Former judge faces shocking ARDC charges

There was a challenge waiting for me in the comment queue this morning: "No Pat Martin post?"

I saw the WBBM Radio article about the charges against former Judge Patricia Manila Martin last night on Twitter, dutifully retweeting same.

This morning, before signing on to FWIW, I read with increasing dismay the Sun-Times article, by Tom Schuba and Matthew Hendrickson, "Ex-Cook County judge, accused of stealing decorated Tuskegee Airman’s life savings, is ordered to pay $1.2 million" (the photograph above is taken from the Sun-Times story).

I have since read the ARDC Complaint.

The person whose estate Judge Martin is alleged of looting, Oscar Lawton Wilkerson, Jr., referred to as OLW in the ARDC Complaint, was the last known surving Chicago-area member of the Tuskegee Airmen. He was also Martin's uncle, apparently, at least by marriage (the ARDC Complaint alleges that Martin is "the niece of OLW's former spouse").

Former Judge Martin is apparently not contesting these horrific charges. Today's Sun-Times article says Martin has been defaulted in a civil suit seeking recovery of the amounts Martin converted from Wilkerson's estate. The ARDC Complaint and the Sun-Times article about the civil suit both contend that Martin has failed to turn over records accounting for her use of Wilkerson's funds, but ¶15 of Count I of the ARDC Complaint alleges that Martin filed an Answer in the civil suit admiting "that she had wrongfully assumed control over OLW’s property, that she had no authority to use OLW’s funds for any purpose other than for his benefit, and that she had intentionally deprived OLW of funds to which he was entitled."

Other than adding my own astonishment at the seeming shameless brazenness of this behavior, is there anything I can contribute to meet the challenge of Anonymous in the comments this morning?

I certainly can not explain this conduct. But I can supply some additional facts that may be of interest or import at some point.

Martin was licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois in 1986. She spent a decade as an Assistant Public Defender before her election to the bench in 1996. She became Presiding Judge of the Child Protection Division in 2000 and served in that capacity until her retirement at the end of 2020.

Martin was one of 18 judges on the retention ballot in 2014 that were deemed "Well Qualified" by the Chicago Council of Lawyers.

The CBA also rated Martin "Qualified" for retention in 2014. The Alliance bar associations were unanimous in support of Martin's retention... in 2014.

Martin had unanimous support for her retention bid in 2008, also, both from the CBA and the Alliance.

Marian Wright Edelman wrote a column in 2011, available on the Children's Defense Fund website, "Judge Patricia Martin: Family Matters." Edelman wrote about Judge Martin's Aunt Kitty, who played such a formative role in Martin's life after her mother passed. She quoted Martin, "My theory is if I had an Aunt Kitty who called me at six o’clock, every one of my children in foster care deserves an Aunt Kitty." Edelman concluded, "I am so grateful for Judge Martin’s caring leadership and work which has made such a difference in the lives of so many children. Every one of us can and must follow her good example."

That was 2011.

But, by 2020, something had obviously changed.

I'm not talking about the shocking allegations -- apparently uncontested -- now coming to light.

Rather, I'm talking about what we knew about Judge Martin in 2020.

We knew Martin was up for retention again. We knew that this person who had breezed through retention screening previously chose not to go through the process in 2020. But she had a reason: She was planning to retire.

It happens fairly often: A judge who might be up for retention chooses not to bother with the CBA or the Alliance because he or she plans to hang up the robe. Maybe they apply for retention and then change their mind. But they generally do not actually seek retention. We had a recent example of a judge who (after figuring out her pension situation) sought retention after failing to go through retention screening. In that case, the judge explained her situation.

Judge Martin explained nothing. She said she was resigning, but then she didn't. Because she did not participate in the screening process and remained on the ballot, Martin was not recommended for retention by the CBA. Every Alliance group reported that Martin told them she planned to retire, but did not. She won retention anyway. Only then did she quit... and we now know some, if not all, of the rest.

Was this refusal to commit to either retirement or bar screening a warning sign missed? Were there other behaviors or actions that colleagues or practitioners saw, or chose not to see? This was still early during COVID time, of course, and courts were not operating, or at least not operating normally. So opportunties for observation may have been limited.

None of this provides any excuse or justification for any conduct alleged in the current news cycle. But it may provide a challenge to us, to possibly prevent terrible stories like this in the future.

I know some readers will say that this is just the way that many judges are -- greedy, venal, predatory. But they're really not. Some are better than others. Some are wonderful. Some aren't very good at all. And never were. But this story seems to describe a precipitous fall from grace. That's unusual.