Friday, April 29, 2022

Advocates Society to honor John J. Pikarski, Jr. on May 18

The Advocates Society of Greater Chicago will host an Award of Merit Celebration on Wednesday, May 18, from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m., at Café La Cave, 2777 S. Mannheim Rd., Des Plaines, honoring the career of John J. Pikarski, Jr. and, in particular, his contributions to the advancement and progress of the Polish community in Chicago.

Tickets for the event are $125 each; a table of 10 may be had for $1125. Tickets may be obtained on this page of the Advocates website.

The Advocates are offering sponsorship opportunities as well.

Among the opportunities:

  • Alcohol and Beverage Sponsor - $1,500
    (includes prominent advertisement on signage at the event);

  • Wine Sponsor - $1,000
    (includes table tent cards with company name or logo); or

  • Floral Sponsor - $750
    (includes table tent cards with company name or logo).
The Advocates are also offering opportunities to purchase ads in the event program. Full page ads are available for $400; half-page ads cost $250. Ads (in .jpg or .png format) may be uploaded to advocatessociety@gmail.com.

Further information about ads or sponsorship opportunities may be found on the Advocates website. Use the above email address for any inquiries.

Thursday, April 28, 2022

Looking at precedents for judicial discipline

Judicial discipline is in the news these days, what with WBEZ's recent disclosure of a second judge's presence at the scene of (and ownership of the car involved in) a November 2021 collision which resulted in DUI charges against another judge, and the Judicial Inquiry Board's recent filing of a Complaint before the Courts Commission, alleging that a sitting Appellate Court Justice tried to intervene in an appeal involving his nephew.

In this post, earlier today, I predicted that the failure of the second judge to cooperate in the investigation of her colleague, in the absence of a specific statute or ethical provision compelling her cooperation, would probably not result in formal discipline.

Judges who have faced DUI charges, on the other hand, have also faced discipline before the Illinois Courts Commission in ths past. In fact several of the just fewer than 100 cases brought before the Courts Commission (an entity created by the 1970 Illiois Constitution) have involved charges of driving while impaired. Here is a list of those cases and their outcomes:
  • 73-CC-6, filed November 19, 1973: Robert D. Law, Circuit Judge, 15th Circuit, Stephenson County. The Complaint alleged three incidents involving driving while intoxicated. Order entered February 21, 1974: Respondent censured;

  • 75-CC-3, filed August 21, 1975: Robert A. Sweeney, Associate Judge, Circuit Court of Cook County. The Complaint alleged that Respondent drove while intoxicated, interfered with police investigation, resisted arrest and lawful police processing. Order entered October 30, 1975: Respondent reprimanded;

  • 80-CC-4, filed July 11, 1980: John M. Karns, Jr., Appellate Judge, 5th Appellate District. The Complaint alleged that on the night of September 21, 1978, the Respondent was stopped and arrested by an officer of the Caseyville, Illinois police department for driving under the influence of alcohol and weaving from lane to lane. At the time of his arrest and during his subsequent processing, Respondent, after advising the arresting officer that he was a judicial officer, cursed and orally abused the arresting police officer and other police personnel and refused to cooperate with police personnel who were processing him. He further made threats to fight and challenged one or more of the police personnel to engage in such fighting. The following day he aided and abetted violations of Illinois law and participated in the circumvention, frustration and obstruction of the appropriate legal and judicial process whereby the charges would otherwise have been legally and properly adjudicated. As but one aspect of such misconduct, he and his counsel took custody of all pertinent records of his arrest; such records are no longer available and he has never been prosecuted for the charges placed against him on the night of September 21, 1978. Order entered December 17, 1982: Respondent reprimanded;

  • 90-CC-1, filed August 16,1990: George H. Ray, Associate Judge, 7th Circuit, Sangamon County. The Complaint alleged that Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and refusing to cooperate with the deputy sheriff. The Respondent stipulated to the facts; as a result, the Courts Commission found Respondent had engaged in conduct bringing the judicial office into disrepute. Order entered October 30, 1991: Respondent reprimanded;

  • 99-CC-1, filed June 29, 1999: Edwin A. Gausselin, Associate Judge, Circuit Court of Cook County. The Complaint alleged that Respondent had been drinking alcohol and was under the influence of alcohol at a time when he was stopped by a law enforcement officer, refused to take field sobriety and breathalyzer tests, and volunteered information that he was a member of the judiciary after being detained by police officers. Respondent stipulated to and admitted each of the allegations of fact contained in the Board's complaint. Based upon the Stipulation, the Board and Respondent submitted a joint recommendation that the Illinois Courts Commission impose the discipline of reprimand. Order entered November 18, 1999: Joint Stipulation and Recommendation adopted. Respondent reprimanded;

  • 99-CC-2, filed June 29, 1999: Cynthia Raccuglia, Circuit Judge, 13th Circuit, LaSalle County. The Complaint alleged that Respondent had been drinking alcohol and was under the influence of alcohol at a time when she was stopped by a law enforcement officer, that Respondent failed field sobriety tests, and Respondent refused to take a breathalyzer test. The Complaint also alleged that Respondent communicated information to law enforcement officers, which she knew or should have known would be perceived by the officers as an effort to use her judicial office to influence the officers to not charge her with a traffic violation. The Respondent and the Board agreed to a Stipulation of Facts. The Board stipulated that the clear and convincing evidence did not establish that Respondent intended to use her judicial office to influence the actions of the officers. Respondent stipulated to and admitted each of the remaining allegations of fact contained in the Board's Complaint and admitted that she violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. Based upon the Stipulation, the Board and Respondent submitted a joint recommendation that the Illinois Courts Commission impose the discipline of reprimand. Order entered October 9, 2001: Joint Stipulation and Recommendation adopted. Respondent reprimanded;

  • 07-CC-1, filed January 22, 2007: Steven L. Nordquist, Associate Judge, 17th Circuit, Winnebago County. The Complaint alleged that on June 30, 2006 Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and was issued citations for driving under the influence of alcohol, driving with an alcohol concentration above .08, and speeding. On July 26, 2006 Respondent pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol. Respondent was sentenced to court supervision for a period of twelve months and restricted driving privilege for ninety days, was fined $2300, and was ordered to attend a victim impact panel and complete treatment pursuant to an alcohol evaluation. The speeding violation was dismissed. The Complaint also alleged that Respondent volunteered his status as a judge to the DUI Investigator. Respondent stipulated to and admitted to each of the allegations of fact and each of the alleged violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct as entered into a joint recommendation that the Illinois Courts Commission discipline Respondent with a reprimand. Based upon Respondent's stipulation, the Board and Respondent tendered a joint recommendation that the Illinois Courts Commission discipline Respondent with a reprimand. Order entered August 9, 2007: Stipulation and Joint Recommendation adopted. Respondent reprimanded;

  • 07-CC-2, filed October 2, 2007: Jan V. Fiss, Circuit Judge, 20th Circuit, St. Clair County; Patrick Young, Circuit Judge, 20th Circuit, St. Clair County.

    The Complaint alleged that on December 3, 2006, Judge Patrick Young drove a car while under the influence of alcohol and was involved in an accident in which the driver of another car sustained injuries. Judge Young received traffic citations for driving while under the influence of alcohol and for failure to yield while turning left. On March 2, 2007, Judge Young was found guilty by stipulated bench trial of the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol; he was sentenced to court supervision for a period of two years; fined $1500; and ordered to complete treatment pursuant to an alcohol evaluation. Judge Young's citation for failure to yield while turning left was dismissed.

