Alliance grids -- further updates

The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening has released updated ratings for persons seeking election to judicial office in Cook County in the March primary.

As always, my sincere thanks to Alliance Administrator Joyce Williams for sharing these with FWIW.

The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening is comprised of the Arab American Bar Association (AABAR) (this is the newest Alliance member), the Asian American Bar Association of Greater Chicago (AABA), the Black Women Lawyers' Association of Greater Chicago (BWLA), the Chicago Council of Lawyers (CCL), the Cook County Bar Association (CCBA), the Decalogue Society of Lawyers (DSL), the Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois (HBA), the Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois (HLAI), the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA), the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago (LAGBAC), the Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois (PRBA), and the Women's Bar Association of Illinois (WBAI), working collaboratively to improve the process of screening judicial candidates in Cook County, Illinois.

The Alliance does not include the Chicago Bar Association (CBA), which maintains its own evaluation process.

Candidates seeking screening from the Alliance must complete a lengthy questionnaire (a questionnaire that is similar to, but sufficiently different from, the separate CBA questionnaire that completion of one will not suffice for the other). Investigators are then assigned by the Alliance from any of the member groups; thus, members of Alliance groups are not necessarily involved in the vetting of any one candidate's written application -- calling references (including lawyers that have been on the other side of the candidate's cases), reviewing written submissions, and so forth. When that phase of the investigation is completed, however, and after medical waivers and ARDC (or JIB) waivers are obtained, a hearing is scheduled for the applicant. All Alliance groups are asked to participate in these hearings. Each evaluator at the hearings (representing one or more Alliance members) will have the benefit of the Alliance investigators' work, even though the investigators may not be associated with the evaluator's bar group.

So all the Alliance members start with the same investigative materials, and participate in the same candidate interviews -- but, because each group has their own evaluators present for the interviews, they do not always reach the same conclusions.

The CBA issues written findings explaining its evaluations. Two of the Alliance members, the ISBA and the CCL, issue written findings to the public as well. The other Alliance members may or may not explain their ratings to individual candidates; whether they do or do not, however, these explanations are not made public.

Much of the evaluation process is confidential. Candidates do not learn which lawyers said what about them, good or bad. Candidates and evaluators all sign promises not to disclose what is said at a candidate's interview.

Different Alliance groups give different ratings. Some Alliance groups will issue no rating other than Qualified/Not Qualified or Recommended/Not Recommended. The Chicago Bar Association issues a Highly Qualified Rating, as do some Alliance members. Others offer a Highly Recommended rating. The CCL issues positive ratings of Qualified, Well Qualified, or Highly Qualified.

As you review these grids, keep in mind that, HQ = Highly Qualified, WQ = Well Qualified, Q = Qualified, NQ = Not Qualified, HR = Highly Recommended, R = Recommended, and NR = Not Recommended.

All Alliance members automatically give an "NR" rating to candidates who do not have enough years in practice or who failed or refused to participate in the evaluation process.

There are very few blanks left in the grids. But in these cases, a member association has not yet finished its rating or the candidate is appealing a rating and the appeal process is not yet complete. Several squares are marked with the symbol ¹. In these cases, the Alliance member was unable to get an evaluator, or a sufficient number of evaluators as required by its own bylaws, to a particular candidate's hearing. The reader will see many of these symbols in the AABAR column. In at least some of these cases, the Alliance may have decided, as permitted by its bylaws, to use a prior, but still recent evaluation of a candidate; it is my understanding that some of these evaluations may predate the AABAR's participation in the Alliance.

If there are further updates, I will post them.

With all this firmly in mind, then, herewith the Alliance grids (click on any image to enlarge or clarify):

Now... if you want to see what the Chicago Council of Lawyers said about the Supreme Court candidates, Appellate Court candidates, countywide candidates, candidates in Subcircuits 1-6, Subcircircuits 7-10, or Subcircuits 12-15, just click on the links in this sentence.

Similarly, if you want to see what the Illinois State Bar Association about the Supreme Court candidates, Appellate Court candidates, countywide candidates, candidates in Subcircuits 1-6, Subcircircuits 7-10, or Subcircuits 12-15, click on the links in this sentence.

And, finally, if you want to go outside the grids and see what the Chicago Bar Association said about the Supreme Court candidates, Appellate Court candidates, countywide candidates, candidates in Subcircuits 1-6, Subcircircuits 7-10, or Subcircuits 12-15, just click on the links in this sentence.