Tribune complains about judicial reappointments

*Sigh*

The Chicago Tribune is upset again this morning about Cook County judges. In a front page article, "Defeated judges find way back to bench," reporters Jeff Coen and Todd Lighty grouse that the Illinois Supreme Court "kept seven politically connected judges on the Cook County bench after they were rejected by voters, a common practice the high court had pledged to curtail."

Wrong.

Before making that assertion, Messrs. Coen and Lighty might have reviewed their own August 26, 2011 article, "State high court overrules voters on judge picks." In 2011, they wrote,

[A] Supreme Court spokesman told the Tribune that justices privately decided months ago they will no longer use their "recall" power to keep judges on the bench after they lose an election.

The Supreme Court has not violated this pledge, the insinuations of the Tribune notwithstanding.

The Illinois Supreme Court has the power, under two different provisions of Article VI of the 1970 Illinois Constitution, to both appoint persons to judicial vacancies as they occur and to recall retired judges to service.

It was the Court's use of the recall power two decades ago that gave rise to the controversy. And when all the smoke was blown away, the fuss over the Court's alleged misuse of the recall power in the early 90s swirled largely around the recall of a single judge, the late Angelo Mistretta, who was defeated in the 1990 retention election -- a straight up and down vote on whether he should be retained in office. Mistretta's 1990 retention bid was opposed by both the Chicago Bar Association and the Chicago Council of Lawyers. The Council was so upset by Mistretta's recall to judicial service that it threatened to sue.

William Grady's November 19, 1992 article for the Chicago Tribune noted that 10 of 27 judges recalled to the bench that month "would have been forced to step down after losing contested primaries last March." But Grady's article acknowledged that this group "includes some highly regarded judges who were defeated in the primary," although two of these (other than Judge Mistretta) had "received negative evaluations from the reform-minded Chicago Council of Lawyers before the primary."

The distinction between a judge thrown off the bench by the voters in a retention election and a qualified judge unable to prevail in a hotly contested, multi-candidate primary (sometimes including a candidate with a 'good ballot name' and, perhaps, in the estimation of the bar association evaluators, not much else by way of qualification for the bench) ought to be obvious, even to the Tribune.

Alas.

Until Maddux v. Blagojevich, 233 Ill.2d 508, 911 N.E.2d 979 (2009), the Illinois Supreme Court regularly used its recall power to both keep some judges in office past the mandatory retirement age of 75 and to bring back some appointed judges who'd been unsuccessful in their primary runs. After the mandatory judicial retirement statute was invalidated in Maddux, the principal use of the recall power was to keep disappointed candidates in judicial office.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers was particularly vocal in criticizing this use of the recall power. In August 2011, after the Supreme Court had already agreed to no longer recall candidates who lost their primary races, this blog defended the Court's just-abandoned procedure. Thereafter, upon reflection, even the Chicago Council of Lawyers somewhat moderated its stance, stating, "The council supports the appointment of quality judges to the bench with appropriate safeguards against political influence."

Isn't that the objective? Shouldn't the concern be whether the Supreme Court is appointing (or reappointing) judges to the bench who are capable and qualified to serve?

In the case of the seven judges who 'found their way back to the bench' after losing their primary races (whether in 2012 or 2008), all were rated qualified or recommended by every one of the evaluating bar groups in their respective primary races with the sole exception of Judge Daniel L. Peters -- and he was deemed qualified by the Chicago Bar Association, the Illinois State Bar Association, the Women's Bar Association of Illinois and all of the other Alliance bar groups with the sole exception of the Chicago Council of Lawyers.

With nothing to complain about in terms of the competence of the judges reappointed by the Illinois Supreme Court, the Tribune resorted to sneering that many of these individuals had actually donated money to the Democratic Party.

Oh, spare me.

In our current local political environment, where the Democratic Party is so overwhelmingly dominant, a lawyer who is politically active will almost by necessity be active in the Democratic Party.

A lawyer or judge who is fortunate enough to obtain slating by the Cook County Democratic Party is expected to make a significant contribution to the party coffers. This is not some sort of bribe; it is a contribution made in order to offset the cost of the mailings that the party will make on the candidate's behalf. These mailings reach every likely voter in the Democratic Primary.

In a county as big -- and as blue -- as the County of Cook, having one's name and picture on that mailing can constitute a substantial advantage, and probably well worth the investment. When reinforced on Primary Election Day by the palm cards distributed by precinct workers for each of the county's ward and township organizations, the advantage conferred by party slating may be decisive. Of course... sometimes the party's endorsement is not adhered to by particular wards or townships and the investment is unsuccessful. But what serious judicial candidate would forgo the opportunity to be slated by the Cook County Democratic Party, if that was a real possibility?

Yes, I understand: The Tribune is not in favor of electing judges. Neither is the Council. Most (though not all) of the bar associations endorse merit selection of judges instead of our current electoral system.

But this is the system we have now, even though the Tribune is unhappy about it.

Is there room for improvement in the Supreme Court's appointment process?

The Council has advocated for a more transparent judicial appointment process in Cook County.

Downstate, when judicial vacancies occur, the Supreme Court justice whose district includes the area where the vacancy occurs will appoint a committee to consider applicants for the vacancy and even publish the names of all applicants, soliciting public comment about the applicants.

But there are many more judges in Cook County than in Downstate circuits and, accordingly, more frequent vacancies. Appointing a new committee and separately and publicly considering applicants each time a vacancy occurs may not be appropriate or efficient. But each of the three Supreme Court justices elected from Cook County has a committee of some sort to assist in reviewing applicants for appointment. There are always more applicants than openings.

Could this process be made improved? That's an easy one. There is room for improvement in every human endeavor, newspaper reporting included. Case in point: The Tribune does a disservice today to the Supreme Court, to the judges singled out, and to its readers by inventing a controversy where none really exists.

Cook County courts on ATRA "Hellhole" watchlist

The American Tort Reform Foundation released its annual list of Judicial Hellholes (you can access and download the entire report from that site).

The top five jurisdictions singled out for opprobrium by the ATRF are

• California
• West Virginia
• Madison County, Illinois
• New York City and Albany, New York
• Baltimore, Maryland.

However, Cook County, Illinois is among those jurisdictions placed on ATRF's Judicial Hellhole "Watchlist."

ATRF is affiliated with the American Tort Reform Association. ATRA bills itself as "the only national organization exclusively dedicated to reforming the civil justice system," boasting a "nationwide network of state-based liability reform coalitions backed by 135,000 grassroots supporters [and an] unparalleled track record of legislative success."

ATRF has declared Cook County a "Judicial Hellhole" before but, this year, "Cook County fell from its more typical perch... because the winds of litigation have stayed relatively calm in Chicago." But that does not mean that ATRF or ATRA hold the Cook County Circuit Court in any higher esteem. ATRF says our courts have not "improved in any significant way. In fact, when the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform recently asked lawyers representing major employers which cities or counties had the least fair and reasonable litigation environments, Chicago/Cook County was the most frequently cited."

The Law Division's Pilot Project for simultaneous exchange of retained 213(f)(3) experts in some cases (General Administrative Orders 11-2 and 11-3) was singled out for harsh criticism. According to the Judicial Hellholes report (p. 26), "Defense lawyers point out that under the 'simultaneous disclosure' program, they may need to hire experts they do not even need, since what is in dispute may not be clear. And they fear they could hurt their clients by addressing issues plaintiffs never thought to raise."

ATRF was also critical of the recent retention election. The report focused on a handful of judges, including one who was suspended from judicial service at the time of the retention election (and remains suspended) pending the resolution of criminal charges against her. "The Cook County Circuit Court needs to get its house in order," ATRF writes, also mentioning the case against non-judicial employee accused of shredding court files at her kitchen table. Not mentioned in the ATRF report was the fact that the vast majority of judges on the November retention ballot were unanimously recommended for retention by all the many bar groups considering their credentials.

On what it said was the positive side, ATRF noted that a couple of large jury verdicts were reversed on appeal this year and that the fraud suits against the local law schools were thrown out. With regard to the law school suits, ATRF said (p. 26), "Come on, kids, stop your whining and grow up. If you were smart enough to do well on the LSAT, you should have been smart enough to glance at a newspaper or legal journal occasionally. If you had, you’d know law firms have been downsizing for years."