    The Complaint further alleged that on December 3, 2006, Judge Jan V. Fiss was a passenger in Judge Young's vehicle; was aware that Judge Young was driving the vehicle after Judge Young had been drinking alcohol for much of the day; and illegally transported open alcohol as a passenger in Judge Young's vehicle. On March 20, 2007, Judge Fiss pled guilty to illegal transportation of alcohol by a passenger and was sentenced to court supervision for a period of sixty days and was fined $500.00. In regard to the Board's Complaint against Judge Fiss ("Respondent"), the Board and the Respondent filed a Stipulation and Joint Recommendation wherein Respondent stipulated to and admitted to each of the allegations of fact and each of the alleged violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct as stated in the Board's Complaint. Based upon Respondent's stipulation, the Board and Respondent tendered a joint recommendation that the Illinois Courts Commission discipline Respondent with a reprimand. The Respondent also filed a Submission of Facts in Support of the Joint Stipulation and Recommendation of Reprimand.

    Order entered December 20, 2007: Stipulation and Joint Recommendation adopted. Respondent reprimanded.

    As to the Board's Complaint against Judge Young ("Respondent"), the Board and the Respondent filed a Stipulation and Joint Recommendation wherein Respondent stipulated to and admitted each of the allegations of fact and each of the alleged violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct as stated in the Board's Complaint. Based upon Respondent's stipulation, the Board and Respondent tendered a joint recommendation that the Illinois Courts Commission discipline Respondent with a reprimand. The Respondent also filed a Submission of Facts in Support of the Joint Stipulation and Recommendation of Reprimand.

    Order entered December 20, 2007: Stipulation and Joint Recommendation adopted. Respondents reprimanded;

  • 09-CC-1, filed June 3, 2009: Sheila M. McGinnis, Circuit Judge, Circuit Court of Cook County. The Complaint alleged that on May 9, 2008, Judge Sheila M. McGinnis ("Respondent") rear-ended a vehicle at a stoplight, which resulted in damage to the motorist's vehicle; a police officer, who responded to the scene of the accident, detected alcohol on the judge's breath when he attempted to question her. The Complaint also alleged that Judge McGinnis declined to take a field sobriety test at the scene; refused to answer questions; and failed to provide the officer with proof of valid automobile insurance. Judge McGinnis was subsequently arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and issued citations for driving under the influence of alcohol, failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident, and failure to provide proof of valid insurance. The Complaint further alleged that while at the police station, Judge McGinnis again declined to take a Breathalyzer test. On January 20, 2009, Judge McGinnis pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol and she was sentenced to court supervision for a period of eighteen months, fined $1000.00, and ordered to attend a victim impact panel and complete treatment pursuant to an alcohol evaluation. Order entered November 18, 2009: Stipulation and Joint Recommendation adopted. Respondent reprimanded;

  • 09-CC-2, filed December 4, 2009: Albert L. Purham, Jr., Associate Judge, 10th Circuit, Peoria County. The Complaint alleges that on June 27, 2009, Judge Albert L. Purham, Jr. drove a car while under the influence of alcohol and was pulled over by a police officer because he was swerving and drifting between lanes. The Complaint also alleges that the officer detected the order of alcohol upon questioning Judge Purham and although he refused to take several field sobriety tests, he offered to take a Portable Breath Test and agreed to take a Breathalyzer test while at the Washington Police Station. Judge Purham was subsequently arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and was issued citations for improper lane usage, driving under the influence of alcohol, and driving under the influence of alcohol – BrAC over Legal Limit of 0.08. On September 3, 2009, Judge Purham pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol and he was sentenced to court supervision for a period of twelve months, fined $750.00, and ordered to complete all required treatment and counseling pursuant to an alcohol evaluation. Order entered September 14, 2010: Stipulation and Joint Recommendation adopted. Respondent reprimanded;

  • 10-CC-1, filed September 24, 2010, Kenneth L. Popejoy: Circuit Judge, 18th Circuit, DuPage County. The Complaint alleged that on Tuesday, June 29, 2010, the Respondent, while driving a 2003 Jeep Liberty, struck an unattended parked car and then, with willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons and property, drove from the scene at a high rate of speed while the passenger-side front tire of his car was nearly off the rim, disobeyed multiple stop signs, and caused a thirteen-year old girl to move away from the road quickly in order to avoid being struck by his car. Order entered May 9, 2012: Respondent suspended without compensation for 60 days;

  • 14-CC-1, filed June 20, 2014: Joseph P. Hettel, Circuit Judge, 13th Circuit, LaSalle County. The Complaint alleged that on March 31, 2014, Judge Joseph P. Hettel drove a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; and while driving under the influence of alcohol on that date, he collided into a parked vehicle, causing significant damage to both vehicles and a nearby utility pole. The Complaint also alleged that at the scene of the accident, Judge Hettel refused to take any field sobriety tests; and he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Thereafter, the Complaint alleged that Judge Hettel was taken to the Ottawa Police Station, where he refused to take a breathalyzer test and also refused to provide a blood or urine sample. Judge Hettel was subsequently issued citations for driving under the influence of alcohol, failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident, using an electronic communication device while operating a motor vehicle, and improper lane usage.

    On May 21, 2014, Judge Hettel pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol (the State dismissed the companion citations). The Court sentenced him to court supervision for a period two years; fined him $2,000; required him to complete all recommendations in his DUI evaluation by December 11, 2014; ordered him to attend the drunk Driving Impact Panel; and required that he perform on hundred hours of community service by December 11, 2014. Order entered December 22, 2014: Respondent reprimanded;
No complaint has yet been filed with the Courts Commission by the JIB regarding Associate Judge Mohammed M. Ghouse, but, assuming that will eventually be the case, the foregoing list of Courts Commission precedents may well indicate the sort of discipline he may face.

Appellate Court Justice Shelly Harris has been named as a Respondent in a new case before the Courts Commission; the actual Complaint filed by the JIB is linked above (it follows the press release).

There have not been as many cases before the Courts Commission involving allegations of attempting to influence a matter on behalf of a friend or relative. But there have been some:
  • 80-CC-3, filed July 11, 1980: Charles A. Alfano, Associate Judge, Circuit Court of Cook County. The Complaint alleged that on September 5, 1977, in the presence of a group of third party witnesses, who knew that he was a judicial officer, Respondent sought to and did interfere with the performance and fulfillment of a police officer's duties and responsibilities. Having unsuccessfully sought to dissuade the officer from performing certain duties involving the issuance of traffic citations to two youths (one youth being his son), he became angry and thereafter verbally abused and physically assaulted the officer in the presence of such third party witnesses. Following these occurrences all relevant parties assembled at a police facility. At that location and based on apologies, assertions of professional embarrassment and indications of the likelihood of sanctions being imposed on him should criminal charges be filed against him for his misconduct, he sought to compromise the filing of such charges. Despite such efforts, he was criminally charged and later acquitted of such charges.

