Like the Illinois State Bar Association, the Council is a participant in the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening. The Council, the ISBA, and the other 11-member bar groups pool resources to review detailed candidate questionnaires, investigate candidate responses, contact candidates' references and adversaries, and interview candidates. Each Alliance member, however, makes its own independent determination as to any candidate's qualifications for judical service.
Accordingly, Alliance members can, and sometimes do, reach very different conclusions about a candidate's qualifications, even though every member group works from the same basic investigation and interview process.
In addition to its participation in the Alliance process, the Council also relies on "interviews of judges, attorneys, and others with personal knowledge about the candidate, including those who have and those who have not been referred to the Alliance by the candidate, and not restricted to Council members." The Council's evaluations will sometimes refer to 'respondents' in its narrative explanations; the reference here would be to this independent investigation.
In issuing its ratings, the Council provides written explanations for its decisions "while abiding by promises to protect the confidentiality of its non-public sources." In the opinion of the Council, "Without knowing the reason for a recommendation concerning a candidate, the public cannot use the bar’s evaluations intelligently to draw its own conclusions."
The Council rates candidates as either "highly qualified," "well qualified", "qualified", or "not qualified." Candidates that fail or refuse to participate in the Alliance investigation process are automatically rated "unless the Council is aware of credible information that would justify a 'not qualified' rating."
In the opinion of the Council, "a willingness to participate in bar association and other public evaluations is a key indicator of fitness for public office." Therefore, the Council will not find any candidate that refuses to be screen to be "qualified."
The CCL reports that it evaluates candidates in the following categories:
If a candidate has demonstrated the ability to perform the work required of a judge in all of these areas, the Council assigns a rating of “qualified.” If a candidate has demonstrated excellence in most of these areas, the Council assigns a rating of “well qualified.” If a candidate has demonstrated excellence in all of these areas, the Council assigns a rating of “highly qualified.” If a candidate has not demonstrated that he or she meets all of the criteria evaluated by the Council, the Council assigns a rating of “not qualified.”
- fairness, including sensitivity to diversity and bias
- legal knowledge and skills (competence)
- integrity
- experience
- diligence
- impartiality
- judicial temperament
- respect for the rule of law
- independence from political and institutional influences
- professional conduct
- character
- community service
The CCL applies higher standards to candidates for the Supreme Court and the Appellate Court. In the Council's view, "Because these Courts establish legal precedents that bind the lower courts, their work has a broad impact on the justice system. Moreover, qualities of scholarship and writing ability are more important to the work of the Supreme and Appellate Court justices than they are to satisfactory performance as a trial judge."
The Council says that it "does not evaluate candidates based on their substantive views of political or social issues. Nor do we take into account the particular race in which a candidate is running or the candidates against whom a candidate is running." In some races the Council will find all candidates "qualified" or better. In some races the Council may find no candidate qualified.
Finally, the Council recognizes that "a lawyer might be performing well or even very well without being qualified to be a judge. A good lawyer may be unqualified to be a judge, for instance, because of a narrow range of prior experience, limited trial experience, or limited work doing legal research and writing. A lawyer may have the temperament and intelligence to be a judge without yet having worked in a position that would allow the candidate to demonstrate that capacity. Similarly, a candidate may have an outstanding resume but lack the temperament or patience to perform well as an even-handed or respectful judge. Accordingly, it should be recognized and expected that we will rate some good lawyers 'not qualified.'"
With that lengthy preface, herewith the Council's evaluations of candidates for the Illinois Appellate Court, First Judicial Distict:
Hall Vacancy
Hon. Russell W. Hartigan -- Qualified
Hon. Russell W. Hartigan was admitted to practice in 1976. He served as a Circuit Court judge between 2010 and 2017. He was appointed to the bench by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2010. As a lawyer he practiced for 34 years before becoming a judge and has practiced since retiring from the bench in 2017. He has been exceptionally active in bar association activities.
As a lawyer, Judge Hartigan had substantial litigation experience in both civil and criminal law matters, including appellate court experience. He was praised for his litigation skills, for his temperament, and for his integrity. As a judge, he spent much of his career in the Bridgeview Courthouse hearing a variety of cases. He was a well-respected jurist who was praised for his courtroom demeanor and management skills. The Council finds him Qualified for the Appellate Court.