Members of ATRA include AEGIS Insurance Services, Advance Medical Technology Association, Altria Client Services, ASFE, the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, the American Institute of Architects, the American Insurance Association, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the American Medical Association, American Suzuki Motor Company, American Trucking Associations, Associated Wire Rope Fabricators, Bayer Pharmaceutical Corporation, CNA Financial Corporation, CSX Corporation, Caterpillar, Chrysler Group, Coca-Cola Bottlers’ Association, Cybex International, Doctors' Company, Eli Lilly and Company, Farmers Insurance, Ford Motor Company, Emerson Electric Company, ExxonMobil, General Electric, Great American Insurance Companies, Hyundai Motor America, Johnson & Johnson, Koch Industries, Inc., Medical Mutual, Merck & Company, MetLife, Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Fuel Gas Distribution, Nationwide, Pfizer, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Physician Insurers Association of America, PPG Industries, Preferred Physician Medical, Prudential Insurance Company of America, SeamCraft, Inc., Shell Oil Company, State Farm, Taussig Corporation, and Unimin Corporation.

The last man on the Moon left 40 years ago today

Image obtained from GeneCernan.com.

At 5:55 p.m. EST on December 14, 1972, Captain Eugene A. Cernan, USN, and Dr. Harrison Schmitt, a professional geologist, blasted off from the lunar surface in the ascent stage of the Lunar Module Challenger.

Captain Cernan, a Chicago native, was the last man on the Moon. As he stood at the base of the Lunar Lander, just before climbing in for the last time, Cernan made a brief statement:

[A]s I take man's last step from the surface, back home for some time to come - but we believe not too long into the future - I'd like to just (say) what I believe history will record. That America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow. And, as we leave the Moon at Taurus-Littrow, we leave as we came and, God willing, as we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind. "Godspeed the crew of Apollo 17."

Not for too long? As of today, it's 40 years and counting.

When can we hope to start moving toward the future again?

Supreme Court fills two more Circuit Court vacancies

In separate orders entered today, the Illinois Supreme Court appointed Lauretta Higgins Wolfson and Gregory Emmett Ahern to vacancies on the Cook County Circuit Court.

Judge Wolfson was originally appointed to the bench in 2006. Although slated by the Cook County Democratic Party in 2008, Wolfson was unsuccessful in her bid to be elected to a countywide vacancy. More recently, Judge Wolfson served pursuant to a recall assignment. The recall assignment expired last week. Judge Wolfson's new appointment, to the Iasco vacancy in the 13th Judicial Subcircuit, begins January 3, 2013 and runs through December 1, 2014.

Gregory Emmett Ahern was a candidate earlier this year for the vacancy in the 6th Judicial Subcircuit. Ahern, currently an Assistant States Attorney, was appointed to the countywide vacancy created by the election of Justice P. Scott Neville to the Appellate Court. His appointment is also effective January 3, 2013 and runs through December 1, 2014.

Judge Hyman assigned to the Appellate Court

Cook County Circuit Court Judge Michael B. Hyman has been assigned to the Illinois Appellate Court effective January 8, 2013 according to an order entered yesterday by the Illinois Supreme Court.

Currently assigned to the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court, Judge Hyman was first elected to the bench in 2008. Hyman is the long-serving editor of the CBA Record and a former President of the Chicago Bar Association. In addition to his monthly column in the Record, Judge Hyman has written extensively for a number of ABA publications and, recently, for the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin.

Six of the 24 justices of the First District of the Appellate Court are Cook County Circuit judges serving by assignment. Judge Hyman will fill the spot previously occupied by Nathaniel J. Howse, Jr. Justice Howse had been serving on the Appellate Court by assignment since 2009 but was elected to the court this year.

Judges Moreland, Fletcher and Vilkelis receive new appointments

Updated, corrected and link fixed.

Three Cook County Circuit Court judges whose current appointments were about to expire received new appointments from the Illinois Supreme Court in orders entered Friday, November 30.

Judge Kenneth L. Fletcher has been appointed to a 10th Subcircuit vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Susan J. McDunn. Judge Fletcher was originally appointed to the Pucinski vacancy in the 10th Subcircuit and was an unsuccessful candidate for that seat in the 2008 primary. He was subsequently recalled to judicial service by the Supreme Court, most recently in 2009.

Judge Caroline K. Moreland was appointed to the countywide vacancy created by the elevation of Judge Nathaniel R. Howse, Jr. to the Appellate Court. Judge Moreland was first appointed to the bench in 2010, filling a vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Victoria Stewart. After the Democratic Party slated Judge Pamela M. Leeming for this vacancy, Judge Moreland filed for the Stralka vacancy for the March 2012 primary. She later withdrew from that race.

The Illinois Supreme Court also appointed Judge Peter J. Vilkelis to the vacancy created by the elevation of Judge Maureen E. Connors to the Appellate Court. Initially appointed to the countywide O'Brien vacancy in 2011, Judge Vilkelis was unsuccessful in his bid to win the countywide Ward vacancy in the March 2012 primary.

Each of these appointments are effective December 3. Judge Fletcher's appointment runs only through December 31, 2012. The appointments of Judge Moreland and Judge Vilkelis expire December 1, 2014.

Judge Cynthia Y. Cobbs receives new appointment

The Illinois Supreme Court has appointed Judge Cynthia Y. Cobbs to the Cook County Circuit Court countywide vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Barbara A. McDonald. The appointment is effective November 30, 2012 and expires on December 1, 2014.

At the time of this new appointment, Judge Cobbs was serving by appointment to the countywide Simmons, Jr. vacancy. (Jessica A. O'Brien has been elected to this vacancy and will take office next week.) In appointing Judge Cobbs to the McDonald vacancy, the Illinois Supreme Court terminated Cobbs' appointment to the Simmons, Jr. vacancy.

Before her first appointment to the bench in 2011, Judge Cobbs served as Director of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts.

Judge Cobbs has a Master of Social Work degree from the University of Maryland. She worked for several years in Maryland in a clinical setting helping abused and neglected children before turning to the law.

Cobbs started her legal career in 1989 as a law clerk, and later chief law clerk, to Supreme Court Justice Charles E. Freeman. She joined the AOIC in 1997, becoming Chief Legal Counsel for the Administrative Office within two years. Cobbs was initially appointed Director of the AOIC in March 2002. Cobbs served under five Chief Justices, the second longest tenure in that office since it was established in 1960.

Swanson, Lyle receive new appointments

Judge Lyle

The Illinois Supreme Court has appointed Judge Freddrenna M. Lyle to the 7th Subcircuit vacancy created by the appointment of Judge William H. Taylor II to the Appellate Court. Judge Lyle had been serving by appointment to the Stuttley vacancy in the 2nd Subcircuit; that appointment will terminate when the new appointment begins.

Judge Lyle's new appointment runs from November 16 to December 1, 2014.

The Illinois Supreme Court has also appointed Judge Alfred M. Swanson, Jr. to the countywide vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Nancy J. Arnold. Judge Swanson had been serving by appointment to the countywide Ward vacancy; that appointment also terminates as the new appointment begins, on November 16. This appointment will also end on December 1, 2014.

It looks like all retention judges survive

I'm focusing tonight on three judges who were targeted for defeat by the Chicago Tribune and the vast majority of bar associations (all of the bar associations in the case of Judge Hill-Veal, who chose not to participate in the screening process). In past elections, judges similarly situated tended to run behind their brother and sister judges seeking retention. If these judges prevail, then all the retention judges are likely to prevail.

With roughly 80% of the votes counted, City and suburbs, Judge Pamela Hill-Veal is polling a 62.73% favorable vote. Judge Gloria Chevere has received a 62.75% favorable vote and Judge Cynthia Brim has received a 63.02% favorable vote.

Updating: With over 95% of the vote counted in both the City and suburbs, all three judges seem sure to be retained, with Judges Brim and Chevere both at slightly over a 63% favorable result, with Judge Brim getting just under 63%.

Results so far in contested subcircuit races

There are only three subcircuit contests, one in the 12th Subcircuit and two in the 4th Subcircuit.