    (During criminal proceedings, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed confidentiality of the Board's records. See, People ex rel. the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board v. Hartel, 72 Ill.2d 225; 380 N.E.2nd 801 (1980).) Order entered July 16, 1981: Complaint dismissed. Board's Motion for Reconsideration denied June 8, 1982;

  • 96-CC-1, filed September 11, 1996: Steven Vecchio, Associate Judge, 17th Circuit, Winnebago County. The Complaint alleged that Respondent engaged in a pattern of conduct whereby he intervened in a number of matters involving police action on behalf of his personal friends and acquaintances, using his position or status as judge to affect or influence police conduct in matters not before him. Order entered February 19, 1998: Complaint dismissed;

  • 97-CC-2, filed September 12, 1997: Harry R. Buoscio and Paul Sheridan, Associate Judges, Circuit Court of Cook County. The Complaint alleged that Judge Buoscio approached Judge Sheridan and discussed with him an overweight truck citation that had been issued to an individual for driving an overweight truck; Judge Buoscio showed Judge Sheridan a copy of the citation and provided Judge Sheridan with written information about the citation. It is also alleged that Judge Sheridan acknowledged to Judge Buoscio that the overweight truck citation was scheduled to be heard in his courtroom. Prior to the court proceeding and dismissal of the citation, it is alleged that Judge Sheridan had ex parte conversation with the Assistant State's Attorney ("ASA") assigned to prosecute the case. It is alleged that during that ex parte conversation, Judge Sheridan provided the ASA with the written information about the case that had been provided to him by Judge Buoscio, asked the ASA to dispose of and dismiss the case, and told the ASA that he was making the request based upon a request that he had received from another judge. Order entered July 29, 1999: Complaint dismissed after Respondents resigned from office;

  • 99-CC-3, filed October 26, 1999 (Amended June 6, 2001): Lambros J. Kutrubis, Associate Judge, Circuit Court of Cook County. The Complaint alleged that Respondent forged the signature of a former friend on twenty (20) federal and state income tax returns for himself and entities in which he and/or his wife had a beneficial interest, and on one additional return, Respondent forged the name "Richard J. Kutrubis" as the paid tax preparer; failed to disqualify himself from adjudicating a case against an individual that he had a personal relationship with wherein the individual was charged with a municipal violation for gambling; failed to disqualify himself from adjudicating a municipal violation case against his friend and business partner (the municipal violation involved gambling on a video-poker machine at a tavern owned and operated by Respondent's friend and business partner - the video poker machine at issue was placed in the tavern by respondent's wife); knowingly failed to disclose on his 1996 Statement Required of Members of the Judiciary of the State of Illinois ("Judicial Statement") a loan that he and his wife received from his wife's personal friend in the amount of $14,000; knowingly failed to disclose on his 1991 Judicial Statement that he had been sued in an action relating to his ownership of a condominium; in connection with his action relating to his ownership of a condominium, caused a false statement to be submitted to the Judicial Inquiry Board in advance of his hearing before the Board wherein he falsely and misleadingly stated that he had not been served with process in the action; knowingly failed to disclose on his 1991 and 1992 Judicial Statements that he had been sued in an action under the Illinois Liquor Control Act, Chapter 43, Section 135, involving his wife's tavern; knowingly failed to disclose on his 1996, 1997, and 1998 Judicial Statements that he had been sued in a second action under the Illinois Liquor Control Act, 235 ILCS 5/6-21, involving his wife's tavern; and engaged in an ex parte communication with a Circuit Court judge and attempted to use his judicial position to obtain an outcome-influencing continuance in a case that had been marked "final" for trial. The Board and Respondent agreed to a Stipulation of Facts and made a Joint Recommendation that Respondent be suspended without pay for six months. Respondent also made a Submission in support of the Joint Recommendation. Order entered August 29, 2002: Stipulation of Facts, the Joint Recommendation, and Respondent's Submission in Support of the Joint Recommendation adopted. Respondent suspended from office for six months without pay;

  • 02-CC-2, filed June 26, 2002: Charles M. Travis, Circuit Judge, Circuit Court of Cook County. The Complaint alleged that on at least three occasions, the Respondent used his status as a judge, or appeared to use his status as a judge, to advance his own personal interests. First, the respondent used an unofficial "judicial badge" to avoid receiving a speeding ticket. Second, in a separate incident, the Respondent attempted to induce a police officer to cite a motorist for traffic violations based solely upon his requests and without further investigation. In a third incident, Respondent called the Chief Judge of another judicial circuit and sought redress over a warrant that had been issued for his daughter's arrest for failure to pay a fine. The Board and Respondent agreed to a Stipulation of Facts and made a Joint Recommendation that Respondent be suspended without pay for one month. Respondent also made a Submission in support of the Joint Recommendation. Order entered February 28, 2003: Stipulation of Facts, the Joint Recommendation, and Respondent's Submission in support of the Joint Recommendation adopted. Respondent suspended from office for one month without pay;

  • 10-CC-2, filed November 8, 2010: Christopher G. Perrin, Associate Judge, 7th Circuit, Sangamon County. The Complaint alleged that on or about April 30, 2010, Respondent's daughter received a traffic citation (the “Citation”) in a city located within the Seventh Judicial Circuit and five days prior to the scheduled June 7, 2010 court hearing on the Citation, Respondent spoke to a then sitting judge (“Judge A”) of the Seventh Judicial Circuit who was scheduled to preside over the matter. The Complaint also alleged that during the conversation between Respondent and Judge A, the topic arose of the many traffic cases scheduled to be heard by Judge A on June 7, 2010. Thereafter, it is alleged, among other things, that Respondent informed Judge A that Respondent's daughter's traffic case was one of those cases; and on the scheduled date of her hearing on the Citation, she was going to be out of state on a mission trip. The Complaint additionally alleged that Judge A then asked Respondent his daughter's name, wrote her name down, and told Respondent that he would continue Respondent's daughter's hearing date and she would not be required to appear in court on June 7, 2010. The Complaint further alleged that on June 7, 2010, Judge A dismissed the Citation on his own motion, without first consulting the State's Attorney's Office and without ever conducting a hearing on the Citation, and falsely docketed that the Citation had been dismissed for insufficient evidence based upon a motion of the State. Order entered September 9, 2011: Complaint dismissed;

  • 11-CC-1, filed February 18, 2011: Douglas J. Simpson, Associate Judge, Circuit Court of Cook County. The Complaint alleged that on the morning of September 23, 2010, Respondent went into a detail shop and spoke to the shop's Owner regarding getting his car detailed; during the course of their conversation, Respondent informed the Shop Owner that he worked at the Markham courthouse. The Complaint also alleges that the Shop Owner then volunteered to Respondent that he had a case pending at the Markham courthouse (the “Shop Owner matter”) and a court hearing was scheduled for that morning; thereafter, the Shop Owner showed Respondent an Order dated August 12, 2010 noticing the Shop Owner matter for hearing. The Complaint additionally alleged that Respondent left the detail shop; went to the Markham courthouse; and after arriving at the courthouse, Respondent went to the courtroom of the judge presiding over Shop Owner matter (“Judge A”). At the time of Respondent's arrival in Judge A's courtroom, Judge A was in the process of conducting his pro se call. After Respondent informed Judge A that he wanted to speak with him, Judge A recessed his call and met with Respondent in Judge A's chambers. The Complaint alleged that while in Judge A's chambers, Respondent showed Judge A the August 12, 2010 Order, informed Judge A that he (Judge A) had the case associated with the Order, that one of the parties was a mechanic who had done work for another judge, and that the mechanic was a “good guy;” Judge A then stood up and Respondent told Judge A that he was not asking him to do “anything improper.” The Complaint also alleged that Judge A returned to the bench immediately following the conversation with Respondent in his chambers and after finishing his call and trial, Judge A informed the Presiding Judge of the morning's events. The Complaint further alleged that later that morning, Respondent called Judge A's chambers and left a voicemail message; and that Judge A returned his call, during which Respondent apologized and said he “regretted” his actions. The Respondent then asked Judge A to disregard their conversation that had taken place earlier that morning. On September 27, 2010, Respondent returned to Judge A's chambers and apologized for his conduct on September 23, 2010; Judge A informed Respondent that he was “uncomfortable” with the situation and he would report the matter to the Judicial Inquiry Board. The Complaint further alleged that Respondent asked Judge A if he could “talk him out” of doing so to which Judge A responded that he had to report the matter. Judge A ultimately recused himself from the Shop Owner matter and it was transferred to the Fifth Municipal District. Order entered November 7, 2011: Respondent censured.
The range of disciplines imposed in these cases is presumably reflective of the fact-specific nature of these sorts of cases, including the degree to which improper influence was exerted, or attempted to be exerted.

