court-annexed arbitration hearings.

Panelists include Judge Alon Stein, Judge Kerrie Maloney Laytin, Judge Perla Tirado, Judge Maria Barlow, and Judge Aileen Bhandari; Smith Spencer will serve as moderator.

Registration costs $25 (the program is free for Decalogue members), and can be accomplished from this page of the Decalague website.

Advocates offer CLE on equitable remedies in Chancery and other divisions, too

The Advocates Society will offer dinner and an hour and a half CLE program at their upcoming general meeting, Tuesday, May 5, starting at 6:30 p.m., at the Copernicus Center, 5216 W. Lawrence. The details and list of speakers is on the program flyer, reproduced above.

The cost (including dinner) is $30 ($20 for Advocates members). Sponsorships are also available, for $100, which also includes dinner and the CLE program. Tickets are available at this page of the Advocates website. The QR code on the poster might work as well; it's just that I never vouch for such things.

Sponsors assert that the program, entitled "Equitable Remedies in ACTION: From Chancery to Other Court Divisions," will, as the title suggests, be of interest to more practitioners than just those who frequent the Chancery courts.

Clerk announces Amnesty Week for traffic fines -- no amnesty or discount on filing fees, however

This notice was in several of my inboxes in the last few days, and I certainly hope that this effort by Circuit Court Clerk Mariyana T. Spyropoulos will rake in some overdue fines that might otherwise have gone uncollected. Lord knows, the County needs the money.

I only wish the Clerk would consider discounted filing fees for appearances, jury demands, and new case filings. It would have done me a lot of good when I was practicing, particularly when representing individuals (as opposed to large corporate clients) in smaller matters. No matter that I attached the receipts, or provided copies of the fee schedules: When the filing fees equal or exceed the lawyer's fee, a lot of clients become convinced that the lawyer is somehow double-dipping. Yes, I realize that much of our filing fee structure is statutory... and the Clerk has limited (if any) discretion in these matters... but still....

Judges and the occasional politician who pays attention to the civil courts may wonder sometimes where all the pro se litigants have come from in recent years. I don't wonder at all. I've just explained it to you.

Passing of retired Associate Judge Michael C. Brown

A reader advised FWIW that former Cook County Associate Judge Michael C. Brown passed away on April 9.

Judge Brown was assigned to both the Criminal Division and the Child Protection Division of the Circuit Court before retiring in 2013. He was a member of the "Harlan 8," one of eight Black judges that sat on the Cook County bench at the same time from a single Chicago public high school. It is believed that no other school in the country has produced that many Black judges sitting on the same court at the same time.

Brown was a member of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc. Tributes to Judge Brown are posted on the Maywood Wheaton Alumni Chapter Kappa Alpha Psi Facebook and North Central Province Kappa Alpha Psi Instagram pages.

CBA Vanguard Award winners announced; tickets available for April 21 luncheon

The Chicago Bar Association will host the 2026 Vanguard Awards Luncheon on Tuesday, April 21, at the Union League Club of Chicago, 65 W. Jackson.

The luncheon will begin at noon, following an 11:30 a.m. reception.

Tickets are $75 each; tables of 10 are available for $750. Tickets are available at this page of the CBA website.

The CBA and an ever-increasing number of local bar groups present the Vanguard Awards each spring, honoring individuals and institutions who have made the law and legal profession more accessible to and reflective of the community at large. This year's honorees include a California Supreme Court justice, a judge of the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, six Circuit Court judges, one retired Circuit Court judge, and one associate judge Short List hopeful. The list also includes the former Chicago Human Relations Commissioner. The complete list of Vanguard honorees (and the bar groups sponsoring each) is as follows:

• Advocates Society
  Judge Diann K. Marsalek


• Arab American Bar Association of Illinois
  Anthony (“Tony”) Michael Abou Ezzi


• Asian American Bar Association
  Ajay K. Mehrotra, Justice Goodwin H. Liu, and the American Bar Foundation
  for work on "Portrait Project 2.0: Asian Americans in the Legal Profession"


• Black Women Lawyers' Association of Greater Chicago, Inc.
  Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi


• Catholic Lawyers Guild of Chicago
  Daniel R. Murray


• Chicago Bar Association
  Judge Fredrick H. Bates


• Cook County Bar Association
  Cannon Lambert, Sr.