In the 12th Subcircuit, with just over 75% of the votes counted, Judge Andrea Schleifer is ahead of Republican challenger James Paul Pieczonka by about 5,500 votes, 46,396 to 40,865.

In the 4th Subcircuit, in the race for the Riley vacancy, with just over 75% of the votes counted, Democratic candidate Terry Gallagher is ahead of Republican Harry J. Fournier, 48,523 to 28,868.

In the 4th Subcircuit "A" vacancy race, Democrat Edward M. Maloney is ahead of Republican Christine Cook, 47,828 to 31,257.

Theis coasting in Supreme Court race

With nearly two-thirds of the votes counted in the City of Chicago, Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis is far ahead of her Republican challenger, Circuit Court Judge James G. Riley, 83.52% to 16.48%.

Outside of Cook County, the margin isn't as huge, but it's still quite comfortable. With just over 70% of the votes tallied, Theis leads Riley 64.38% to 35.62%.

Retention judges can breathe easier?

Just under half the judicial retention votes are already counted -- and it's only 8:00p.m. (Modern technology is amazing.)

It is a matter of historic fact that those judges who receive the most strongly negative reviews trail behind their more-favorably-rated colleagues.

So I'm looking this evening at three judges on the retention ballots who received the least favorable ratings.

With just under 50% of the votes counted, Judge Cynthia Brim has received 'yes' votes on the question of her retention from just over 62% of the voters so far. Judge Gloria Chevere has also received 'yes' votes of just over 62%. Judge Pamela Hill-Veal, who refused to participate in any of the bar association reviews, is polling a favorable vote of just under 62%. A judge must get 'yes' votes from 60% of the voters in order to remain in office (60% + 1). If these numbers hold up, these three judges will keep their seats -- and, by extension, all the retention judges are likely to remain in office.

Looking for information about the Cook County judicial retention ballot?

Scroll down this page or consider any of the following links:

• Comparing bar evaluations on certain retention candidates;
• Chicago Bar Association finds more than 50 judges qualified for retention;
• Nine judges singled out as "Well Qualified" for retention by Chicago Council of Lawyers;
• Chicago Council of Lawyers releases 2012 judicial retention ratings;
• ISBA provides explanations for all of its Cook County judicial ratings;
• Alliance of Bar Associations releases retention grids;
• Retention Judges: The default vote is 'yes';
• Tribune urges "no" vote on six retention judges;
• Can any of the retention judges really lose?;
• A few words about "judicial temperament"; or
• 2012 Cook County Retention Judges Website.

Jessica O'Brien Fashion Fundraiser Election Eve

Jessica A. O'Brien defeated two candidates in the March Primary to claim the Democratic nomination for the countywide Simmons, Jr. vacancy. She faces no opposition in next week's election (no Democratic nominee for a countywide Circuit Court vacancy faces any Republican opposition) but O'Brien does have a campaign debt to retire.

Accordingly, the Jessica O'Brien for Judge Committee is planning a program, "Fire, Fashion & Politics," on Monday, November 5, from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. at the Chicago Firehouse Restaurant, 1401 S. Michigan Avenue, in Chicago.

Summer Jackson-Cole, of WCIU-TV, will serve as host of the fashion show. Cameron Croft, Social Entrepreneur, and Carmen C. Rivera, Assistant to the Publisher of Chicago Magazine, will be Master and Mistress of Ceremonies. The "headlining fashion designer" is Borris Powell. Special appearances by local actors from the NBC-TV series Chicago Fire are also planned. To view the entire program for the event, see O'Brien's campaign website.

Tickets are $50 a person in advance, $75 at the door. To reserve tickets, see the website or email jobrienforjudge@att.net.

IVI-IPO makes "yes" recommendations in certain retention races

The Independent Voters of Illinois - Independent Precinct Organization has posted its endorsements for the November election. That's a link to the IVI-IPO's endorsement page in the preceding sentence.

Among their endorsements, the IVI-IPO has singled out several Circuit Court judges seeking retention and recommended a "yes" vote. These retention candidates are:

• Moshe Jacobius,
• Stuart F. Lubin,
• Raymond Funderburk,
• Robert Lopez Cepero,
• Garritt E. Howard,
• E. Kenneth Wright Jr.,
• Lisa Ruble Murphy,
• James M. Varga,
• Camille E. Willis,
• Maura Slattery Boyle,
• Thomas David Roti,
• Colleen F. Sheehan,
• Orville E. Hambright,
• Michael J. Howlett, Jr.,
• Carl Anthony Walker,
• Gloria Chevere,
• Grace G. Dickler,
• Carol M. Howard, and
• Diane M. Shelley.

Judges Jacobius, Lubin, Howlett, and Dickler are among the nine judges singled out by the Chicago Council of Lawyers as "well qualified" for retention.

Judge Schleifer makes another NTNM appearance; wrap-up of Cook County contested judicial races

Judge Andrea M. Schleifer is a guest this week on Avy Meyer's North Town News Magazine. With Mr. Meyer's permission, you can watch that interview here.

Judge Schleifer is one of the few judicial candidates who finds herself in a contested race this November. Appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court to the 12th Judicial Subcircuit seat for which she is now a candidate, Judge Schleifer is opposed by Republican candidate James P. Pieczonka. (Links to both candidates' websites are embedded in the preceding sentence.)

The Chicago Tribune recently endorsed Judge Schleifer in this race.

There are only two other contested elections for the Cook County Circuit Court on this November's ballot. Both are in the west suburban 4th Judicial Subcircuit.

In the race for the 4th Subcircuit Riley vacancy, Democratic candidate Terry Gallagher is opposed by Republican Harry Fournier. (Those are links to the candidates' websites in the preceding sentence.) I had an email this week pointing out that Fournier is the only Cook County Circuit Court candidate endorsed by the IVI-IPO for the November election. The Chicago Tribune has endorsed Gallagher in this race.

In the race for the "A" vacancy in the 4th Judicial Subcircuit, Democratic candidate Edward M. Maloney is opposed by Republican Christine Cook. The Tribune endorsement went to Maloney in this race.

Cook County voters who do not reside in either the 4th or 12th Subcircuits will have only one contested judicial race on the ballot, that being the race for the Illinois Supreme Court. In this race, Justice Mary Jane Theis is the Democratic nominee; she was appointed to the Supreme Court vacancy when Justice Thomas Fitzgerald stepped down. Her Republican opponent is Cook County Circuit Court Judge James G. Riley. The Chicago Tribune has endorsed Justice Theis in this race.

In Cook County, Illinois Civil Justice League endorses Theis, five retention candidates

The Illinois Civil Justice League announced in its newsletter today that it has endorsed Democrat Mary Jane Theis for the Illinois Supreme Court in Cook County's First Judicial District. Justice Theis is a candidate for the Fitzgerald vacancy on the Supreme Court; she was appointed to that vacancy when Justice Thomas Fitzgerald stepped down. Her Republican opponent is Cook County Circuit Court Judge James G. Riley.

The ICJL also endorsed five of the many Cook County Circuit Court judges seeking retention. The five judges highlighted by the ICJL are Moshe Jacobius, Martin Agran, Stuart Palmer, Garritt E. Howard, and E. Kenneth Wright, Jr.

A complete list of the ICJL's endorsements, both in Cook County and Downstate, can be accessed by clicking this link.

Lisa Ann Marino debt retirement fundraiser November 1

Lisa Ann Marino emerged victorious in March over three other candidates to win the Democratic nomination for the Urso vacancy in the 11th Judicial Subcircuit. Although she faces no opposition in November, she does have a campaign debt to retire.

Accordingly, per email received, Marino has scheduled a debt retirement fundraiser for Thursday, November 1 at Biaggio's 7309 W. Lawrence Avenue in Harwood Heights, from 5:30 to 8:30pm.

For further information about the event, or to make reservations, email LisaMarinoforJudge@gmail.com.

Daniel J. Kubasiak appointed to Egan vacancy

The Illinois Supreme Court has appointed Chicago attorney Daniel J. Kubasiak to the Cook County Circuit Court vacancy created by the recent retirement of Judge James D. Egan. Kubasiak's appointment is effective November 30 and runs to December 1, 2014.