Judge's passenger, also a judge, did not cooperate with DUI investigation: Hinsdale Police

That's what Dan Mihalopoulous reported last week on the WBEZ website.

A reader alerted me to the WBEZ story the morning it appeared; Charlie Meyerson had a link up promptly on Chicago Public Square. A number of persons, all named Anonymous, have offered their takes in my comment queue. Not all of them are defamatory; none are very nice. (No, I haven't passed any through so far.)

So you already know the story -- but to analyze some of the ethical issues that may arise therefrom, it is necessary to provide a brief recap.

While the second judge, a passenger (and the owner of the vehicle that the other judge was driving), did not cooperate with the police investigation, the police were able to put a case together against the driver anyway. The judge who was driving ultimately pleaded guilty to driving under the influence, according to the WBEZ story. He has been in "judge's jail" since December 1. An attorney, also in the car at the time of the crash, allegedly told police he did not know who was driving because he thought he was in an Uber.

Since her involvement was revealed, the second judge has been widely criticized for her failure to assist the police's inquiries. At least one newspaper editorial board has demanded that she be 'held accountable' for her noncooperation.

But did the second judge do anything actually illegal by not cooperating?

I think most would agree that it would be wonderful if all witnesses would voluntarily and truthfully tell investigators what they saw and what they know. It would greatly simplify the lawyers' tasks, whether on the civil or criminal side. And then we wake up.

If her name had been Smith, and if she worked at Costco instead of a courthouse, would the second judge have had any legal obligation to cooperate with authorities?

That's the question I put to attorney Harold Wallin, who has lengthy experience representing defendants in DUI cases. And, with those parameters, Wallin acknowledged that witnesses generally do not have an obligation to cooperate.

Moreover, Wallin cited to §6-304.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code, 625 ILCS 5/6-304.1, which makes it a Class A misdemeanor to "knowingly cause, authorize, or permit a motor vehicle owned by, or under the control of, such person to be driven or operated upon a highway by anyone who is under the influence of alcohol." Given the possibility of a charge under this statute, Wallin said, "I could see why she might want to take advantage of her right to remain silent and not say anything that might be used against her in a criminal prosecution."

But, Wallin added, because she is a judge, the second judge "might be expected to do more than the minimum."

And, of course, that's the point: Illinois judges do not enjoy all the same rights as do their fellow citizens. They actually have fewer rights.

Judges in Illinois are subject to a Code of Judicial Conduct (enshrined as Illinois Supreme Court Rules 61-67).

Under the Canons, as they are called, judges cannot hold offices in political organizations, and cannot lend their names to fundraising appeals, even for charitable causes. When people run for judicial office, or seek retention, they cannot personally raise funds for their campaigns. Restrictions are imposed on what judges can earn in addition to their salaries, and how outside income may be earned. Judges cannot serve as the executor or administrator of an estate, except for a family member. And the family members of judges must take care in accepting gifts or favors that might reflect on a judge's impartiality. Judges are severely restricted in what they can say about cases before them and there are limitations on what they can say generally, because a judge cannot comment on controversies that might come before his or her court.

And the Canons are being reevaluated. There is a proposal from the Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee which would, in the words of this article on the Supreme Court's Commission on Professionalism, "modernize the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct, addressing many of the issues facing today’s judges, including the impact of social media and electronic communications as well as current cultural issues."

In other words... this is still a proposal... but it has a lot of juice behind it. It seems only a matter of time before it is adopted.

Now... let's look at the situation of that second judge as recently profiled on WBEZ in the frame of the present and likely future judicial conduct rules.

Current Canon 1 (SCR 61) provides, in pertinent part, "A judge should * * * personally observe[,] high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. Canon 2 (SCR 62) provides, in pertinent part, "A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself or herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." Proposed Rule 1.1 states, "A judge shall comply with the law, including this Code."

Proposed Rule 1.2 provides:
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
The actions, or inactions, of the second judge during the police investigation do not reflect on the independence or impartiality of the judiciary. But what about integrity?

"Integrity" is defined in the proposed Code to mean, "probity, fairness, honesty, uprightness, and soundness of character. See Canons 1 and 4, and Rules 1.2, 3.1, 3.12, 4.1, and 4.3."

Proposed Rule 3.1 provides some general limitations on what a judge can or cannot do while engaging in extrajudicial activities. Proposed Rule 3.12 addresses compensation for extrajudicial activities. Proposed Rule 4.1 addresses political and campaign activites, while Proposed Rule 4.3 imposes limitations on a person's conduct while seeking a judicial appointment.

My best guess, based on what has been publicly reported to date, is that, in the absence of a clear violation of some specific rule, there is probably not much chance, under either the present or proposed judicial ethics codes, that the second judge will face formal discipline as a result of this one event.

But someone should have called a cab. Or an Uber. Whatever.

Wednesday, April 27, 2022

Disturbing trend or mere coincidence at Monday's Elections Board meeting?

I suppose that the traditional approach to reporting Monday's meeting of the Cook County Officers Electoral Board would highlight the resolution of the second of two objections to 6th Subcircuit candidate Lori Ann Roper's candidacy, leaving Associate Judge Charles "Charlie" Beach unopposed for the Democratic nomination for the Araujo vacancy and, since no Republican has filed in this race, virtually assured of election in November.

But Roper withdrew her candidacy on April 13; the first of the objections made to her petitions was resolved on this basis by Board action on April 14. Monday's resolution of the remaining objection was mere housekeeping.

Another approach might be to 'accentuate the positive' and note that, with the exception of Roper, who jumped before she was pushed, all of Monday's Electoral Board decisions resolved objections in favor of judicial hopefuls -- this at least would be consistent with the Panglossian tone that this site has sometimes purposely taken.

But a pattern seemed to emerge in the judicial cases disposed of by the Electoral Board: This candidate was found to have 758 signatures over the minimum; that one had 496 more than necessary; another was 489 over. All anyone needs is the minimum.

Some sloppiness was brought to light: In one case a sheet from someone else's petition made it into the candidate's petitions. One sheet. In another, a sheet listed a different vacancy than the one for which the candidate actually filed. Also, one sheet. (The candidate presumably circulated for two vacancies and got one page mixed up.) In neither case were the errors deemed fatal to the candidate; both were otherwise well over the minimum even when the erroneous sheets were discarded.