• Decalogue Society of Lawyers
  Judge Abbey Fishman Romanek


• Filipino American Lawyers Association
  Mark J. Calaguas


• Haitian American Lawyers Association
  Judie Lyn Smith


• Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois
  Judge Koula A. Fournier


• Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois
  Nancy Andrade


• Justinian Society of Lawyers
  Judge Jill Cerone-Marisie


• Korean American Bar Association
  Caroline K. Kwon


• LAGBAC -Chicago's LGBTQ+ Bar Association
  Judge Mary M. Rowland


• Muslim Bar Association of Chicago
  Naheda Zayyad-Hussien


• Puerto Rican Bar Association
  Judge Lucy Vazquez-Gonzalez


• South Asian Bar Association of Chicago
  Avani Patel


• Women's Bar Association of Illinois
  Judge Patrice M. Ball-Reed (ret.)

For a complete list of all past Vanguard Award winners, scroll down to the bottom of this page on the CBA website. There, you will find a link to a downloadable .pdf file showing all Vanguard winners dating back to 1998.

Shambley and Ori declared winners in close judicial races

The Chicago Board of Elections today announced the final results of balloting in the March 17 primary.

As FWIW readers will recall all too well, results in two City-only subcircuit races were too close to call on Election Night; the results depended on late-arriving Vote By Mail ballots and the adjudication of provisional ballots.

In the race for the Walker vacancy in the 1st Subcircuit, Ashley Greer Shambley (pictured above) is the declared winner, with 16,332 votes, besting her nearest challenger, Tiffany N. Brooks, by ony 70 votes.

Meanwhile, in the race for the Gamrath vacancy in the 8th Subcircuit, Kathleen Cunniff Ori (pictured at left) has been declared the winner over her nearest challenger, Elizabeth Christina Dibler, by 208 votes, 14,468 to 14,260.

For those of you keeping score at home, only a single vote was added to Brooks' totals since we last looked at that race. Shambley picked up no additional votes since that last look-in. (However, if you follow the links from that linked March 31 post, you will see that, quite a few votes were added for both candidates from and after Election Night; indeed, Shambley caught up to Brooks, and passed her, as the VBM ballots were counted.)

The 208 margin in Ori's favor also stayed the same since our March 31 article, with both Ori and Dibler picking up but a single vote in the meantime. In this race, however, the lead never changed hands, and the margin in Ori's favor moved only from 171 votes (on Election Night) to the 208-vote margin when the counting stopped.

Better buckle up: Barristers Big Band Benefit Ball battle set for April 24

Not a battle royale, but certainly a royal battle: The music of (as Stevie Wonder put it) the King of All, Sir Duke versus the music of the King of Swing, Chicago's very own Benny Goodman -- that's the theme of this year's CBA Barristers Big Band Benefit Ball, set for Friday April 24 at the Union League Club, 65 W. Jackson Blvd.

A reception opens the proceedings at 6:00 p.m.; dancing begins at 7:00. Tickets are $80 each. Free dance lessons will be offered. For fast learners, or old pros, there will be a dance contest. And everyone -- present or not -- has the opportunity to bid in a silent auction.

All proceeds of the event benefit the Chicago Bar Association's Symphony Orchestra and Chorus.

The silent auction is open now, and new items will be posted for the auction until April 18. To place auction bids, visit app.betterunite.com/bbbbb2026. Event tickets are available from the auction page or at this page of the CBA website.

Did we say April 23? Why, yes, yes, we did -- but things have changed

The new date for the Illinois Latino Judges Association Spring Fling Social is April 30. This is the revised flyer for the event:

Still at Chief O'Neill's Pub, 3471 N. Elston Ave. Tickets and all the details for this event can be accessed through the QR code in the flyer above. Otherwise, seek out a member of the Illinois Latino Judges Association and negotiate with him or her.

Looking more closely at the 2026 Short List finalists - Part 2

In Part 2 of this two-part series, FWIW continues its look at each individual associate judge finalist. For Part 1 of this series, click here. Candidates are listed in alphabetical order. I will update this post as necessary.

Mona Naser is a partner with Carlson Dash, specializing in commercial litigation, real estate (commercial and residential), and general corporate law. She has been licensed to practice law in Illinois since 2002, according to ARDC. (She is also licensed to practice in Wisconsin and Arizona.)