A 1981 graduate of Loyola University School of Law, Kubasiak served as the First Deputy Comptroller and First Assistant Budget Director of the City of Chicago from 1974-1981. He was Chief Administrative Officer for the Chicago City Council Committee on Finance from 1983 to 1987 and counsel for the Illinois State Treasurer from 1987 to 1994. Kubasiak was a founding partner of Kubasiak, Fylstra, Thorpe & Rotunno, P.C., the firm where he was practicing at the time of his appointment.

---------------------------------------------------------------
NB: Yes, Judge Egan, the judge whose vacancy will be filled by Mr. Kubasiak's appointment, is on the November retention ballot, but only due to a paperwork snafu. Because he had planned to retire, Judge Egan did not participate in any of the bar associations' screening processes.

Can any of the retention judges really lose?

A lot of cynics will insist that all the judges on this year's Cook County retention ballot are "bulletproof" -- completely assured of safely navigating the forthcoming election. The cynics insist that, no matter how qualified -- or unqualified -- all judges on the ballot are assured of victory.

The judges seeking retention know better.

It is true that no Cook County Circuit Court Judge has lost a retention bid since 1990 -- but, in 1990, six judges were put out of work (seven lost their retention bids, but one of these was simultaneously elected to the Appellate Court).

After being singled out by columnist Mike Royko and the Fraternal Order of Police, Judge Lawrence Passarella was defeated in a retention bid in 1986.

John S. Boyle was Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County when he was defeated for retention in 1978.

It can happen.

There are people who go into the polls bound and determined to vote "no" on every judge's bid for another term; no judge gets a 100% "yes" vote -- an 80% "yes" vote is about the most that a judge can hope for.

The widely read police blog, Second City Cop, recently put up a post urging a "no" vote on every judge's retention bid this November.

The Chicago Bar Association and the many bar associations that comprise the Alliance of Bar Associations have recommended a "yes" vote on most judges.

In the final analysis, it is up to the voters -- such as those of you who happen on this page -- to determine whether any judicial candidate is worthy of your vote.

If you're looking for information about which judges are worthy of your vote, scroll down this page or consult the following links:

• Comparing bar evaluations on certain retention candidates,
• Chicago Bar Association finds more than 50 judges qualified for retention,
• Nine judges singled out as "Well Qualified" for retention by Chicago Council of Lawyers;
• Chicago Council of Lawyers releases 2012 judicial retention ratings;
• ISBA provides explanations for all of its Cook County judicial ratings;
• Alliance of Bar Associations releases retention grids;
• Retention Judges: The default vote is 'yes';
• Tribune urges "no" vote on six retention judges;
• A few words about "judicial temperament"; or
• 2012 Cook County Retention Judges Website.

Updated and corrected, with a tip of the hat to Dr. Albert Klumpp for calling my attention to my error.

Unlucky 13: Judicial Performance Commission says 13 judges on the retention ballot need "performance improvement plans"

For this election cycle, the Judicial Performance Commission of Cook County has chosen not to "recommend or not recommend judges for retention."

However, the JPC has completed its report on all of the Cook County Circuit Court judges seeking retention this fall and has released its findings in a report that can be accessed through the Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice website or directly via this link (PDF Report).

In its report, the JPC has identified 13 judges who, in the opinion of the JPC, need "performance improvement plans." Per the introduction to the JPC report (emphasis in original),

For judges with difficulties on the bench, the Commission’s report includes a judicial performance improvement plan which recommends actions such as peer mentoring, court watching, anger management courses, and continuing education. For judges demonstrating substantial difficulties on the bench, the Commission’s report includes a judicial performance improvement plan, and indicates that significant difficulties on the bench may impede his or her effectiveness as a jurist.

The 13 judges cited by the JPC as needing improvement plans are

• Cynthia Brim
• Gloria Chevere
• Christopher Donnelly
• Loretta Eadie-Daniels
• Kathy M. Flanagan
• Catherine Haberkorn
• Orville E. Hambright, Jr.
• Pamela Hill-Veal
• Robert Lopez Cepero
• Joyce Marie Murphy Gorman
• Lee Preston
• Lisa Ruble-Murphy, and
• James M. Varga.

A more complete explanation of the methodology and procedures employed by the JPC is found in its full report. However, in summary, the 2012 Judicial Performance Commission consisted of  comprised of 18 lawyers and nonlawyers "who have donated their time and expertise to serve on the Commission." The Commission's "evaluations are based upon research conducted by the Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice." Excerpting now from the report:

[The Commission members] serve as a board of directors, overseeing and governing the operations, but not influencing the research results. The Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice provides an independent research team of paid staff, interns and volunteers to collect and present data to the Commission for use in evaluating the judges. Chicago Appleseed, with the cooperation of the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County and the Clerk of the Circuit Court, developed a list of lawyers who have appeared before the judicial retention candidates within the preceding three years. This list also included Cook County Assistant State’s Attorneys and Public Defenders who have been assigned to the courtrooms of the judges being evaluated. These lawyers received a web-based survey. Chicago Appleseed also conducted confidential interviews with a sampling of these attorneys, as well as interviews with supervising judges. Court-watching and research into local news media rounds out the data collection. Chicago Appleseed also conducted additional interviews with attorneys having extensive experience before the judges.

Responses from a minimum of 30 and as many as 80 phone interviews and surveys from Clerk data, plus additional interviews, per judge were collected. Chicago Appleseed staff prepared a summary for each judge and presented the research to the Commission members. From those reports, the Commissioners determined the content of each evaluation. Each judge received a draft version of his or her evaluation and was offered the opportunity to appeal the evaluation in person or in writing. After the appeals process, staff finalized the evaluations, and the reports on each judge were reviewed and approved by members of the JPC.

The members of this year's JPC were:

• Leonard Schrager, Chair,
• Sergio Acosta,
• Jeannine Cordero,
• Jan Czarnik,
• Stephen Daniels,
• Susana Darwin,
• Ricky Granderson,
• Michelle K. Jordan,
• Jonathan D. King,
• Steven Krasner,
• James H. Lewis,
• Terry Pastika,
• Travis Richardson,
• Ada Skyles,
• Randolph N. Stone,
• Carolyn Wilson-Hurey,
• Whitney Woodward, and
• Frances Zemans.

Comparing bar evaluations on certain retention candidates

Updated 11/2/12

Updated and bumped up to reflect recommendations made by the Chicago Tribune.

There were seven Cook County Circuit Court judges singled out by the Chicago Council of Lawyers as "not qualified" for retention on the November ballot. Several of the judges cited by the Council were also rated "not recommended" or "not qualified" by some or all of the other evaluating bar groups. There were also three retention candidates rated "not recommended" by the Chicago Bar Association that were rated "qualified" by the Council.

Voters may want to compare all available information on each of these individuals before deciding whether to vote for or against their retention. We'll start with the Council's list.

Kathy M. Flanagan

The Chicago Council of Lawyers states:

Kathy Flanagan – Not Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Kathy Flanagan was in private practice. Judge Flanagan was elected to the Circuit Court in 1988. She was initially assigned to the Domestic Relations Division as a trial judge. Judge Flanagan currently sits in the Law Division on a motion call.

With regard to fairness and legal ability, Judge Flanagan is generally considered intelligent, with a good grasp of the law, and appropriate diligence. Respondents believe her to be very engaged in the courtroom, giving full attention to the details. With regard to rulings, she is described as “consistent, predictable and follows the law.” Many interviewees characterize her as “very fair” and “always prepared.”

However, a substantial number of respondents had a negative impression of Judge Flanagan’s judicial temperament. She was called “hostile,” “imperious,” “rude” and “discourteous.” She was frequently described as impatient or inflexible. A number of attorneys believe these qualities negatively affected her ability to manage her courtroom efficiently. However, even some respondents who were highly critical of her temper noted that she is “bright” and “truly cares” about the outcomes in her courtroom.

Responses indicate that Judge Flanagan is clearly diligent and capable on the bench. She is prepared for court, punctual and engaged in the proceedings with a reputation for intelligence and general fairness. However, responses show that Judge Flanagan displays inappropriate temper and has created a courtroom atmosphere that is readily described as hostile or unpleasant. In 2006 the Council found Judge Flanagan Not Qualified for retention for these same reasons. There reportedly has been no significant improvement. The Council finds her Not Qualified for retention.