Hon. Dominque C. Ross -- Not Qualified
The Hon. Dominique C. Ross was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1995. She was elected to the Circuit Court in 2008. She is currently a trial judge in the Domestic Relations Division. Prior to serving on the bench she was a solo practitioner.
Judge Dominique Ross is considered to have good legal ability and is active in community activities. Respondents praised her knowledge of the law. She is reported to be respectful to all parties. However, some lawyers complain that it can take months to get an order issued and she is often not on the bench at the scheduled time. In addition, Judge Ross does not provide published works or other writing to establish her qualifications to be an appellate justice. The Council finds her Not Qualified for the Appellate Court.
Hon. Debra B. Walker -- Well Qualified
The Hon. Debra B. Walker was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1987. She was elected to the Circuit Court in 2008 and is currently assigned to the Domestic Relations Division. Prior to becoming a judge, Hon. Debra B. Walker was a partner at the firm Clausen Miller PC, litigating professional liability cases from 1996 until 2008. After working as an associate at Williams & Montgomery for 6 years, Judge Walker was a Senior Associate at Brydges, Riseborough, Peterson, Franke and Morris from 1993 to 1996.
Judge Walker is considered to have good legal ability as a trial judge. She is praised for her ability to handle the sometimes complex financial issues which come before her, and she is reported to have good court management skills. She is considered to have a good temperament and is always prepared. Her opinions are reported to be well reasoned, thorough, and issued in a timely manner. The Council finds her Well Qualified for the Appellate Court.
Harris Vacancy
Hon. Raymond W. Mitchell -- Well Qualified
The Hon. Raymond W. Mitchell was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1993. He was appointed to the bench by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2008 and was elected in 2010. He is currently assigned to the Chancery Division, Calendar 2. Judge Mitchell has co-authored a Traffic Court Bench Book.
Judge Mitchell is a well-respected jurist with good legal ability presiding over complex matters. Since 2015, he has issued over 500 written opinions. He is reported to be exceptionally knowledgeable about legal doctrines, principles, and procedure. He is reported to be respectful to all parties before him, and is praised for his temperament. He is reported to be exceptionally hard working, with a strong commitment to professionalism. He is also praised for his courtroom management skills. The Council finds him Well Qualified for the Appellate Court.
Devlin Joseph Schoop -- Qualified
Devlin Schoop was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1997. Since 2019, he has been a Partner at Henderson Parks LLC d/b/a The Cochran Firm Chicago, where he is Chair of the civil rights practice group and represents clients in civil rights, post-conviction matters, and catastrophic personal injury matters. Previously he served as Senior Counsel at the City of Chicago Law Department (2017-2019). He was appointed to the bench by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2015 and served until 2016, when he failed to win election to the bench. He was an Associate (2003-2007) and later a Partner (2008-2015) at Laner Muchin, Ltd., where he represented employers in a wide array of labor and employment litigation, and an Associate (1999-2003) at Wildman Harrold Allen & Dixon, LLP, where he represented plaintiffs and defendants in state and federal courts in a variety of commercial litigation. He began his legal career at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois as a Law Clerk to the Hon. Blanche M. Manning.
Devlin Schoop is considered to have very good legal ability and trial skills. He has substantial experience in complex litigation matters. There have been a few negative reports about his temperament during the year when he was a judge, but the majority of reports on Devlin Schoop indicate that he is a well respected attorney who has published articles on legal issues and has been active in community activities. On balance, the Council finds him Qualified for the Appellate Court.
Hon. John H. Ehrlich -- Qualified
The Hon. John H. Ehrlich was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1998. Prior to becoming a judge, he worked in the City of Chicago Law Department and has been Chief Assistant Corporation Counsel in the Torts Division. Prior to that, he was in private practice handling commercial litigation matters. He was elected to the bench in 2012. Since 2014, he has been assigned to the County Department, Motion Section of the Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago, Illinois, where his docket consists of non-commercial tort cases. His previous judicial assignments were in the County Department, Chancery Division, Foreclosure Section (2013) and the Municipal Department, First Municipal Division, Traffic Section (2012-2013).
Judge Ehrlich is praised for his legal ability and for being well prepared. He is punctual and his opinions are reported to be well reasoned and thorough. The Council finds him Qualified for the Appellate Court.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the complete report of the Chicago Council of Lawyers for the June 28 primary, click here.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment