Tuesday, June 06, 2017

Campaign website up and running for Judge Gerald Cleary

Judge Gerald Cleary now has a campaign website up and running. That's a link to the site in the preceding sentence; a link has also been added to the blog Sidebar.

The Illinois Supreme Court initially appointed Judge Cleary to a countywide vacancy in late 2015. After choosing not to run in the 2016 primary (he filed, but withdrew from the race at an early stage), Cleary was appointed to the Suriano vacancy in the 10th Subcircuit.

Cleary has been licensed as an attorney in Illinois since 1989. His campaign biography stresses his extensive litigation experience at a variety of firms, starting with Querrey & Harrow, then moving to SmithAmundsen (as a founding partner) and, finally, to Pappas O’Connor.

The campaign bio also notes that Cleary was born and raised in the area, adding that his wife, Pattie, grew up in Edison Park and is a graduate of Resurrection High School. The Clearys now live in St. Catherine Laboure Parish, in Glenview, with their four children.

Cleary was previously a candidate for a 10th Subcircuit vacancy in 2008 and for a countywide vacancy in 2012.


Anonymous said...

Please correct your campaign website re your biography and your recent assignment to mortgage foreclosure. Yes, in Chancery they do handle all those equitable remedies that you don't . But in mortgage foreclosure on the 28th floor, it is disingenuous to claim that you handle the following: the Chancery Division that handles statutory and administrative reviews, temporary and permanent injunctions, declaratory judgments,

Yes the Chancery Div does handle those cases, but you don't. So let's start with honesty and candor.
You handle a myriad of default judgments and foreclosures.

Jack Leyhane said...

Actually, Anon, in fairness, the wording is quite careful. The passage referred to describes what the Chancery Division does -- something that most voters will not necessarily know -- without making a specific claim that the candidate does all those things.

I agree that you or I might have worded that passage differently... I also agree that, on a quick skim, the way we typically read online, the passage could give a different impression.

And that, gentle reader, is one of the reasons that mandatory efiling scares the living #$@! out of me. We tend to read pixels on a screen differently -- more superficially -- than we do words on paper.

Why do we think elected judges will do a better job of reading screens than we do?

I know people say this will be a self-correcting problem -- us old, unadaptable Luddites will inevitably go the way of all flesh, and our young, eager, tattooed successors, who have grown up with their noses glued to screens, will make no distinctions between words on a page or words on a screen.

Which sounds great... until you realize that younger people read screens just as superficially as we tend to do....

No, the ISBA Journal arrived in my (physical) mailbox yesterday -- the cover is on the coming future of mandatory efiling -- and it may have just been a cool breeze that caught me just so, but I felt a sudden chill....