In some cases, the objections were withdrawn after the records examination confirmed that the candidate had at least a couple hundred signatures more than required. In one of these cases, the objection was withdrawn after the candidate was found to have 577 more valid signatures than the minimum. In these cases, the Electoral Board dismissed the objections as moot.

I do not mean to suggest or infer that it is any way wrong to bring a challenge against a candidate who files defective petitions. Some may not consider it "nice" -- and there are plenty of folks who consider the many obstacles to ballot access, including substantial signature requirements, to be unnecessarily onerous -- but signature requirements and challenges to signatures obtained are part of the process in place.

The rules may be hypertechnical, byzantine, and deliberately obtuse -- but lawyers, and in particular lawyers who aspire to be judges, should be sharp enough to find a good election lawyer to help them navigate the perilous provisions of the Election Code. And FWIW readers will certainly remember that a well-considered petition challenge happened to be critical to the rise of a certain South Side lawyer who wound up in the White House.

But I respectfully submit that challenges to petitions that easily survive records examinations with hundreds of signatures to spare -- even if withdrawn with some degree of graciousness thereafter -- are not well-considered. Or appropriate.

Although I am an outsider, I have some appreciation for the compressed time-frame in which decisions must be made about whether to challenge petitions or not. With more time for reflection, a candidate might decide against a particular challenge -- but with a short schedule a candidate has to make snap 'use it or lose it' decisions. But it occurs to me that there may be an increasing trend to challenge petitions just for the cussedness of it. Because it will divert time and resources from an opponent's campaign. The number of failed challenges may be a symptom the continuing coarsening of our judicial election process.

The judicial candidate cases decided Monday by the Electoral Board were mostly of a kind. The matters still working their way to the full Board may be more challenging. We will see. The Board is next scheduled to meet on Friday morning.

Tuesday, April 26, 2022

A cautionary tale: Lawyer charged with stealing Chicago Fire Department ambulance, leading police on chase down I-55

WGN is one of several outlets reporting tonight on the identity of the person who allegedly stole a Chicago Fire Department ambulance last evening and led police on a lengthy chase down I-55. The ARDC website confirms the attorney's identity; the site does not show him as having registered for 2022.

I'm not naming the man in question; you can follow the WGN link if you have to know his name. His LinkedIn profile claims that he worked for a number of prominent law firms, but never for very long. The man's mother is quoted in the WGN article as saying her son had lost his job, was homeless, and was suffering from addiction and mental health issues.

I don't know whether this man sought help from the Illinois Lawyers' Assistance Program before yesterday's events. We'll never know -- because LAP's services are wholly confidential. Guaranteed confidential.

But I can guess -- based on reported events -- that maybe this man did not take advantage of the help that LAP can provide.

LAP’s mission is to help, protect, and educate the legal community about addiction, mental health and wellness. If you or someone you know needs support with mental health or wellbeing, contact LAP at gethelp@illinoislap.org or call (312) 726-6607.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional coverage: CWB Chicago

Three candidates removed from Supreme Court race in Second Judicial District

The news has been reported elsewhere: Last week the Illinois State Board of Elections removed three candidates, two Republicans and one Democrat, from the race for the Thomas vacancy in the newly reconstituted Second Judicial District.

Appellate Court Justice Susan F. Hutchinson and former Lake County Sheriff (and one-time U.S. Senate candidate) Mark C. Curran, Jr. were the two Republicans knocked off the ballot; Highland Park Mayor (and a former Attorney General candidate) Nancy Rodkin Rotering was the Democratic candidate dropped.

There are a number of takeaways from this decision of the Illinois State Board of Elections, however, and we'll work through these here.

To begin with, the State Board of Elections rejected the recommendation of its hearing officer, who would have allowed all three to remain on the ballot. So -- first takeaway -- an elections board, like most administrative agencies in Illinois, is not bound to adhere to a hearing officer's recommendations. Elections boards typically do follow the recommendations made by their hearing officers (a board would not be likely to appoint hearing officers whose judgment and abilities were, in the board's view, suspect) but they need not.

In this case, the State Board of Elections also expressly rejected the recommendation of its own General Counsel.

The 2022 Candidate's Guide, published by the Illinois State Board of Elections, indicated that 334 valid petition signatures would be required in order to qualify for the ballot as either a Democrat or Republican in the race for the Second Judicial District vacancy (pp. 32-33). The Guide explained that the signature requirement was based on "[a]t least 0.4% (.004) of the number of votes cast in that district for the candidate for their political party for the office of Governor at the last General Election at which a Governor was elected, but in no event less than 500 signatures. For 2022 only, these signature requirements shall be reduced by one-third. (10 ILCS 5/2A-1.1b(b), 7-10(h)). The Guide did not expressly state that, since the Second Judicial District did not exist in its present configuration at "the Last General Election at which a Governor was elected" [2018], the 500 signature minimum provision would apply -- but even mathematically-challenged lawyers know how to divide by three and could therefore easily see the derivation of the 334 signature requirement.

But everything depends on the meaning of the word "district."

The word "district" is defined at §1-3(14) of the Elections Code (10 ILCS 5/1-3(14)) to mean "any area which votes as a unit for the election of any officer, other than the State or a unit of local government or school district, and includes, but is not limited to, legislative, congressional and judicial districts, judicial circuits, county board districts, municipal and sanitary district wards, school board districts, and precincts."

The newly constituted Second Judicial District has not yet 'voted as a unit.'

The word "district" is at least arguably used in two different ways in §7-10(h) of the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/7-10(h)):
(h) Judicial office. Except as otherwise provided in this Code, if a candidate seeks to run for judicial office in a district, then the candidate's petition for nomination must contain the number of signatures equal to 0.4% of the number of votes cast in that district for the candidate for his or her political party for the office of Governor at the last general election at which a Governor was elected, but in no event less than 500 signatures. If a candidate seeks to run for judicial office in a circuit or subcircuit, then the candidate's petition for nomination must contain the number of signatures equal to 0.25% of the number of votes cast for the judicial candidate of his or her political party who received the highest number of votes at the last general election at which a judicial officer from the same circuit or subcircuit was regularly scheduled to be elected, but in no event less than 1,000 signatures in circuits and subcircuits located in the First Judicial District or 500 signatures in every other Judicial District.
Here, "district" could mean that handful of counties that now constitute the Second Judicial District -- the first usage of the word is consistent with this -- or it could mean an area that votes as a unit, and has heretofore voted as a district, as is at least arguably suggested by this phrase -- "equal to 0.4% of the number of votes cast in that district for the candidate for his or her political party for the office of Governor at the last general election at which a Governor was elected."

The objectors to Hutchinson, Curran, and Rotering and, ultimately the State Board of Elections, saw no ambiguity: The .4% calculation could be easily made for the Democratic and Republican candidates in each of the counties that now constitute the Second Judicial District. The State Constitution requires judicial districts to be made up of whole counties, and county boundaries haven't changed in this State in many years. Therefore, the .4% of the number of votes can be easily calculated -- and, as the Board found, when reduced by one-third as required for this election only, the actual required number of signatures required for a Democratic candidate was 791 and 757 for a Republican.

I have not heard whether the ISBE's decision to remove Hutchinson, Curran, and Rotering from the primary ballot will be appealed -- but the second takeaway from all this is that, while the ISBE Candidate's Guide is a great starting point for a person thinking about judicial office, the conclusions and calculations that it offers are not necessarily authoritative. As the Preface to the Guide states (in bold type, no less):
Legal information contained in this guide is not binding and should not be construed as legal advice or sufficient argument in response to an objection to any candidate’s nominating papers. The State Board of Elections recommends that all prospective candidates consult with competent legal counsel when preparing their nomination papers.
A third takeaway from all this is that the mapmakers have every hope and expectation of electing a Democrat from the new Second Judicial District: In 2018 Pritzker bested Rauner in the counties now comprising the Second Judicial District -- which is why, when the calculation required by §7-10(h) were performed, Democratic candidates needed more signatures than Republicans in this new district.

And there is still a fourth takeaway to be had here.

A person aspiring to a seat on the State's highest court this year needed fewer than 150 more signatures than a candidate for a Circuit Court judgeship in a Cook County subcircuit (where 667 valid signatures were required).

This perhaps says something about what the political class thinks of judges.

But what do you expect in a state where Chicago alderpersons are elected on an allegedly 'nonpartisan' basis, but wannabe judges must endure party primaries?

It's not like judges are considered important or anything by our political classes -- at least, judges are not nearly as important as commissioners of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. MWRD candidates must secure no less than 5,770 signatures in order to qualify for the ballot....

Two Republican candidates remain on the ballot for the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial District. These are Kane County Circuit Court Judge John A. Noverini and Lake County Circuit Court Judge Daniel B. Shanes. Two Democratic candidates also remain. These are Kane County Circuit Court Judge René Cruz and Lake County Circuit Court Judge Elizabeth "Liz" Rochford.

Thursday, April 14, 2022

April 28 is the deadline to file as a write-in candidate

Click here for a link to the Declaration of Intent form on the ISBE website. Consult an election lawyer (and I am not an election lawyer) for information on how this could be properly filed.

Now you may be thinking, Leyhane has finally jumped the shark (if you click on the link in this sentence you'll discover the origin of that familiar phrase, if you didn't know it already, and you'll understand the illustration accompanying this post). I suppose, after more than 3500 posts here on Page One, that possibility has to be considered. Obviously, filing as a write-in candidate for any judicial vacancy in the Democratic primary would be a complete and total waste of time.

But I wasn't thinking of the Democratic primary. The Republicans have one, too, you know. And it's not like they're using it or anything. Not for any countywide judicial offices in Cook County, anyway. There are Republican primary candidates only in the 13th Subcircuit.

In Illinois, write-in votes don't count unless the person written in has filed a proper Declaration of Intent.

If you think about it, that makes sense. Otherwise school and library and park district boards around the state would occasionally elect Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck. Or someone might get 'volunteered' for an elected office as a prank. But, if a person is willing to run as a write-in for a judicial vacancy in the forthcoming Republican primary, and does what is required to qualify for the ballot, and gets just a couple of friends or relations to take the time and trouble to write in the candidate's name, said person could very well wind up on the November ballot.

This course of action would not be recommended for anyone who harbors any hope of ever, at any time, receiving the endorsement of the Cook County Democratic Party or any subcircuit subdivision thereof. But it could be a useful, if thankless, public service.

Let me explain.

Most people don't vote in primary elections. Most FWIW readers do, certainly, but most people don't.

In the 2020 primary, turnout in suburban Cook County was only 29.4%. Turnout in the City was better -- but, still, only 37.78%. The ISBE confirms that voter turnout in Cook County for the 2020 primary was 33.54%. Two out of three registered voters didn't bother with the primary at all.

And 2020 was a presidential election year. Turnouts in gubernatorial years, like this one, tend to be smaller still. Even when the primary isn't moved from the vicinity of the Feast of St. Patrick to Mel Brooks's birthday.

Case in point: Only 30.84% of those eligible in Cook County bothered to vote in the 2018 primary, according to the ISBE. Turnout among Cook County voters was an abysmal 16.26% in the 2014 primary, according to the ISBE.

And yet -- since the Republican Party doesn't even bother to put up candidates for judge in Cook County except sometimes in a couple of outlying subcircuits -- almost all (and certainly the vast majority) of Cook County judicial elections are determined by the outcome of the Democratic Primary.

But not every primary voter takes a Democratic ballot, even in Cook County.

In the 2020 primary, according to the Combined Summary released by the Cook County Clerk's Office, over 72,000 Cook County voters asked for Republican ballots. Those 72,000 voters -- although they actually showed up on Primary Election Day, or properly mailed in ballots on or before Primary Election Day, were denied the opportunity to vote in most judicial races. In nearly all judicial races.

Over 313,000 Cook County voters took Republican ballots in 2016. They did not get to vote in most judicial races either. Same goes for the more than 136,000 who took Republican ballots in Cook County in 2018. Or the more than 167,000 who took Republican ballots in 2014.

And, of course, when all those voters who didn't vote in the primary show up for the general election, they have no say in who serves as a judge in this county.

Our judicial system depends on the confidence of the population as a whole. When people show up in November ready to do their civic duty, only to find that they have no vote in judicial races, their confidence in the our election system and in our judiciary may understandably diminish.

If qualified lawyers are willing to step forward now and, yes, hijack the Republican primary, they will likely lose in the general election. But, even in defeat, write-in "Republican" candidates will have rendered a public service by giving voters in November the opportunity to make choices in Cook County judicial races.

And such write-in candidates might render a public service in another way, too: Their very presence on the ballot might cause the powers-that-be to seriously consider a nonpartisan judicial primary.

The mayor of Chicago and all 50 Chicago alderpersons are elected on an officially nonpartisan basis -- but the judges of our courts are required to run in partisan primaries. How ridiculous is that?

It's not as if a nonpartisan judicial primary would deprive the Cook County Democratic Party of the opportunity to select and support judicial candidates. The influence of the Democratic Party would remain overwhelming for the foreseeable future, even with a nonpartisan primary. Have nonpartisan primaries deprived the Democratic Party of the ability to elect alderpersons and mayors in Chicago?

A nonpartisan primary would only build public confidence in our judiciary... and it would prevent wise guys in the future from hijacking another party's unused primary and setting up unexpected November contests. But, this year, the opportunity exists.

Wednesday, April 13, 2022

Entries for Law Day Youth Civics Contest videos to be accepted through April 21

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the Chicago Chapter of the Federal Bar Association are sponsoring the 2nd annual Law Day Youth Civics Contest. Law Day is celebrated on May 1st each year.

To celebrate Law Day, students enrolled in 6th through 12th grades are invited to submit a video recording which answers the question, “why is judicial diversity important?” Videos may not exceed two and a half minutes and must be the original work of the student or students submitting.

Group entries are permitted, but if selected as a winning entry, only one prize will be awarded to the group. All members of the group must be in the same grade level cohort (6th - 8th or 9th - 12th), and each member must submit an entry form. The first completed form submitted by a group will be sent any award winnings.

Submissions will be accepted through 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, April 21, 2022. Entries will be judged on how they demonstrate understanding of constitutional principles, clarity and effectiveness in expressing the theme, and originality/creativity.

A first ($500), second ($250), and third ($100) place winner will be awarded from each grade level cohort (6th-8th grade, 9th-12th grade). The teacher or organization leader (i.e. scout leader or club advisor) who referred winning students to the contest will receive a $50 Target gift card for classroom or club materials.

