Judicial Performance Commission of Cook County says three judges "not recommended" for retention

The new Judicial Performance Commission of Cook County has released its report on the qualifications of Cook County Circuit Court judges seeking retention. The entire JPC report may be found at this link (PDF format). (For more about the Judicial Performance Commission, see this post or JPC's own explanation of its history, purpose and methodology)(PDF format).

The three judges that the JPC does not recommend for retention are:

• Dorothy F. Jones,
• Jeffrey Lawrence, and
• Susan Jeanine McDunn.

Here are the JPC's comments on each of these three judges:

Hon. Dorothy F. Jones

The Judicial Performance Commission does not recommend Judge Dorothy F. Jones for retention.

Biography: Dorothy Jones graduated from DePaul University College of Law and was admitted to practice in 1979.

Judge Dorothy Jones was elected to the Circuit Court in 1992. She is currently assigned to a primarily pro se call in the First Municipal District. Prior to election, she was an assistant public defender in Cook County.

Summary: The Commission found predominantly unfavorable impressions of Judge Jones in the legal community. The investigation revealed a lack of clarity and consistency in her decisions, as well as questions about her temperament and ability to manage the courtroom. Although Judge Jones has a reputation for honesty and efficiency, the Commission does not feel those qualities outweigh the deficiencies of performance, temperament and management found in the investigation.

The Judicial Performance Commission does not recommend Judge Dorothy F. Jones for retention.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Hon. Jeffrey Lawrence

The Judicial Performance Commission does not recommend Judge Jeffrey Lawrence for retention.

Biography: Jeffrey Lawrence graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law and was admitted to practice in 1969.

Judge Lawrence was elected to the bench in 1992. He is currently assigned to the Law Division. Previously, he was in the Domestic Relations Division. Prior to election, he was in private practice.

Summary: Respondents indicate that Judge Lawrence issues detailed written rulings and has a good knowledge of the law. However, the Commission notes a serious issue of punctuality that has been consistent throughout his eighteen years on the bench. The Commission also notes a number of respondents who complain that he is not always prepared. Interviewees indicate Judge Lawrence often takes the bench well after the scheduled start time and sometimes does not appear prepared for court when he arrives. The Commission received numerous comments about significant delays created when the judge does not take the bench promptly and is not prepared for hearings. Judge Lawrence was made aware of complaints about his punctuality through bar association evaluations in previous retention elections but the Commission’s investigation suggests he has not addressed the recurring problem. On balance, the Commission cannot recommend Judge Lawrence for retention[.]

The Judicial Performance Commission does not recommend Judge Jeffrey Lawrence for retention.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Hon. Susan J. McDunn

The Judicial Performance Commission does not recommend Judge Susan J. McDunn for retention.

Biography: Susan J. McDunn graduated from DePaul University College of Law and was admitted to practice in 1980.

Judge McDunn was elected to the bench in 1992 and seated in 1993. She is currently assigned to the Law Division. Previously, she was in the County Division and the First Municipal District. Prior to election, she was in private practice.

Summary: Judge McDunn appears attentive to proceedings and is punctual for court. However, the Commission notes significant concerns about her ability to handle difficult, complex matters. She is described as unwilling to reconsider rulings when presented with additional case law and demonstrates an inappropriate temperament. The Commission received reports of the judge losing her temper and appearing unable to control her courtroom.

In an adoption case in 1999, Judge McDunn was rebuked by the Appellate Court for judicial conduct that the court said “disgraced the judiciary and people of Illinois.”

Although the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board concluded that Judge McDunn did not make statements against persons based upon their sexual orientation, her actions demonstrated a lack of respect for the law. There is no indication that Judge McDunn has rehabilitated her performance. Moreover, the Commission received comments from some lawyers that in light of this event, Judge McDunn does not command the respect of the legal community.

The Judicial Performance Commission does not recommend Judge Susan J. McDunn for retention.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Differences between JPC and CBA ratings

Two of the judges receiving 'not recommended' ratings, Judges Jones and McDunn, also received a 'not recommended' rating from the Chicago Bar Association. (See, this earlier post for details.)

Judge Lawrence, on the other hand, was recommended by the CBA. The CBA stated:

Judge Jeffrey Lawrence is "Qualified" for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Lawrence was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1969 and has served as a judge since 1992. Judge Lawrence is currently assigned to the motion call in the Law Division. Judge Lawrence possesses the requisite legal knowledge, ability, and integrity to be retained.

The JPC recommended two judges for retention that the CBA refused to recommend. The CBA automatically rated Judge William D. O'Neal 'not recommended' because he refused to participate in the CBA evaluation process. The JPC, however, stated, in summary, that "Respondents generally felt that Judge O’Neal makes appropriate rulings. While the Commission believes he should be retained, the Commission notes there have been some concerns raised about his temperament and ability to maintain order in the courtroom." On balance, though, he was recommended.

Judge Jim Ryan was also rated 'not recommended' by the CBA but 'recommended' by the JPC. Of Ryan, the JPC said, in summary, "Survey respondents generally found Judge Ryan to be efficient and appreciate the deliberation he gives to defendants during the preliminary hearings heard in his courtroom. He manages his call efficiently and maintains a good relationship with court personnel. He is praised for being fair to all defendants when making his rulings." The JPC added, "While the Commission believes he should be retained, the Commission notes significant reports that Judge Ryan sometimes seems impatient and inattentive during court."