The Chicago Bar Association has issued ratings for the candidates in each of these contested races. (To access the complete CBA report for all judicial candidates on the November ballot, including retention candidates, can be accessed from this page of the CBA website.)
Here are the CBA's evaluations of candidates in the contested subcircuit contests:
12th Subcircuit
Vacancy of the Hon. William O. Maki
JOEL CHUPACK --- HIGHLY QUALIFIED
Joel Chupack is “Highly Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Chupack was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1982 and is currently practicing with a small firm concentrating in real estate, probate, and civil litigation. Mr. Chupack has extensive practice experience and is highly regarded for his knowledge of the law, legal scholarship, legal ability, and excellent temperament. Mr. Chupack, who is actively involved in the legal profession, has published numerous legal articles and is a frequent speaker at continuing legal education seminars.
DAVID STUDENROTH --- QUALIFIED
David Studenroth is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Studenroth was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1987 and is currently engaged in private practice concentrating in criminal matters. Mr. Studenroth has extensive trial experience and is well regarded for his knowledge of the law, legal ability, diligence, and excellent temperament.
13th Subcircuit
Vacancy of the Hon. Clayton J. Crane
GARY WILLIAM SEYRING --- QUALIFIED
Gary William Seyring is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Seyring was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1978 and is currently engaged in private practice concentrating in family law, real estate, business law, and wills, trusts and estates. Mr. Seyring has commercial litigation experience and is well regarded for his knowledge of probate, tax and family law. Mr. Seyring is actively involved in community service and highly regarded by the judges before whom he has appeared.
KETKI SHROFF STEFFEN --- QUALIFIED
Judge Ketki Shroff Steffen is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Judge Steffen was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1991 and was first appointed to the Circuit Court in 2010. Judge Steffen served on the bench for two years and presided over traffic, civil and criminal domestic violence cases. From 2013 to November 2015, she served as an Administrative Law Judge Arbitrator for the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission. Judge Steffen was reappointed to the Circuit Court in 2015 and is currently assigned to the First Municipal District where she presides over forcible detainer cases. Judge Steffen is diligent and highly regarded her knowledge of the law, judicial ability, and integrity.
Vacancy of the Hon. Jeffrey Lawrence
DANIEL PATRICK FITZGERALD --- NOT RECOMMENDED
Daniel Patrick Fitzgerald is “Not Recommended” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Fitzgerald was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1991 and is currently senior in-house counsel for a large corporation. Mr. Fitzgerald has worked as an in-house counsel for twelve (12) years and represents the company in a variety of civil litigation matters. Mr. Fitzgerald’s prior legal experience includes: serving as a law clerk to a Cook County Chancery Court Judge (2 years); Chicago’s Office of Inspector General (3 years); General Counsel, Illinois Racing Board (3 years); and Assistant Illinois Attorney General (6 years). While Mr. Fitzgerald has had a broad range of experience, his court and trial experience is limited. He does not possess the depth and breadth of legal knowledge and practice to effectively serve as a Circuit Court Judge.
SHANNON P. O’MALLEY --- NOT RECOMMENDED
Shannon P. O’Malley 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.
Vacancy of the Hon. Ann O’Donnell
SAMUEL J. BETAR, III --- HIGHLY QUALIFIED
Judge Samuel J. Betar, III is “Highly Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Judge Betar was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1983 and has served as a judge since 1998. Judge Betar has mentored new judges and has spoken at the state judicial conference. Judge Betar is actively involved in community service and is highly regarded for his knowledge of the law, effective management of his courtroom, and outstanding temperament.
CHRISTINE SVENSON --- NOT RECOMMENDED
Christine Svenson is “Not Recommended” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. Svenson was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1995 and is currently a solo practitioner concentrating in family law, employment law, election law, and workers’ compensation matters. Concerns about Ms. Svenson’s knowledge of the law, legal ability, and practice experience were raised in the wake of harsh criticism that she received from the Illinois Appellate Court for not following the Appellate Court Rules in a recent appeal that she was handling. Ms. Svenson does not possess the requisite depth and breadth of legal knowledge and practice experience to effectively serve as a Circuit Court Judge.
15th Subcircuit
Vacancy of the Hon. Frank G. Zelezinski
KARLA MARIE FIAONI --- HIGHLY QUALIFIED
Karla Marie Fiaoni is “Highly Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. Fiaoni was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1989 and is currently in private practice concentrating in criminal defense and domestic relations matters. Ms. Fiaoni has extensive trial and practice experience and is highly regarded for her integrity, excellent demeanor, knowledge of the law, and legal ability.