Naser is currently the Vice-President and Board Member of the Arab American Bar Association; she previously co-chaired the AABA's Judicial Evaluation Committee. A Past President of the Illinois Creditors Bar Association, and a past Co-Chair of the Chicago Bar Association's Alliance for Women, Naser is also a Trustee of the State Employee Retirement Systems.

A graduate of Chicago Public Schools, Naser did her undergraduate work at the University of Illinois-Chicago before attending DePaul University Law School.

Ginger L. Odom is one of the two appointed judges to make this Short List. At the time of her appointment, in June of last year, Odom was working as the Director of the Expungement Unit in the Office of the State Appellate Defender. She has been licensed in Illinois since 2003, according to ARDC.

A profile of Odom on the Chicago-Kent Law School website (Odom is a 2003 graduate of that school) says that she was a "non-traditional student." She grew up in Texas and moved to New York to study dance and theater as soon as she was old enough, in the mid-1980s, when the city’s artists were caught in the throes of the AIDS epidemic. A single parent while attending law school, Odom waited tables and tended bar to pay her bills.

Odom has served on the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Access to Justice (where she has been a member of the Forms Committee) and as an adjunct professor of law at the DePaul University School of Law.

Nickolas G. Pappas is a sole practitioner with an office on South Michigan Avenue. He has been licensed to practice law in Illinois since 1995, according to ARDC.

Before attending law school, Pappas worked as an analyst at Montgomery Ward's corporate headquarters for a few years. He was the first in his family to graduate from college; his immigrant parents operated a restaurant that was open 22 hours a day, serving employees from O’Hare Airport and the surrounding warehouses.

After completing law school, Pappas went to work for the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, serving there eight years before returning to the private sector, joining Querrey & Harrow Ltd. He left that position to care for his father in his father's last illness, thereafter setting up his current, solo practice. In his current role, Pappas has worked as a Special State's Attorney representing the Illinois Department of Healthcare & Family Services in Title IV-D cases. He was also general counsel for Lakeland Healthcare Group, LLC from December 2012 until April 2015.

Julia B. Ramirez is a Cook County Assistant State's Attorney. She has been licensed to practice in Illinois since 2008.

I spotted a post from the Illinois Latino Judges Association congratulating Ramirez for making the Short List (that's where I grabbed the head shot) but, as often happens with ASAs or assistant public defenders, there is not a lot on line for me to pull together anything but the most basic biographical post. This is one of those posts that is likely to be amended in the days to come.

Anthony Ruffin is a career Cook County Assistant Public Defender, practicing in the Child Protection Division, Juvenile Justice Division and Misdemeanor Trial Section until 2005. He moved to the Felony Trial Division and is currently assigned to the Multiple Defendant Unit. He has been licensed to practice law in Illinois since 1994, according to ARDC.

Ruffin has been a paralegal instructor at Northwestern College in Bridgeview, Illinois for 22 years, teaching legal research and writing, civil and business litigation for 22 years.

A college football player at Purdue, Ruffin attended law school at Thurgood Marshall School of Law in Houston, Texas. He subsequently obtained an LLM in intellectual property in 1997 from what was then still the John Marshall Law School. He is a member of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity Incorporated.

Linda Sackey was appointed to the bench in late 2024 but was passed over by the Cook County Democratic Party at slating time. Sackey was admitted to practice in Illinois in 2006, according to ARDC. At the time of her appointment, she was serving as a Judicial Clerk to Illinois Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis.

Sackey began her legal career as a staff attorney for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She then worked as an associate at Mayer Brown LLP for five years. From 2013 to 2018 Sackey was an Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Appeals Division of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office. She joined Justice Theis's chambers in 2019. She also served as an adjunct professor at The John Marshall Law School in 2016.

Sackey has served as a member of the Board of Directors of both the Cook County Bar Association and the Appellate Lawyers Association.

Smith Spencer is an attorney with Michael D. Gallo & Associates, joining that office after serving for 17 years as an Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago, including a four-year stint as Supervising ACC of the Torts Division. She has been licensed in Illinois since 2003, according to ARDC.

Spencer began her legal career in Wisconsin, attending the University of Wisconsin for both undergraduate and law school, before working for the university's Office of Equity and Diversity as a civil rights investigator and attorney. She then served as counsel for the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services, from 2001-2004, representing the State in daycare and rehabilitation facility licensing hearings and investigating Medicare fraud claims.

Spencer has volunteered with Cradles to Crayons and Autism Speaks. She has also been a volunteer mentor for the Girl Scouts of America Project Law Track.