Winners will be announced the week of May 9, 2022.

Fillable entry form can be downloaded here.

Video entries and entry forms must be submitted via this link.

Missing the submission deadline, providing a false or incomplete entry information, or not residing within the district are all grounds for disqualification. Entries by children, step-children, grandchildren, siblings of employees of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois will not be considered.

The Northern District of Illinois includes the following counties: Cook, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kendall, Lake, La Salle, Will, Boone, Carroll, DeKalb, Jo Daviess, Lee, McHenry, Ogle, Stephenson, Whiteside, Winnebago.

Contest entries may be posted on court websites and materials, in the court history museum, and shared with outside organizations.

For questions, please contact education@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Monday, April 11, 2022

Only two objections filed to candidates filing in special judicial filing period

Objections were filed this afternoon at the Illinois State Board of Elections to the nominating petitions filed by first-time countywide candidate Mary Bernadette McMahon (Callahan vacancy) and to the nominating petitions filed by Appellate Court candidate Devlin Joseph Schoop (Harris vacancy).

Although ISBE records show that the petitions of every candidate for any of the three Cook County vacancies posted for the special judicial filing period were scrutinized (there is a 13th Subcircuit vacancy as well), none of the other candidates drew any challenge at all.

The challenges filed today will now be added to those pending before the Cook County Officers Electoral Board.

Challenges to four judicial candidates overruled

At its meeting this morning the Cook County Officers Electoral Board overruled objections to four sets of Cook County judicial candidate nominating petitions, clearing the path to the ballot for four candidates.

Three of the cases were related. Reyes v. Griffin, 2022 COEB JUD 06; Magaña v. Somerville, 2022 COEB JUD 17; and Elliott v. Joyce, 2022 COEB JUD 21, respectively involved challenges to three members of a five-person alternate slate of countywide judicial candidates. The contention in each case was the same: Because another member of the five-person alternate slate jumped ship before the joint petition was filed, none of the challenged candidates qualified for the ballot.

(The slate-jumper, Elizabeth "Beth" Ryan, also circulated petitions for, and filed for, the countywide Ingram vacancy. No challenge was raised against her petitions in that race. Nor was any challenge made against the fifth member of the alternate slate, Claudia Silva-Hernandez. See, Will defection from alternate slate doom the hopes of some remaining candidates?.)

Candidates do not qualify for the ballot by filing nominating petitions alone. With their petitions, candidates are required to file a Statement of Candidacy and a receipt showing that the candidate has properly filed a Statement of Economic Interest. A candidate's failure to file these papers with the candidate's nominating petitions is fatal to the candidate's hopes of appearing on the ballot.

The Objectors to the petitions of Griffin, Somerville, and Joyce all noted that Ryan did not file her Statement of Candidacy or receipt for the filing of her Statement of Economic Interest with the papers filed on behalf of the alternate slate. Of course she didn't. She didn't file those papers with the slate's petitions (where she would have been a candidate for the McGury vacancy) because she filed instead for the Ingram vacancy. But the Objectors argued that Ryan's decision not to provide the papers that would let her stick with the alternate slate, which admittedly torpedoed her chances of appearing as a candidate for the McGury vacancy (which she didn't want anyway), doomed the others as well: Unless all comply with all requirements, none do.

In recommending rejection of the objections, the hearing officer (the same hearing officer was appointed for all three cases) relied on Libertarian Party of Ill. v. Scholz, 872 F.3d 518 (7th Cir. 2017). In accepting the hearing officer's recommendations today, the County Officers Electoral Board additionally cited Anderson v. Schneider, 67 Ill.2d 165 (1977), a case in which the Illinois Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Niles Township Electoral Board which would have prevented all members of a proposed slate of candidates for township offices because one candidate was ineligible (on residency grounds).

Pending a possible court challenge, today's action clears the way for Monica G. Somerville to be a candidate for the Canon vacancy, for Paul Joyce to be a candidate for the Lynch vacancy, and for Jacqueline Marie Griffin to be a candidate for the O'Brien vacancy.

In other action this morning, the Electoral Board overruled a challenge to the candidacy of Associate Judge Charles "Charlie" Beach for the Araujo vacancy in the 6th Subcircuit.

Many candidates reported difficulty in collecting signatures in this unique election cycle.

Apparently, Judge Beach was not one of these.

At this morning's hearing it was reported that Beach filed 186 pages of petitions. While challenges were made to the first 100 of these pages, none were made to the remaining 86. In accepting the hearing officer's recommendation in Beach's favor, the Electoral Board found as follows:
At the conclusion of the record examiuation, it was shown that the Candidate petitions contained 680 signatures greater than the required minimum. The Hearing Officer found that the objections filed in relation to a pattern of fraud would not be sufficient to remove the candidate from the ballot as at least 86 pages of the candidate's petition containiug 736 unchallenged signatures would remain, giving the candidate at least 69 signatures over the minimum required number of 667 for this office.
The Electoral Board's next scheduled meeting has been set for April 14.

Thursday, April 07, 2022

CBA Barristers Big Band Ball set for April 29

For the alliterative among us... the 19th Annual Barristers Big Band Benefit Ball will be held on Friday, April 29, at the Union League Club, 65 W. Jackson, from 6:00 to 11:00 p.m. Dancing begins at 7:00 p.m.

The event will feature a silent auction; new items will be added as late as April 22. Tickets for this terpsichorean revel are $75 apiece and available at this link. All proceeds will benefit the Chicago Bar Association Symphony Orchestra and Chorus.

And the event has a pretty nice poster, too:

Tuesday, April 05, 2022

Four last-minute filings round out special judicial filing period

Papers were filed at 5:00 p.m. yesterday on behalf Judges Tracie Porter and John H. Ehrlich, the pre-slated (1st alternate) candidates of the Cook County Democratic Party for the late-opening Circuit Court (Callahan) and Appellate Court (Harris) vacancies.

The links in the preceding sentence are to prior FWIW articles.

Also filing at the last possible moment was Dominic J. Buttitta, as a Republican candidate in the 13th Subcircuit.

Licensed to practice in Illinois since 2010, according to ARDC, Buttitta is the principal of the Buttitta Law Group in Barrington.

Buttitta has no campaign website yet, but his firm bio stresses his experience in both criminal and civil matters. He worked for the Cook County State's Attorney's Office before finishing law school, moving to the McHenry County State's Attorney's Office after receiving his license. He has been in private practice since 2013.

Joe Gump also filed for the 13th Subcircuit vacancy a little earlier yesterday afternoon, and in the Democratic primary.

An Assistant Public Defender for most of his legal career, Gump now has a solo practice. He has been licnesed to practice in Illinois since 1987, according to ARDC. He was a candidate for a 13th Subcircuit vacancy in 2020. He does not yet have a campaign website. (This photo was obtained from a prior FWIW post.)

Review of the Illinois State Board of Elections website this morning confirms that the petitions of all of these candidates and, indeed, the petitions of all candidates filing for these vacancies, are being reviewed. Challenges, if any, to the petitions of candidates filed in the special judicial filing period are due by next Monday, April 11.

Monday, April 04, 2022

James "Jack" Costello announces 13th Subcircuit campain, launches campaign website

First to file in the Democratic Primary for the Groebner vacancy in the 13th Subcircuit on this last day of filing was Cook County Assistant States Attorney James "Jack" Costello. That's a link to Costello's campaign website in the preceding sentence; a link has also bee added to the site Sidebar.

