Illinois Judges Association weighs in on Kilbride retention

The Illinois Judges Association has issued a statement deploring what it sees as "unfair criticism" of Supreme Court Justice Thomas L. Kilbride by "special interest groups" seeking to prevent Kilbride's retention next Tuesday.

A complete copy of the IJA's press release is reproduced in full on Page Two of this blog.

Despite the various pro- and anti-Kilbride commercials that are airing on Chicago radio and television stations, Kilbride is not on the ballot in Cook County.

Kilbride, who becomes Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court tomorrow, due to the resignation of Chief Justice Thomas R. Fitzgerald, will be on the ballot in the 21 counties that together comprise the Third Appellate District.

Will, Grundy, and Kankakee Counties are the counties closest to Chicago where Justice Kilbride will be on the ballot.

The IJA does not name the "special interests" that are seeking Justice Kilbride's ouster, but the reference is presumably to JUSTPAC, the political action committee of the Illinois Civil Justice League. The ICJL is the sponsor of the IllinoisJudges.net page that is frequently linked from this blog. Edward D. Murnane is the President of the ICJL and a member of the board of directors of the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA). According to Michael Smothers' October 23, 2010 article in the Pekin Times, when Kilbride sided with the majority upholding "a previous high court ruling that found a statute limiting plaintiffs’ damages in medical malpractice lawsuits unconstitutional, Murnane vowed to 'raise as much money as we can' to unseat him." The case to which Smothers refers is Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill.2d 217, 930 N.E.2d 895 (2010). Smothers continues, "Kilbride’s campaign had to reply in kind, and a multi-million-dollar battle of political advertisements was engaged."

Because Justice Kilbride is not on the ballot in Cook County, neither the Chicago Bar Association nor any of the "Alliance" bar groups have expressed an opinion regarding Justice Kilbride's exception except the Illinois State Bar Association. The ISBA urges a "yes" vote on Kilbride's retention, stating:

Justice Kilbride was elected to the Illinois Supreme Court in 2000 and is completing his first term. Justice Kilbride is regarded as a knowledgeable, thoughtful, prepared, and hard working judge. He is considered to have the highest integrity and moral character. As a Justice, he has advanced professionalism and diversity, continuing legal education, and pro bono reporting. He also spearheaded a judicial education program that he presents to Illinois schools and civic organizations. Prior to becoming a judge, Justice Kilbride practiced law for over twenty years in the Quad Cities area. The ISBA Committee for Judicial Evaluations recommends “yes” for Justice Kilbride’s retention.

The ISBA Standing Committee on Supreme and Appellate Court Judicial Election Campaign Tone and Conduct has issued this statement about JUSTPAC's efforts to defeat Justice Kilbride:

The Standing Committee finds that the “JUSTPAC” campaign directed at Justice Kilbride is inappropriate and distorts his record. As such, it reflects negatively on the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Specifically, based upon the advertisements reviewed by the Standing Committee, we find that “JUSTPAC” has distorted the record and rulings of Justice Kilbride by characterizing him as allegedly soft on crime and criminals.

The Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times have both endorsed Kilbride's retention bid. Justice Kilbride's campaign website may be accessed by following this link.

Sun-Times publishes bar ratings

The Chicago Sun-Times posted a comprehensive table on its website Saturday showing both the Chicago Bar Association and the Alliance of Bar Association ratings, side-by-side, for both the judicial retention candidates and the almost entirely unopposed judicial election candidates. That's a link to the Sun-Times site in the preceding sentence; sadly, my HTML skills are inadequate to reproduce the table here. However, you'll find links to the Alliance grids for the retention judges, the CBA Green Guide, the Chicago Council of Lawyers Evaluation Report, the report of the Judicial Performance Commission of Cook County, the Cook County Retention Judges' own website, and candidate responses to questionnaires posed by both the Tribune and the Illinois Civil Justice League -- all in the Sidebar of this blog.

The Sun-Times also ran an editorial Saturday urging voters to make informed choices in judicial elections. A substantial excerpt:

Most overwhelmed voters skip [the judicial races], or worse, just pick the names they like.

It doesn't have to be that way.

Each election cycle, a dozen bar associations invest hundreds of hours evaluating Illinois judges for us. They do all the work and simply ask us to spend a few minutes making an informed choice.

Don't let that good work go to waste. On our website, you'll find charts laying out how different bar associations rate judges.

The good news is that they largely agree on the lemons. Based on their recommendations, the Chicago Sun-Times is urging voters to toss three Cook County Circuit Court judges: Susan Jeanine McDunn; Dorothy F. Jones, and James "Jim" Ryan. We're also urging yes votes for three quality Illinois Supreme Court Justices: Charles E. Freeman, Thomas Kilbride and Bob Thomas.

For the record, Cook County voters will have the opportunity only to pass on the retention of one Illinois Supreme Court Justice. Only Justice Charles E. Freeman is on the ballot in Cook County. Despite the commercials, Cook County voters don't have a say on whether Justice Kilbride will remain in office. (Justice Thomas is on the ballot in Lake, McHenry, DuPage, Kane and all the other counties in the Second Appellate District; Justice Kilbride is on the ballot in Will, Grundy, LaSalle, Kankakee and 17 other counties in the Third Appellate District.)

Newspapers weigh in on Cook County judicial retention ballot

The Chicago Tribune made its Cook County Circuit Court judicial recommendations in its October 9, 2010 editions, but I wanted to see whether the Chicago Sun-Times made different recommendations and report on them together.

The Sun-Times weighed in this morning, and both papers are urging a "no" vote on the retention bids of three Cook County Circuit Court judges.

The judges singled out by both papers for "no" votes are Dorothy F. Jones, Jim Ryan, and Susan Jeanine McDunn. (The Tribune, but not the Sun-Times, also recommended a "no" vote on William D. O'Neal. The Tribune's retention recommendations tracked those made by the Chicago Bar Association.)

Judge Dorothy F. Jones

The Tribune states, "Judge Dorothy Jones has been on the bench for 18 years, but hasn't improved with time. She shows her contempt for the public by refusing to be evaluated by local bar associations, which give a professional assessment for voters' use. The bar groups have found that Jones has very poor legal skills and acts unprofessionally on the bench."

The Sun-Times says, "Dorothy Jones' arrogant claim to fame every six years is to be the only judge who refuses to even submit her credentials to the bar groups for evaluation. But, then, perhaps she is well aware she would never make the grade."

The Chicago Bar Association's evaluation on Judge Jones reads as follows:

DOROTHY F. JONES.................NOT RECOMMENDED
The candidate declined to participate in the Judicial Evaluation Committee (JEC) screening process and, therefore,according to The Chicago Bar Association's governing resolution for the JEC, is automatically found NOT RECOMMENDED.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers stated:

Hon. Dorothy Jones – Not Recommended
Judge Dorothy Jones refused to participate in the evaluation process. The Council finds her Not Recommended for retention.

Because Judge Jones chose not to participate in any bar evaluation process, she was rated not qualified or not recommended by each of the bar associations announcing ratings.

The new Judicial Performance Commission of Cook County also urges a "no" vote on Judge Jones. The JPC evaluation states:

The Judicial Performance Commission does not recommend Judge Dorothy F. Jones for retention.

Biography: Dorothy Jones graduated from DePaul University College of Law and was admitted to practice in 1979.

Judge Dorothy Jones was elected to the Circuit Court in 1992. She is currently assigned to a primarily pro se call in the First Municipal District. Prior to election, she was an assistant public defender in Cook County.

Summary: The Commission found predominantly unfavorable impressions of Judge Jones in the legal community. The investigation revealed a lack of clarity and consistency in her decisions, as well as questions about her temperament and ability to manage the courtroom. Although Judge Jones has a reputation for honesty and efficiency, the Commission does not feel those qualities outweigh the deficiencies of performance, temperament and management found in the investigation.

The Judicial Performance Commission does not recommend Judge Dorothy F. Jones for retention.

Judge Jones was invited to respond to questionnaires from the Chicago Tribune and the Illinois Civil Justice League. She did not respond to either. As of this writing, Judge Jones has also not submitted anything to the Cook County Retention Judges website.

Judge Jim Ryan

The Tribune says, "Shortly after Judge Jim Ryan was elected, he refused to answer questions in a deposition that was part of an investigation into alleged beatings of inmates at Cook County Jail. Ryan had been a top aide and legal adviser to former Sheriff Michael Sheahan. A judge asserting his constitutional right against self-incrimination shows, we suppose, at least passing knowledge of the law. But it sure doesn't inspire confidence. The Council of Lawyers says it has found "certain misstatements and omissions" from Ryan about his judicial assignment. Some lawyers report his courtroom behavior is "an embarrassment."

