Ratings controversy on Retention Judges website... which is now apparently resolved

This Tweet from the Chicago Council of Lawyers caught my eye yesterday.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers HAS NOT YET COMPLETED its evaluation of judges up for retention this year. As yet, we are not prepared to state who is or is not qualified for retention.

— Chicago Council of Lawyers (@ChiCouncilLaw) September 5, 2024

I retweeted it (look, I know we call it 'X' nowadays, but it sounds silly to say I saw an 'X' and then re-X'd it) but I didn't look into it right away; I was doing something eles at the time.

Then I got an email from someone on behalf of the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening (the Council is a charter member): Apparently there was a statement on the Committee for Retention of Judges website that had angered a number of Alliance bar evaluators, to wit, "The class of judges up for retention has been overwhelmingly rated as qualified and recommended for retention by our State’s Premier Bar Associations." This sat above a list of the bar groups (all the Alliance groups and the Chicago Bar Association) which certainly implies or infers that those groups have already issued ratings for this retention election.

You had to scroll pretty much to the bottom of the home page on the Retention Judges website in order to find this statement. But don't bother to try it now: It's gone.

I reached out to the Retention Judges committee to ask about the statement. A little while ago I received an email from Mary Kay Dawson, a consultant who is working with the Committee for Retention Judges. The relevant portion of the email provides, "Apparently the language on the web site was carried over from the previous class website by our web designer and once this was called to attention it was removed."

So the Retention Judges were not trying to claim ratings that have not yet been issued.

When the ratings are released by the various bar groups, you will find them here on FWIW.

Just a prediction on my part: While there will be some exceptions (there always are), most of the retention judges will ultimately be rated qualified or recommended for retention by the various bar groups. Still, no one likes being told what they're going to do before they do it, especially when they're being told by the people they're doing it to. It is presumptuous at best.

Presumably, the explanation provided will suffice to tamp down the controversy. If there is more to report on this issue, however, I will.