The Chicago Bar Association states:

KATHY M. FLANAGAN -- QUALIFIED
Judge Kathy M. Flanagan is “Qualified” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Flanagan was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1979 and has served as a judge since 1988. Judge Flanagan served in the Domestic Relations Division until 1993 and is currently supervising judge of the Law Division’s motion call. Judge Flanagan runs an efficient courtroom and is respected by the lawyers who appear before her. Questions regarding Judge Flanagan’s temperament were raised by some lawyers and the judge is working to address these concerns.

The Illinois State Bar Association states:

Hon. Kathy M. Flanagan - Qualified
Hon. Kathy M. Flanagan is currently the Supervising Judge within the Motion Section of the Law Division. She was elected to the Circuit Court in 1988, where she was initially assigned to the Domestic Relations Division. Judge Flanagan was retained for six-year terms in 1994, 2000, and 2006.

The Committee evaluation revealed that Judge Flanagan is considered tough but fair, works hard, and fully understands the law. For the 2012 General Election, the Illinois State Bar Association determined Hon. Kathy M. Flanagan is qualified for retention as a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers and the Illinois State Bar Association participate in the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening. Although the screening process is handled collaboratively, each member group evaluates sitting judges and judicial candidates independently, and is free to arrive at its own conclusions. In Judge Flanagan's case, all of the other Alliance groups, that is, the Alliance are the Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Chicago Area (AABA), Black Women’s Lawyers Association of Greater Chicago (BWLA), Cook County Bar Association (CCBA), Decalogue Society of Lawyers (DSL), Hellenic Bar Association (HBA), Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois (HLAI), Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago (LAGBAC), Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois (PRBA), and Women’s Bar Association of Illinois (WBAI), recommend a "yes" vote to retain Judge Flanagan.

Further information about Judge Flanagan is available on the 2012 Cook County Judges Retention Website and from the Chicago Tribune.

Cynthia Brim

The Chicago Council of Lawyers states:

Cynthia Brim – Not Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Cynthia Brim was an Assistant Illinois Attorney General. Judge Brim was elected to the Circuit Court in 1994 and initially assigned to the First Municipal District. Judge Brim is presently assigned to the Fifth Municipal District but has been suspended from duty since March 12, 2012. Judge Brim was arrested on March 10, 2012 on misdemeanor charges related to an altercation with a Cook County Sheriff’s Deputy at the Daley Center.

Most respondents indicated a lack of confidence in her legal abilities. Even though the judge hears generally non-complex matters, her rulings are often described as unpredictable and delayed. Respondents indicate that they regularly file motions for substitution of judge, despite the cost and inconvenience to their clients.

Additionally, there are many complaints that Judge Brim is late to take the bench. Attorneys report repeated continuances because court starts late and because the call is handled inefficiently. Attorneys feel that Judge Brim is particularly rude and unaccommodating of counsel who are on call in multiple courtrooms. Many attorneys described her as “consistently late” and there is some concern that her case management delays resolution of cases.

The consistently negative reports about Judge Brim’s judicial performance and her arrest at the courthouse at the Daley Center in downtown Chicago raise serious questions about whether she can remain effective on the bench. The Council finds her Not Qualified for retention.

The Illinois State Bar Association states:

Hon. Cynthia Brim – Not Qualified
Hon. Cynthia Brim was elected to the Circuit Court of Cook County in 1994. She was retained for six-year terms in 2000 and 2006. She was in the 6th Municipal District presiding over Misdemeanor, Traffic Civil, Paternity, Child Support, Custody, Visitation, Domestic Violence, Bond hearings, and Ordinance Violation cases. Other previous judicial assignments include the Domestic Relations Division, the 1st Municipal District, and the 5th Municipal District. Hon. Cynthia Brim has currently been removed from all judicial duties by Special Order No. 2012-14 of the Executive Committee of the Circuit Court of Cook County.

The Committee evaluation questioned Judge Brim’s legal knowledge and ability. For the 2012 General Election, the Illinois State Bar Association determined Hon. Cynthia Brim is not qualified for retention as a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County.

The Chicago Bar Association states:

CYNTHIA BRIM -- NOT RECOMMENDED
The candidate declined to participate in the Judicial Evaluation Committee (JEC) screening process and, therefore, according to The Chicago Bar Association’s governing resolution for the JEC, is automatically found NOT RECOMMENDED.

All of the other Alliance Bar Associations, with the exceptions of the Asian American Bar Association of Greater Chicago and Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois, recommend a "no" vote on Judge Brim. The AABA did not evaluate Judge Brim; the HLAI recommends a "yes" vote.

The order removing Judge Brim from active judicial service because of the pending charges can be accessed via this press release on the Cook County Circuit Court website. In an October 14 Chicago Sun-Times article, Lisa Donovan writes:

On March 9, Brim turned up at the downtown Chicago Daley Center courthouse — miles from the south suburban courthouse where she worked. She allegedly threw a set of keys and shoved a sheriff’s deputy before officers handcuffed her and took her to a basement holding cell.

She was charged with misdemeanor battery before being released. The next week, a panel of Cook County supervising judges suspended her indefinitely.

Court records obtained by the Sun-Times reveal she was examined by a court-appointed psychiatrist who believes she’s “presently mentally fit with medication” but opined she was “legally insane” at the time of the reported skirmish with the sheriff’s officer.

Brim has declined to talk with the Sun-Times on the record about the charges she’s facing or comment about reports that she had been behaving erratically the day before her arrest while ruling on traffic cases in the Markham courthouse.

The next hearing date in Judge Brim's case is November 7, the day following the election.

The Chicago Tribune has recommended a "no" vote on Judge Brim's retention bid.

Christopher Donnelly

The Chicago Council of Lawyers states:

Judge Christopher Donnelly – Not Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Christopher Donnelly spent one year in private practice before working as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney. Judge Donnelly was elected to the Circuit Court in 1994. He served in the Juvenile Justice Division prior to being transferred to the Sixth Municipal District in Markham, where he currently sits.

Most attorneys agree that Judge Donnelly has the aptitude to understand the law and apply it. Attorneys reported that Judge Donnelly is “a smart man,” intelligent,” and has “an excellent grasp of what’s going on in his courtroom.” Regarding his courtroom management, interviewees repeatedly praised his efficiency, describing him as running a tight ship and being capable of moving the call along. His judicial diligence and preparedness were not generally questioned.

While many attorneys complimented his intelligence and legal aptitude, a substantial number raised concerns about Judge Donnelly’s temperament and his professionalism. Interview respondents roundly criticized his tone and demeanor while on the bench. Some respondents referred to him as a “bully,” stating that “he goes out of his way to demean people unnecessarily,” he is “mean spirited” and “sometimes can just explode over the insignificant,” and that he “is unprofessional, rude and disrespectful.”

Many respondents had negative responses about Judge Donnelly’s judicial fairness, with most attorneys reporting that he has an unabashedly pro-prosecution perspective. Another attorney suggested that Judge Donnelly’s experience as a former prosecutor weighs heavily on his current role as a judge. One interviewee who summed up many concerns in moderate terms hoped that the evaluation process would inspire the Judge to consider the impression his demeanor makes. The Council finds him Not Qualified for retention.

The Illinois State Bar Association states:

Hon. Christopher Donnelly – Not Qualified
Hon. Christopher Donnelly is currently assigned to the 6th Municipal District, hearing traffic and misdemeanor cases. Prior to serving the 6th Municipal District, Judge Donnelly was assigned to the Juvenile Justice Division. In 1994, he was elected to the Circuit Court of Cook County. Judge Donnelly was retained for six-year terms in 2000 and 2006.

Judge Donnelly’s litigation and professional experience along with his legal knowledge and ability are considered adequate. The Committee evaluation, however, revealed that there are concerns regarding his poor judicial temperament. In addition, Judge Donnelly failed to fully participate in the evaluation process by not completing the evaluation materials and refusing to answer questions posed during his interview. Therefore, in accordance with its guidelines for judicial candidates, for the 2012 General Election the Illinois State Bar Association determined Hon. Christopher Donnelly is not qualified for retention as a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County for failure to complete the evaluation process.