SCOTT MCKENNA --- QUALIFIED
Scott McKenna is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. McKenna was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1996 and is a partner in a small law firm concentrating in civil litigation and insurance defense. Mr. McKenna has extensive practice experience and is well regarded by his peers for his knowledge of the law and legal ability.
* * * * * * * * *
A complete explanation of the process followed by the Chicago Bar Association in evaluating judicial candidates is found in the "Judge Smart" Guide that can be accessed from the web page linked in the second paragraph of this post. Some excepts from that explanation follow:The Investigative Process
The Committee's work begins when the candidate submits his or her completed questionnaire. The 16-page questionnaire for sitting judges, require the candidate to list personal, professional and judicial references and to provide the names of lawyers who have recently appeared before him or her. Candidates with fewer than four years on the bench are also asked to identify adversaries with whom they worked before taking the bench. Lawyer candidates are asked to provide detailed information about their jury and non-jury trial experiences, the names of five judges before whom they have appeared and a list of at least 20 lawyers who have represented adverse positions in matters handled by them.
All candidates are also asked to relate any present or recent health problems and to submit written authorizations signed by their doctors. Complaints against a candidate to the Attorney's Registration and Disciplinary Commission and the Judicial Inquiry Board are to be described, and relevant reports and correspondence submitted with the questionnaire. Criticism of professional misconduct, in any formal civil or criminal proceeding or in the media, must also be reported by the candidate.
The JEC obtained written materials dealing with the candidates' judicial performance from the major newspapers. In several cases, transcripts and other relevant, publicly available documents relating to official investigations of judges and court personnel were obtained from official sources.
The complete file was then assigned to a two-person investigation team. The investigators conducted personal interviews with the listed legal references. A specially assigned team of investigators reviewed the files of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission and submitted to the investigators and the hearing panel a report on the information disclosed in those files. On completion of the interviews and a review of the file materials, the investigations team completed a comprehensive report regarding the qualifications of the candidate.
The Hearing Process
Hearings were conducted on Tuesday and Thursday evenings and on Saturday mornings. Hearing division members were randomly assigned, in accordance with the JEC resolution, to either of two hearing rooms by a blind drawing for room assignment. Typically, 12 to 15 JEC members were assigned to each room. Only at that time did they learn which candidates they would be evaluating and who the other members of the panel were. Each member of the hearing panel was provided with a copy of the investigator's report, a copy of the completed questionnaire with all material submitted by the candidate, and copies of any other relevant documents including, in some cases, newspaper clippings and transcripts of court proceedings.
Each member and the candidate execute a written oath to keep the nature and content of the report, questioning, and hearing confidential.
The JEC included in its investigation all possible sources of information available to it. However, because the Committee cannot compel the production of evidence or the attendance of witnesses before it nor, understandably, expect disclosure by the authorities of evidence discovered in pending investigations, the JEC cannot be assured that it has uncovered all the evidence which, in the future, may lead to formal charges. Within its authority, the JEC develops the most complete record available and gives careful and thoughtful consideration to the available evidence.
A member of the Executive Committee chaired each hearing. The candidate was advised of the procedures to be employed at the hearing and then questioned at length by the chair in regard to abilities, experiences, perceived strengths and weaknesses and, where appropriate, specific problems disclosed in the investigation. The chair then invited questions from members of the hearing panel. The candidate was then given an opportunity to make any statement he or she chose in his or her own behalf. On excusing the candidate from the hearing room, the chair then opened the floor to discussion of the candidate's qualifications among the panel members. Only after the members had been given the opportunity to openly voice their opinions was the issue of the finding of the JEC put to a vote.
The Vote
The hearing panel members voted by secret ballot and were asked to rate the candidate as “Highly Qualified,” "Qualified" or "Not Recommended.” The JEC’s governing resolution provides that to be found “Highly Qualified,” the candidate must receive that rating on 80% of the ballots. To be found “Qualified” the candidate must receive a favorable rating on 60% of the ballots. The failure of a candidate to receive 60 percent affirmative vote results in a finding of "Not Recommended." Each hearing panel member was also asked for written comments on the candidate’s qualifications, areas worthy of commendation and areas of needed improvement. Following a tabulation of the vote, the chair reviewed and capsulized the written comments in preparing the statement of reasons given in support of the Committee's finding.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment