For the mathematically-challenged, that means four current AJs were found "not recommended" by the CBA.
Two, Judges Stuart Katz and Patricia Logue, did not return the CBA's questionnaires and were thus automatically found "not recommended" under the CBA JEC's rules.
Frequently -- and I don't know whether this is the case here -- judges who are about to retire will decline to be screened. If I get further information on this, one way or the other, I can update this post.
Two current associate judges did participate in the CBA evaluation process but were found wanting by the CBA JEC.
These two judges are Judges Luciano Panici and Richard Schwind. The CBA's comments concerning these judges are set out in their entirety below.
JUDGE LUCIANO PANICI – NOT RECOMMENDEDInterestingly, the CBA's press release about the AJ evaluations was time-stamped at 10:49 this morning.
Judge Luciano Panici is “Not Recommended” for reappointment as an Associate Judge. Judge Panici was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1979 and was appointed an Associate Judge in 2001. Judge Panici is currently assigned to a bond and felony preliminary hearing court in the Sixth Municipal District. Judge Panici exhibits a casual attitude regarding whether the State has met the burden of proof, giving defendants and those who appear in his court the impression that the Judge favors the State. The Judge openly expressed the view that nearly all of the defendants who appear before him are guilty. Judge Panici’s conduct on the bench and comments regarding defendants who appear before him are improper, insensitive and evidence bias. Judge Panici lacks the judgment and integrity to serve as an Associate Judge.
JUDGE RICHARD SCHWIND – NOT RECOMMENDED
Judge Richard Schwind is “Not Recommended” for reappointment as an Associate Judge. Judge Schwind was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1978 and was appointed an Associate Judge in 2012. Judge Schwind served in the Third Municipal District for six years before being reassigned to the First Municipal District in October 2018. Judge Schwind has serious issues with integrity, judicial demeanor and temperament. His statements to minority litigants appearing before him are insensitive, improper and evidence bias.
Somehow, however, I had a comment yesterday in my comment queue spilling the beans in re: Panici and Schwind. I did not let the comment through until after I received the CBA's press release -- my initial plan was to seek confirmation from the CBA, but I wanted to get a little legal work done today before diving back into this. Historically, the bar associations have been pretty careful not to 'leak' information about ratings before an official rollout; that is why this seemed odd. To be continued?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NB, if slightly off topic: Happy candidates, with good ratings, were never sworn to secrecy by any bar group that I've ever heard about. Once a candidate receives a rating, he or she is free to broadcast it to the world, to Tweet it, put it on Facebook, or Instagram, or whatever is the new social-media-flavor-of-the-week. Some candidates have, over the years, been annoyed with yours truly for not immediately publishing their good news here. And, truly, I'd be much happier if the bar associations put out evaluations on a rolling basis throughout each election cycle. But they don't. And I do try to confirm information I release in posts on this blog -- and, unless they're my own, I never, ever vouch for comments.
Which are quickly becoming ever more rude and mean and vicious.
With a Supreme Court seat at stake, I reluctantly realize that, in this election cycle, I will have to allow some greater "latitude" (read: attitude) than I would like -- but it amazes me that some of these safely-anonymous commenters may someday seek an appointment from the eventual winner of said Supreme Court seat, despite making vitriolic, mean-spirited attacks between now and the next Feast of St. Patrick on that same person.
I mean -- the mean, angry, sometimes scary comments in my queue can't all be from consultants trying to bamboozle candidates into hiring them... can they?
Jack,
ReplyDeleteAs I am sure you can easily imagine, the AJs and the OCJ are informed of the AJ ratings. Once those are sent, the judges start talking. Indeed, some would say that gossip is the only thing that most judges in Cook County do. Some AJ's or CJ's don't like other AJ's and they start talking and leaking to poison others. I doubt that the CBA fibbed and the most likely source is a back-stabbing colleague. It's not like Panicci had many friends after he snitched on Valarie Turner. I know, some will say that it was his son who snitched, but we all know that sonny boy wouldn't have said a word about the Rhonda Crawford episode unless daddy had told him so. None of those do-nothing judges in the Second Subcircuit (all 6 of them) would have never retired as early as they did but for Pannici. So, which esteemed jurist of the Circuit Court of Cook County would like to take credit for this one?
You mean there is a Judicial Code of Silence? Nooooo!!!
ReplyDeleteI don't personally know Judge Panici or have any relationship to him either, but I understand that there may be a problem with the CBA panel members. It would have been more credible or honest review if the CBA committee actually quoted specific words or views to support their global conclusions re bias and improper comments. When the CBA says, "The Judge openly expressed the view that nearly all of the defendants who appear before him are guilty. Judge Panici’s conduct on the bench and comments regarding defendants who appear before him are improper, insensitive and evidence bias. " then it should publish specifics instead of their general conclusory opinions. We don't really know what they are talking about..
ReplyDeleteSince this judge sits in a preliminary hearing court, I heard that the CBA panel couldn't justify the fact that he finds probable cause 95% of the time... Isn't that biased? No, For the benefit of the young, inexperienced civil attorneys working downtown that volunteer for this committee, a PH court does find probable cause over 90% of each preliminary hearing, because the standard for PC is so low and since the Felony Review Unit of the States Attorneys office has to find PC and approve felony charges in each case, those matters without PC are not approved and charged so the overwhelming percentage of PH's result in a finding of probable cause... That does not make him biased,, If he said something biased, detail it or keep your unsupported conclusions to yourself.
We are beginning to witness a lack of integrity and objectivity in the individual bar associations that send "green" young lawyers to the interviews without any checks and balances to simply support or punish their agenda. If you haven't witnessed these interviews or committees, you should.
This is Judge Stuart Katz.
ReplyDeleteAs Jack surmised, I am indeed retiring as of the end of July. Since I am only going to be retained for one month into the new term, I chose not to fill out the voluminous CBA evaluation forms. I highly respect the process and believe in its usefulness, and I wish all of my colleagues well.
Stuart
What’s so amazing about anonymous haters, Jack? Most judges and wannabes are hypocrites. They smile as they stab you in the back. Who is using the fire truck his cycle?
ReplyDelete#lornapropes2020
ReplyDeleteI just cast my ballot and voted no to retain them all. Why? Self-preservation. Most of the AJ’s did not have to run multiple times and spend obscene amounts of money to get their robes, as I did. Too many of them have one with Evans and get preferential treatment over me. ME, an ELECTED full Circuit Judge. It’s time to show these AJ’s my power.
ReplyDeleteThis above comment is a joke...I hope. And it isn't at all funny. These good men have been trashed by misguided young lawyers.
DeleteWOW Anon 5/27, you are so powerful that you must remain anonymous and are full circuit yet must envy and resent AJs that get preferential treatment over you. What a loser... Go get a real job and bill some hours.. Then tell us how powerful you are..
ReplyDeleteI love your whining, "most AJs did not have to run multiple times and spend obscene amounts of money to get their robes, AS I DID".....Thanks for proving that the AJs are more selected by merit and you by spending obscene amounts of money.. Try looking at yourself in a mirror..
There have been multiple threats by organizations of retaliation against the circuit court judges if they don't vote out certain AJ candidates. I'd like to respond to these irrational people:
ReplyDelete1. Since when did one bar association get so much power? The CBA is a single reviewing entity, and their evaluations are frequently at odds with the evaluations of other bar associations when more are involved. While I respect this process and its value, a person's career shouldn't be so easily destroyed over one critical evaluation.
2. How about fixing the problems, rather than ruining someone's career? Mentoring, sensitivity training and oversight would help judges who have had specific issues in court. Don't assume that these judges lack legal knowledge, fairness and experience. Remember: all of the judges were found qualified and recommended in the past, otherwise they would not have been selected as associate judges. Throwing them out of office is extreme and devastating, both to these people personally and to the public. Judges should be able to operate with independence and not be scared to rule according to the case presented to them, fearful of public response.
3. Certain of these judges were found to be recommended, and have had long, successful careers. Just because some people or groups disagree with their rulings or findings should not subject them to summary dismissal.
4. The concept, espoused by some groups, that they will target all of the criminal court judges in the next public retention vote for retaining the AJ's is irresponsible, illogical and downright childish. Who do these people think they are? They are going to hold the circuit judges hostage unless their demands are met? What kind of idiot threatens to remove highly experienced, dedicated jurists because they don't get their way? The unreasonableness of their threats shows them for what they are: uninformed, immature fools who are more interested in their own publicity than in the public good. These people are fringe radicals who need to be ignored and go away.
Let's praise the judiciary for their hard work and dedication to public service. Fix what needs to be fixed and put an end to the extremist demands.
Judge Stuart Katz