The Chicago Bar Association states:

CHRISTOPHER DONNELLY -- QUALIFIED
Judge Christopher J. Donnelly is “Qualified” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Donnelly was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1985 and has served as a judge since 1994. Judge Donnelly is currently assigned to the Sixth Municipal District. Judge Donnelly is experienced, dedicated, thoughtful, and well versed in both civil and criminal law. Judge Donnelly is diligent and compassionate about helping explain the law to the litigants who appear before him.

Some Alliance members agreed with the Council and the ISBA and recommend a "no" vote on Judge Donnelly. These groups are the Cook County Bar Association, the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago, the Woman's Bar Association of Illinois, and the HLAI. Alliance members recommending a "yes" vote on Judge Donnelly are the Black Women's Lawyers Association of Greater Chicago, the Decalogue Society of Lawyers, the Hellenic Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, and the AABA.

Judge Donnelly responded to the Tribune questionnaire. The Tribune has recommended a "no" vote on Judge Donnelly's retention bid.

Joyce M. Murphy Gorman

The Chicago Council of Lawyers states

Judge Joyce M. Murphy Gorman – Not Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Joyce M. Murphy Gorman worked with the Office of the Presiding Judge of the Sixth Municipal District in Markham for four years. Judge Murphy Gorman then worked as a sole practitioner for one year immediately before being elected to the bench. Judge Murphy Gorman was elected to the Circuit Court in 2000. She was initially assigned to the First Municipal District’s Traffic Court. In 2002, Judge Murphy Gorman was assigned to the Civil Trial Section, non-jury call where she presently presides.

Judge Murphy Gorman was described by most respondents as knowledgeable about the law. Attorneys say she takes the time to understand the issues and respondents reported that she keeps current on developments in the law relevant to the cases heard in her courtroom. There were several respondents who praised her for using her courtroom mediators effectively. The judge is described as punctual and prepared for court and she issues her rulings in a prompt, timely manner. She is considered fair and independent.

Judge Murphy Gorman’s courtroom management skills were given generally favorable marks. Several interviewees stated that she always started her call on time and did not “dilly dally.” Others mentioned how she worked to accommodate attorneys with multiple cases in order to keep the call moving.

Many interviewees stated that Judge Murphy Gorman was diligent. Most attorneys believed she was “always engaged” and “interested in doing a good job.” She also “allowed each side to make their case.” Judge Murphy Gorman was also repeatedly praised for her handling of pro se litigants. Respondents said that she explains things well to pro se litigants “while remaining even-handed.”

However, many respondents believed that Judge Murphy Gorman needs to improve her judicial temperament. Comments included: “could be calmer;” “she can be short with people;” “she lets lawyers get under her skin;” “she is short and testy with people in her courtroom.” The Council found Judge Murphy Gorman Not Qualified for retention in 2006 due primarily to reported problems with her temperament. We continue to hear these complaints. On balance, the Council finds her Not Qualified for retention.

The Illinois State Bar Association states:

Hon. Joyce M. Murphy Gorman – Qualified
Hon. Joyce Murphy Gorman is currently assigned to the 1st Municipal District, Civil Non-jury Trial Call. Judge Murphy Gorman was elected to serve as a judge in 2000, and she was retained for a six-year term in 2006.

Judge Murphy Gorman is described as being knowledgeable about the law and always prepared. For the 2012 General Election, the Illinois State Bar Association determined Hon. Joyce Murphy Gorman is qualified for retention as a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County.

The Chicago Bar Association states:

JOYCE MARIE MURPHY GORMAN -- QUALIFIED
Judge Joyce M. Murphy Gorman is “Qualified” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Gorman was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1995 and has served as a judge since 2000. Judge Gorman is currently assigned to the First Municipal District and presides over a high-volume civil injury call. Judge Gorman knows the law and has a fine judicial demeanor and temperament.

Among the Alliance bar groups, only the Decalogue Society of Lawyers recommends a "no" vote on Judge Murphy Gorman; the other nine members of the Alliance (including the ISBA, quoted above) recommend a "yes" vote. Further information about Judge Murphy Gorman is available on the 2012 Cook County Retention Judges Website. Judge Murphy Gorman also responded to the Tribune questionnaire.

Pamela Hill-Veal

Judge Hill-Veal chose not to participate in screening by any of the bar associations and was therefore found not qualified or not recommended by every single one. The CBA and each of the Alliance of Bar Association members recommends a "no" vote on Judge Hill-Veal.

For the record, the Chicago Council of Lawyers states:

Judge Pamela Hill-Veal – Not Recommended
Judge Hill-Veal failed to submit materials for evaluation. The Council finds her Not Recommended for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association states:

Hon. Pamela E. Hill-Veal – Not Qualified
Hon. Pamela E. Hill-Veal is currently assigned in the 1st Municipal District within the Civil Trial Section. She was appointed to the Circuit Court of Cook County in 2004 and elected in 2006.

Judge Hill-Veal did not submit documentation for evaluation for the 2012 General Election. Therefore, in accordance with its guidelines regarding judicial candidates, for the 2012 General Election the Illinois State Bar Association determined that Hon. Pamela E. Hill-Veal is not qualified for retention as a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County for failure to complete the evaluation process.

The Chicago Bar Association states:

PAMELA E. HILL-VEAL -- NOT RECOMMENDED
The candidate declined to participate in the Judicial Evaluation Committee (JEC) screening process and, therefore, according to The Chicago Bar Association’s governing resolution for the JEC, is automatically found NOT RECOMMENDED.

Further information about Judge Hill-Veal is available on the 2012 Cook County Retention Judges Website. The Chicago Tribune has recommended a "no" vote on Judge Hill-Veal's retention bid.

Gloria Chevere

The Chicago Council of Lawyers states:

Judge Gloria Chevere – Not Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Gloria Chevere was a partner at the general practice firm of Ogden & Chevere. From 1987 to 1991, Judge Chevere was Senior Executive Deputy Director for the Chicago Transit Authority. Then from 1991 until 2006, she was a prosecutor and hearing officer for the Secretary of State, as well as a hearing officer for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District. She was elected to the Circuit Court in 2006, and was assigned to the First Municipal District.

In May 2010, Fox Chicago News in conjunction with the Better Government Association, investigated whether Cook County Judges were leaving work early. The article mentioned Judge Chevere as a judge who often left the courthouse early. Judge Chevere was reassigned shortly after the story was made public.

Judge Chevere generally received good scores from most attorneys for being able to “move her call.” One respondent stated that he had “seen hundreds in her courtroom” and that Judge Chevere was “still able to keep on top of things.” Many interviewees also believed they were treated fairly in her courtroom.

Her legal ability is generally considered adequate for her call and attorneys believe she runs her courtroom efficiently. However, she is reported to be sometimes "dismissive and rude" on the bench. She reportedly is often unprepared -- many respondents believe she has not read pleadings sufficiently before ruling. She has the reputation of unilaterally cancelling her 2:30 pm call, saying that it is not necessary. There were many negative comments about her performance as a judge, primarily related to temperament and diligence.

Several respondents believe the judge unnecessarily issues arrests warrants for defendants who are late to court, which wastes resources. About half of the respondents also complained that her rulings are erratic, which some attributed to her being too often unprepared. The Council finds her Not Qualified for retention.

The Illinois State Bar Association states:

Hon. Gloria Chevere - Not Qualified
Hon. Gloria Chevere is currently assigned as a “swing judge” in various branches within the 1st Municipal District. She ran unopposed for a vacancy in the 6th Subcircuit in 2006 and was assigned to hear misdemeanor and felony ordinance offenses.

The Committee evaluation raised concerns over Judge Chevere’s diligence, legal knowledge and ability. For the 2012 General Election, the Illinois State Bar Association determined Hon. Gloria Chevere is not qualified for retention as a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County.

The Chicago Bar Association states:

GLORIA CHEVERE -- NOT RECOMMENDED
Judge Gloria Chevere is “Not Recommended” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Chevere was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1981. The candidate was elected in 2006 and is assigned to various First Municipal Felony courtrooms. Reports from attorneys describe the candidate as punctual with adequate legal knowledge and that she runs an efficient courtroom. Nevertheless, the candidate is found not recommended due to her unwillingness to conform to attendance policies established for all judges. This comes after she was the subject of a highly publicized news report about leaving her courtroom assignment early.

With one exception, all of the other Alliance bar groups also recommend a "no" vote on Judge Chevere. The Puerto Rican Bar Association, however, recommends a "yes" vote for this candidate.

The Chicago Tribune recommends a "no" vote on Judge Chevere's retention bid. The IVI-IPO has recommended a "yes" vote for Judge Chevere.

One other judge received unanimously negative reviews from both the Chicago Bar Association and every Alliance bar group, namely, Judge James Egan. According to to the ISBA's Joyce Williams, who coordinates judicial evaluations for the Alliance, Judge Egan advised the group some time ago that he would be retiring in December and, accordingly, he was not scheduled for interviews. Unfortunately, because of a paperwork snafu, Judge Egan did not get his name removed from the retention ballot in time.

FWIW has been informed that Judge Egan has accelerated his retirement plans and has already left office; in fact, the Illinois Supreme Court has already named Egan's successor. Judge Egan's name, however, will still be on the November retention ballot.

There were also three candidates rated "not recommended" by the Chicago Bar Association that were not mentioned by the Chicago Council of Lawyers. We'll look at these candidates next.

Rodney Hughes Brooks

The Chicago Bar Association states:

RODNEY HUGHES BROOKS -- NOT RECOMMENDED
Judge Rodney Hughes Brooks is “Not Recommended” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Brooks was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1980 and has served as a judge since 1994. Judge Brooks has a pleasant demeanor, but does not possess the requisite knowledge of the law and judicial ability to effectively manage a court call. Judge Brooks has made no attempt to improve his knowledge of the law and judicial ability and should not be retained.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers states:

Judge Rodney Brooks – Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Rodney Brooks worked as a solo practitioner maintaining a diverse general practice. Judge Brooks was elected to the Circuit Court in 1994 and assigned to the First Municipal District Traffic Center. In 1996, he was transferred to the Juvenile Justice Division, where he is presently assigned as a floater or coverage judge.

Judge Brooks received high marks from attorneys on both sides of the aisle. His legal ability and knowledge of the law is considered one of his most obvious strengths. Attorneys commented that he “reads statutes literally and follows them” to the letter of the law, that he is “extremely well versed in the law” and does research when he is uncertain about a particular issue. Judge Brooks garnered praise for his courtroom management, with respondents noting that he does a “great job moving through his cases” and the call is “very smooth” in his courtroom. Our research shows that he is prepared for court.

As a trial judge in the past, the Council heard negative reports about Judge Brooks’ temperament and ability to control a courtroom. As a floater judge with a more limited call in this evaluation, the reports have been more positive. On balance, the Council finds him Qualified for retention.

The Illinois State Bar Association states:

Hon. Rodney Hughes Brooks - Qualified
Hon. Rodney Hughes Brooks is currently assigned to the Juvenile Justice Division. He was a “floater” judge within the Division until he was recently assigned to a permanent calendar. In 1994, he was elected to the Circuit Court of Cook County and was initially assigned to the 1st Municipal District Traffic Court. He was transferred to his current Division in 1996. Judge Brooks was retained for six-year terms in 2000 and 2006.

Judge Brooks is procedurally oriented and very diligent. He is punctual and has good judicial temperament. For the 2012 General Election, the Illinois State Bar Association determined Hon. Rodney Hughes Brooks is qualified for retention as a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Every one of the Alliance bar groups joins with the Council and the ISBA in recommending a "yes" vote for Judge Hughes. Further information about Judge Brooks is available on the 2012 Cook County Judges Retention Website. Judge Brooks responded to the Tribune questionnaire; however, the Tribune has recommended a "no" vote on Judge Brooks.

Loretta Eadie-Daniels

The Chicago Bar Association states:

LORETTA EADIE-DANIELS -- NOT RECOMMENDED
Judge Loretta Eadie-Daniels is “Not Recommended” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Eadie-Daniels was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1977 and served in the legal departments of the Chicago Transit Authority and the Chicago Housing Authority. In addition, Judge Eadie-Daniels served as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney from 1989-2000 before her election to the Circuit Court in 2000. Judge Eadie-Daniels is currently assigned to the Sixth Municipal District in Markham. Judge Eadie-Daniels’ “Not Recommended” finding is the result of continuing concerns about the judge’s temperament and knowledge of the law.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers states:

Judge Loretta Eadie-Daniels – Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Loretta Eadie-Daniels was an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney and, before that, an attorney for the Chicago Transit Authority. Judge Eadie-Daniels was elected to the Circuit Court in 2000 and was assigned to a misdemeanor call in the Sixth Municipal District. She remains in the Sixth District, but now handles traffic and ordinance violations. Attorneys report that Judge Eadie-Daniels takes her responsibility toward pro se litigants seriously, although some attorneys believe this slows down her call. She is generally described as having a good temperament. While some attorneys report that she could do a better job of managing her courtroom, she is well regarded by most attorneys in her current assignment. The Council finds her Qualified for retention.

The Illinois State Bar Association states:

Hon. Loretta Eadie-Daniels - Qualified
Hon. Loretta Eadie-Daniels is currently assigned to the 6th Municipal District. She has been assigned to the 6th Municipal District since she was elected to the Circuit Court of Cook County in 2000. Judge Eadie-Daniels was retained for a six-year term in 2006. Judge Eadie-Daniels is considered to have adequate legal knowledge and ability and is considered impartial with sufficient experience. For the 2012 General Election, the Illinois State Bar Association determined Hon. Loretta Eadie-Daniel is qualified for retention as a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Every one of the Alliance bar groups lines up with the Council and ISBA in recommending a "yes" vote on Judge Eadie-Daniels.

Lisa Ruble Murphy

The Chicago Bar Association states:

LISA RUBLE MURPHY -- NOT RECOMMENDED
Judge Lisa Ruble Murphy is “Not Recommended” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Murphy was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1984 and has served as a judge since 1994. Judge Murphy has been in the Domestic Relations Division since 1995. Judge Murphy has been an Individual Calendar Domestic Relations Judge since 1997. The judge is experienced and knowledgeable in the field of domestic relations. Concerns about diligence, work ethic, and considerable delays in issuing written decisions resulted in a “Not Recommended” finding.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers states:

Judge Lisa Ruble Murphy – Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Lisa Ruble Murphy was Deputy Chief Administration Officer for the Chicago City Council’s Committee on Finance. Judge Ruble Murphy was elected to the Circuit Court in 1994. Judge Ruble Murphy was initially assigned to the First Municipal District of the Cook County Circuit Court. In January 1995, she was assigned to the Domestic Relations Division, where she currently serves.

Many respondents praised Judge Ruble Murphy as a judge, but a significant number of respondents report concerns about her performance. For instance, while lawyers reported that Judge Ruble Murphy gives a fair trial, there were complaints that she sometimes pushes too hard to discourage parties from going to trial, even where the parties have clear and irreconcilable difficulties. Some of the attorneys interviewed also reported that she is often late in starting her call. However, Judge Ruble Murphy is considered to be a smart, solid jurist. On balance, the Council finds her Qualified for retention.

The Illinois State Bar Association states:

Hon. Lisa Ruble Murphy – Qualified
Hon. Lisa Ruble Murphy was elected to the Circuit Court of Cook County in 1994. Her current assignment is as an independent calendar judge in the Domestic Relations Division. She presides over pre- and post- decree domestic relations cases. Judge Ruble Murphy was retained for six-year terms in 2000 and 2006.

Judge Ruble Murphy prefers to have cases settled instead of being litigated. There were some concerns raised about the difficulty of scheduling contested matters in a timely fashion. She is considered to be well versed in the law and is praised for her judicial temperament. For the 2012 General Election, the Illinois State Bar Association determined Hon. Lisa Ruble Murphy is qualified for retention as a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County.

The Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago recommends a "no" vote on Judge Ruble Murphy; all of the other Alliance bar groups, however, recommend a "yes" vote for this judge.

Judge Ruble Murphy responded to the Tribune questionnaire. The Tribune recommends a "no" vote on Judge Ruble Murphy's retention bid. The IVI-IPO has recommended a "yes" vote in favor of Judge Ruble Murphy.

Tribune urges "no" vote on six retention judges

In an editorial today the Chicago Tribune urges voters to say "no" to six judges seeking retention in office this November.

The Tribune singles out Cynthia Brim, Gloria Chevere, Rodney Hughes Brooks, Christopher Donnelly, Pamela Hill-Veal, and Lisa Ruble Murphy.

The links in the preceding sentence will take you to responses submitted by those candidates to the Tribune's questionnaire. Candidates' names that are not linked apparently did not respond to the Tribune questionnaire.

Welcome Cook County Early Voters!

For some reason, many of you will vote as soon as early voting starts on October 22 or shortly thereafter.

I hate to be the one to break it to you -- but, even though you've already done your civic duty, you'll still have to deal with the attack ads and the phone calls right on through November 6.

You've presumably arrived on this page because you want to make choices that you think are appropriate in judicial elections. Hopefully, therefore, you also voted in the Democratic primary -- not because For What It's Worth has entered the partisan fray but, rather, for the simple reason that most of the Cook County judicial races were decided there.

Yes, I know, the Republican primary also decided who would win one seat in the 13th Judicial Subcircuit -- but the point remains: All of the open Appellate Court and countywide Circuit Court seats were decided in the primary. So were most of the subcircuit vacancies. There is a partisan contest for Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court, for one 12th Subcircuit vacancy, and for both vacancies in the 4th Judicial Subcircuit.

That's it.

On the other hand, there are 57 Circuit Court Judges and one Appellate Court Justice on the retention ballot this year. You are asked to vote Yes or No on the question of whether each of these persons should be retained in office. Any judge who fails to get a 60% (plus 1) favorable vote would be looking for work come the first Monday in December.

Most judges -- the vast majority in Cook County, certainly -- merit retention. In any given election cycle, however, there will be some who are controversial, some who have received generally bad marks from the evaluating bar associations or who have bypassed the evaluation process altogether. For What It's Worth makes no recommendations or endorsements. I will, however, shortly put up a post where voters can compare what the different bar associations have said about candidates who have been rejected by one or more of the major bar groups.

In addition to the posts I've already put and the posts I'll be putting up here in the coming days, there are other resources for the voter looking to study up on judges.

Suburban Cook County voters can obtain a sample ballot via this page on the website of Cook County Clerk David Orr. Some of the candidates' names on your sample ballot will be hyperlinked. Clicking on these links will take you to statements provided by the candidates or their campaigns. Circuit Court Judges seeking retention who have submitted statements are Moshe Jacobius, Stuart E. Palmer, Ronald F. Bartkowicz, E. Kenneth Wright, Jr., Lee Preston, James M. Varga, Marcia Maras, Carl Anthony Walker Mike McHale, Diane M. Shelley. Justice James Fitzgerald Smith, who is seeking retention on the Appellate Court, also has a candidate statement on the Cook County Clerk's website.

Voters in the City of Chicago don't get hyperlinked candidate statements on their sample ballots, but Chicago voters can get a sample ballot on the website of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

Some Cook County judges seeking retention have also answered questionnaires posed by the Illinois Civil Justice League. Questionnaire responses received by the ICJL from all Illinois judicial candidates are available through the IllinoisJudges.net website. Cook County judges seeking retention who have answered the ICJL questionnaire are Martin S. Agran, Ellen L. Flannigan, Moshe Jacobius, Lee Preston, Thomas David Roti, and Carl Anthony Walker. Justice James Fitzgerald Smith also submitted a response to the ICJL Questionnaire.

All of the judges seeking retention are listed on the 2012 Cook County Judges Retention Website. Many of the judges (and Justice Smith) also have statements on this site as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Posts on For What It's Worth:

• Chicago Bar Association finds more than 50 judges qualified for retention,
• Nine judges singled out as "Well Qualified" for retention by Chicago Council of Lawyers;
• Chicago Council of Lawyers releases 2012 judicial retention ratings;
• ISBA provides explanations for all of its Cook County judicial ratings;
• Alliance of Bar Associations releases retention grids; and
• Retention Judges: The default vote is 'yes'.

A few words about "judicial temperament"

Voters attempting to evaluate Cook County judicial retention candidates or candidates in the few contested judicial elections on the ballot in Cook County this fall will encounter all sorts of references to "judicial temperament."

The Chicago Bar Association says that "judicial temperament" is one of the eight criteria it considers when reviewing the merits of a judge seeking retention or a judicial candidate seeking election (for the record, the eight categories are "integrity, legal knowledge, legal ability, professional experience, judicial temperament, diligence, punctuality and health factors").

The Chicago Council of Lawyers likewise considers "judicial temperament" as one of the 12 factors it considers in regards to judicial candidates (the CCL's 12 categories being "fairness, including sensitivity to diversity and bias; legal knowledge and skills (competence); integrity; experience; diligence; impartiality; judicial temperament; respect for the rule of law; independence from political and institutional influences; professional conduct; character; and community service").

But what is judicial temperament and how important is it to determining a person's ability to serve (or continue to serve) as a judge?

For What It's Worth endorses no candidates and makes no recommendations about candidates. But I've been around, practicing in courts around this state for over 30 years.

I can tell you that a temperate judge treats all persons in front of the bench with respect and courtesy and that a temperate judge expects and usually receives courtesy and civil behavior from those who appear in his or her court.

Nobody likes being bullied. And, sadly, a judge with a poor temperament is often a bully, pushing people around simply because he or she can, embarrassing lawyers in front of their clients, and in general not treating the people who appear in court with the respect and civility which one might expect.

On the other hand, I've appeared in front of judges who had awful temperament... and were good judges... and I've appeared in front of judges who were the distilled essence of excellent judicial temperament... and were terrible judges.

No, I'm not naming names. But one judge comes to mind -- and this was a long time ago and not in Cook County -- who was grouchy, irascible, sour, and even downright mean to those appearing in front of him. To everyone who appeared before him. In that county, at that time, some judges treated Cook County lawyers with disdain, openly favoring the members of the local bar. Not this judge. He didn't seem to like anyone.

Now, don't get me wrong: I didn't enjoy my visits to this man's courtroom. But, temperament aside, I thought him a pretty good judge: From what I could observe, his rulings were based on the law, sound, and understandable -- even when they went against me. I could live with that.

It beats the heck out of the alternative.

Again, years ago, there was a judge who was good temperament personified. I appeared on a regular basis in front of this judge and was always treated civilly and with respect. And I often left that courtroom coming thisclose to losing my temper. (There were a number of incidents in this courtroom where other lawyers actually did lose their tempers.) The problem was that, while this judge was a decent, nice, caring person, this judge was also indecisive, inconsistent and unpredictable.

No, the law is not an exact science. One can never predict with absolute certainty that this motion will be granted or that another motion will be denied. Lawyers can not ethically guarantee results in any case. But some things in some cases are pretty predictable. Judges are guided by statutes and the common law, as set out in the reported cases. In many instances, therefore, when judges follow the law, the results should be fairly predictable.

Clients hire lawyers because of the lawyer's perceived expertise and skill. A lawyer who tells a client she has a great case -- and then loses -- will likely not get more business from that client. But how do we know what is a 'good case' or a 'close case" or a 'great case' or a 'tough case'? We know the law (or we've looked it up) and we evaluate how a court or jury should respond to the facts and the governing law. I do a lot of insurance coverage work. Much of my career has been spent evaluating how a court should rule in particular circumstances and recommending client actions based on those evaluations. When I think my client has a close case, I say so, and the client decides how, or whether, to proceed. But when I evaluate a case as a strong one, one in which the statutes and cases predict victory, I expect to win.

From my perspective, therefore, if a judge doesn't follow the law and rules unpredictably, especially when I believe (in the best exercise of my professional judgment) that I have a strong case, I don't care how nice the judge may be, or how good his or her temperament is: Legal knowledge, ability, skills and respect for the law and precedent trumps temperament, in my opinion, every time.

Given my druthers, of course, I'd take both.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Programming note: Round-up posts on contested Cook County judicial elections and on the retention election will be forthcoming in the next several days.