Licensed in Illinois since 2007, according to ARDC, Costello has spent his entire legal career in the State's ATtorney's Office. His campaign bio touts his experience in a "wide spectrum of cases - from DUIs to homicides - in hundreds of bench trials and dozens of jury trials." More recently, according to his campaign website, Costello has worked in the Special Prosecutions/Public Corruption and Financial Crime Unit of the CCSAO, handling "complex financial crimes and public corruption, teaming with local, state, and federal authorities against scams affecting thousands of people."

Costello is a founder of, and now coaches, the Rolling Meadows High School Mock Trial Team. He has served on the Board of the Arlington Heights Historical Society.

According to his campaign bio, Costello is a lifelong resident of the northwest suburbs. He attended St. Viator High School. Costello and his wife (also an attorney) are raising their family in Arlington Heights.

A Republican judicial primary in Cook County

It is by no means guaranteed, of course. There could still be challenges or withdrawals.

But, as of this morning, two persons have filed in the Republcan primary for the Groebner vacancy in the 13th Subcircuit.

Christine Svenson will be first on the ballot. She filed late Friday afternoon.

Svenson was the Republican nominee for one of three 13th Subcircuit vacancies in 2018. She was admitted to practice in Illinois in 1995, according to ARDC, and is the principal of her own firm, Svenson Law Offices. Her LinkedIn profile indicates that she was general counsel for the Cook County Republican Party from 2012-2017.

Gary William Seyring filed for the Republican primary this morning. He was the Republican nominee for 13th Subcircuit judicial vacancies in 2018 and 2020.

Seyring has been licnesed to practice in Illinois since 1978, according to ARDC. He is the principal of the Law Offices of Gary W. Seyring. His firm bio notes that Seyring is also a CPA.

Neither yet has a campaign website. Photographs used in this post were taken from prior FWIW posts.

And the second person to file for the Harris vacancy is....

Devlin Joseph Schoop.

Schoop's papers were filed early this morning at the Illinois State Board of Elections.

Licensed in Illinois since 1997, according to ARDC, Schoop currently works for the firm of Henderson Parks. He has no campaign website at this point, but his firm biography stresses his experience "in over 800 civil lawsuits in federal and state courts nationwide, including action in Arkansas, Arizona, California, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, North Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin." Schoop has tried more than two dozen cases in state and federal courts, according to his firm bio.

Schoop also served as a Cook County Circuit Court judge from 2015-2016. He was appointed to a countywide vacancy in July 2015 but was defeated in the 2016 primary. He was a candidate for a 2nd Subcircuit vacancy in the 2018 election cycle.

Friday, April 01, 2022

All sorts of upcoming House Democratic fundraisers

I mean, it's almost like it's an election year or something, right?

Why have I been running these from time to time?

There's an old saying: The way to a man's heart is through his stomach. I can probably be canceled for even remembering that sort of bromide, but, to me at least, that homely old line suggests a modern update: The way to a politician's heart is through his or her campaign fund.

And, yet, somehow, the fundraising net is usually cast only in well-fished seas: Some of you seeing this will already know about these fundraisers because you are already known. Because, even today, the politicians still don't want nobody nobody sent.

Many FWIW readers, on the other hand, will not have heard of these events, and would not hear of these events unless I run a post like this. And, while the pros are reflexively wary of strangers, it is my understanding that, however apprehensive they may be, it is difficult to refuse coin of the realm when voluntarily tendered. For the FWIW reader with disposable income, therefore, appearance at one or more of these may help said reader metamorphisize from a nobody into a somebody. In which case said reader will get all sorts of solicitations like these. All the time.

So I'm not positive I'm doing any of you any favors. But... who knows? Maybe going to one or more of these things will start some FWIW reader on a path to being slated for some future judicial opening.

Just don't hold your breath. And don't hold me responsible if you are not annointed as the Next Big Thing by anyone attending these events.

With those caveats, here goes:
Rep. Curtis J. Tarver II Blackhawks Game Fundraiser
Sunday, April 10 | 6:00 p.m.
1901 W Madison St, Chicago, IL 60612
Sponsorships: $1000
Make checks payable to:
Friends of Curtis Tarver II, 65 W Jackson Blvd. #134, Chicago, IL 60604
Purchase a ticket or sponsorship online: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/curtistarverii
RSVP to LZarco@HDemsIL.com

Rep. Moylan & Leader Evans Reception Fundraiser
Monday, April 11 | 12:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.
3000 S River Rd, Des Plaines, IL 60018
Guest Ticket: $500
Make checks payable to:
Friends for Marty Moylan for State Representative, PO Box 204, Des Plaines, IL 60016, or
Citizens for Marcus C Evans Jr., PO Box 64154, Chicago, IL 60664

Rep. Theresa Mah, Rep. Kam Buckner & Rep. Aaron Ortiz Labor Breakfast Fundraiser
Thursday, April 14 | 8:30 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.
2722 S. Martin Luther King Drive, Chicago, IL 60616
Sponsorships: $500 | $1000 | $2500 | $5000
Make checks payable to:
Friends of Theresa Mah, c/o Barry Aldridge 3500 N Lakewood Avenue #3S, Chicago, IL 60657, or
Friends of Kam Buckner, PO Box 53528, Chicago, IL 60653, or
Friends of Aaron Ortiz, PO Box 32213, Chicago, IL 60632
RSVP to ak@sanbornwilliams.com

Leader Jaime Andrade Jr. Reception Fundraiser
Thursday, April 14 | 5:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.
2925 W Montrose Ave, Chicago, IL 60618
Sponsorships: $150
Make Checks Payable to:
Friends of Jaime M Andrade Jr, P.O. Box 18380, Chicago, IL 60618
Purchase a ticket or sponsorship online:
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/jaime-andrade-1

Rep. Lilly Birthday Bash Fundraiser
Friday, April 15 | 6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.
5628 W. Washington Blvd., Chicago, IL 60644
Sponsorships: $250| $500 | $1,000 | $1,500 | $2,500 | $5,000 Make Checks Payable to:
Friends of Camille Y. Lilly, 7061 W. North Ave UPS #260, Oak Park, IL 60302
RSVP to LZarco@HDemsIL.com

Rep. LaPointe Speakeasy Soiree Fundraiser
Thursday, April 21 | 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
676 N Orleans St, Chicago, IL 60654
Guest Ticket: $250
Make Checks Payable to:
Friends of LaPointe, PO Box 30161, Chicago, IL 60630
RSVP to kellymarie@kmmconsulting.com

Rep. Slaughter Haymarket Fundraiser
Tuesday, April 26 | 12:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.
737 W Randolph St, Chicago, IL 60661
Sponsorships: $250 | $500 | $1,000 | $1,500 | $2,500 | $5,000
Make Checks Payable to:
Friends of Justin Slaughter, 9204 S. Elizabeth, Chicago, IL 60620
RSVP to LZarco@HDemsIL.com

Rep. Nichols Campaign Kickoff Fundraiser
Thursday, April 28 | 7:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m.
3359 W 115th St, Merrionette Park, IL 60803
Guest Ticket: $75
Sponsorships: $250 | $500 | $1000 | $1500 | $2500 | $5000
Make Checks Payable to:
Friends of Cyril Nichols, PO Box 528189, Chicago, IL 60652
RSVP to LZarco@HDemsIL.com
Good luck.