Araujo and Schwind assigned to "administrative duties," referals made to JIB

Pursuant to action taken Wednesday by the Executive Committee of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Circuit Judge Mauricio Araujo and Associate Judge Richard D. Schwind have been reassigned to administrative duties. The assignments are effective until further notice.

The Executive Committee’s decision on the reassignments followed a meeting of the Circuit Court of Cook County Executive Committee convened by Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans.

Judge Araujo's reassignment came about because of conduct referred to in this prior FWIW post. The matter that got Judge Schwind reassigned is discussed in further detail in this post.

According to the press release issued by Chief Judge Evans's office last evening, the Executive Committee referred Judge Araujo to sexual harassment training and counseling and Judge Schwind to sensitivity training. Both matters have also been referred to the Judicial Inquiry Board.

Pursuant to Article VI, Section 15(c) of the 1970 Illinois Constitution, as amended, the Judicial Inquiry Board is authorized to receive, initiate, and investigate complaints concerning active Illinois state court judges. When warranted, it is the responsibility of the Judicial Inquiry Board to file a public complaint against a judge with another constitutional creation, the Illinois Courts Commission. In that instance the JIB serves as prosecutor and the Courts Commission decides what sanction, if any, will be entered against the judge.

The process followed by the JIB in responding to complaints is detailed at this page of the JIB website.

Essentially, though, when presented with a complaint, the JIB may close the complaint because it does not sufficiently allege misconduct or incapacity under the law, investigate the complaint to determine whether the allegations may be well-founded, or require the judge to appear before the board to answer questions regarding the alleged incapacity or misconduct.

Only if the JIB takes the next step, that of filing a complaint with the Courts Commission, will the JIB's evaluation of the charges become public. Quoting now from the JIB website, "Should someone other than a Board or staff member make public the existence of a Board inquiry or investigation, such disclosure is not within the authority of the Board to address. This constitutional requirement of confidentiality protects the judiciary from unjust criticism and protects those who furnish information to the Board."

So the Board can not and will not discuss its investigation into these matters and will not respond to inquiries why it does or does not charge a judge in any particular case.

Therefore, unless a complaint to the Courts Commission results in either case, this figures to be the last we hear about these matters.

The assignments of these two judges to administrative duties are effective until further notice.