The Sun-Times stated:

James J. Ryan has similar deficiencies [to Judge Jones]. The CBA says Ryan "does not possess the requisite legal knowledge, ability and temperament" to be a judge. The Chicago Council of Lawyers, commenting on the real reason Ryan was pulled from an assignment in the Bridgeview courthouse, writes, "He can be short-tempered on the bench, and some [lawyers] have characterized his judicial behavior as an embarrassment."

Shortly after he was elected to the bench six years ago, Ryan was questioned by lawyers about whether, as a top aide to his second-cousin Sheriff Michael Sheahan, he had helped deep-six an investigation into an alleged mass-beating of prisoners at the County Jail. Ryan, invoking his 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination, refused to answer most questions.

The Chicago Bar Association evaluation stated:

JIM RYAN..................................NOT RECOMMENDED
Judge Jim Ryan is “Not Recommended” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Ryan was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1992 and was elected to the Circuit Court in 2004. Judge Ryan does not possess the requisite legal knowledge, ability, and temperament to serve as a Circuit Court Judge.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers initially recommended Judge Ryan's retention, but subsequently changed its position:

Hon. James J. Ryan – Not Qualified

Judge James J. Ryan was admitted to practice in 1992 and was elected to the bench in 2004 after refusing to be evaluated by the Council. Before taking the bench, Judge Ryan was an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney from 1993 to 1995 and was the Director of Operations and General Counsel for the Cook County Sheriff’s Office from 1995 to 2004. From 2004 to 2006 he sat in Traffic Court after which he was assigned to the courthouse in Bridgeview, where he presided over traffic and domestic violence cases. He currently hears felony preliminary hearings. His judicial career has mostly involved less complex matters.

While many praise Judge Ryan's ability to manage his voluminous court call, many others report that he can be short-tempered on the bench, and some have characterized his judicial behavior as an embarrassment. In addition, the Council has uncovered certain misstatements and omissions in Judge Ryan’s evaluation material with respect to the circumstances surrounding his assignment in Bridgeview and his transfer to his current assignment. These misstatements and omissions raise concerns for the Council regarding the candidate's judgment, his candor, and his respect for the judicial screening process. Subsequent investigation of these matters did not allay the Council’s concerns. The Council finds him Not Qualified for retention.

Judge Ryan did secure positive ratings from the Asian American Bar Association (AABA), Black Women Lawyers' Association of Greater Chicago (BWLA), Cook County Bar Association (CCBA), Decalogue Society of Lawyers (DSL), Hispanic Lawyers of Illinois (HLAI), Puerto Rican Bar Association (PRBA), and Women's Bar Association of Illinois (WBAI). The Judicial Performance Commission of Cook County also recommended Judge Ryan's retention. Three other Alliance members made negative recommendations, namely, the Hellenic Bar Association (HBA), Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA) and Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago (LAGBAC).

Judge Ryan also did not respond to either the Tribune questionnaire or the ICJL questionnaire. Judge Ryan has also not submitted anything, at least as of the present time, to the Cook County Retention Judges website.

Judge Susan Jeanine McDunn

The Chicago Tribune writes, "The Illinois Appellate Court several years ago said Judge Susan Jeanine McDunn had 'disgraced the judiciary and the people of Illinois.' McDunn tried to sidetrack two adoptions by lesbian parents, putting her personal beliefs above the law. She hasn't had such a notorious professional lapse since then. But she's still a poor judge and richly deserves to be removed."

The Sun-Times also writes about this incident in recommending a "no" vote:

Susan Jeanine McDunn has been rebuked by an Illinois Appellate Court for conduct that, the court says, "disgraced the judiciary and the people of Illinois." Her offense was overruling an order by her presiding judge in an effort to derail an uncontested adoption by lesbian parents. The Chicago Council of Lawyers called her failure to follow adoption law ''unacceptable" and "well beyond the pale of appropriate judicial conduct." The council says McDunn continues to display an "inappropriate temperament" on the bench. The Chicago Bar Association concluded she "does not possess the requisite legal knowledge and ability" to serve as a judge.

The Chicago Bar Association evaluation reads:

SUSAN JEANINE MCDUNN.......NOT RECOMMENDED
Judge Susan Jeanine McDunn is “Not Recommended” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge McDunn was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1980 and has served as a judge since 1993. Since 2007, Judge McDunn has served in the Law Division and is considered a hard worker. However, Judge McDunn does not possess the requisite legal knowledge and ability to serve as a Circuit Court Judge.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers states:

Hon. Susan J. McDunn -- Not Qualified
Judge Susan McDunn was elected to the bench in 1992. She is currently assigned to the Law Division. Previously, she was in the County Division and the First Municipal District. Judge McDunn was admitted to practice in 1980. Prior to election, she was in private practice.

Judge McDunn is considered to have adequate legal ability. Judge McDunn was found Not Qualified for retention in 2004, having been publicly rebuked by the Illinois Appellate Court for judicial conduct the court says, “disgraced the judiciary and the people of Illinois.” The Council found her behavior in failing to follow Illinois adoption law based on her personal beliefs to be “unacceptable and fall well beyond the pale of appropriate judicial conduct.” The Council believes this behavior alone disqualifies Judge McDunn, but an evaluation conducted for the 2010 retention election revealed that many lawyers believe she has difficulty handling complex matters that come before her and that she demonstrates an inappropriate temperament. The Council finds her Not Qualified for retention.

The Judicial Performance Commission also recommends a "no" vote on Judge McDunn:

The Judicial Performance Commission does not recommend Judge Susan J. McDunn for retention.

Biography: Susan J. McDunn graduated from DePaul University College of Law and was admitted to practice in 1980.

Judge McDunn was elected to the bench in 1992 and seated in 1993. She is currently assigned to the Law Division. Previously, she was in the County Division and the First Municipal District. Prior to election, she was in private practice.

Summary: Judge McDunn appears attentive to proceedings and is punctual for court. However, the Commission notes significant concerns about her ability to handle difficult, complex matters. She is described as unwilling to reconsider rulings when presented with additional case law and demonstrates an inappropriate temperament. The Commission received reports of the judge losing her temper and appearing unable to control her courtroom.

In an adoption case in 1999, Judge McDunn was rebuked by the Appellate Court for judicial conduct that the court said “disgraced the judiciary and people of Illinois.”

Although the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board concluded that Judge McDunn did not make statements against persons based upon their sexual orientation, her actions demonstrated a lack of respect for the law. There is no indication that Judge McDunn has rehabilitated her performance. Moreover, the Commission received comments from some lawyers that in light of this event, Judge McDunn does not command the respect of the legal community.

The Judicial Performance Commission does not recommend Judge Susan J. McDunn for retention.

Judge McDunn received "yes" recommendations from the Black Women Lawyers' Association of Greater Chicago (BWLA), the Cook County Bar Association (CCBA), the Hellenic Bar Association (HBA), and the Women's Bar Association of Illinois (WBAI). However, the Asian American Bar Association (AABA), the Decalogue Society of Lawyers (DSL), the Hispanic Lawyers of Illinois (HLAI), the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA), the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago (LAGBAC), and the Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois (PRBA) all recommended "no" votes.

Judge McDunn did respond to the Tribune questionnaire and the ICJL questionnaire. Her complete responses to both questionnaires are available by following the links in the preceding sentence. In both responses, Judge McDunn presents her response on the adoption case that features so prominently in her negative evaluations. She told the ICJL that she is proud of the actions she took in these cases, stating, in part:

These cases involved adoption petitions filed by lesbian couples. In these cases, I ordered that full evidentiary hearings be held to determine whether the adoptions would be in the best interest of the children as was required by then-existing, controlling law. In these highly controversial and sensitive cases, I followed the law and upheld the rights of these children under very difficult circumstances, and despite strong opposition and pressure to do otherwise. The Illinois Courts Commission, a constitutionally created body which included an Illinois Supreme Court Justice and two long-standing Illinois Appellate Court Justices, said that I "conscientiously [applied] existing law to an unresolved question: what impact does the sexual orientation of the petitioners have on the child's best interests?" It noted that judicial canons "required [me] to uphold the independence of the judiciary and to remain unswayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism, and stated that I fulfilled my "mandated duty of placing the best interests of the children above all others."

Judge McDunn also has submitted information for the Cook County Retention Judges website which is available from the link in this sentence.

Illinois Civil Justice League posts questionnaires returned by judges on Cook County retention ballot

The Illinois Civil Justice League has posted responses to questionnaires received from several Cook County Circuit Court judges seeking retention in November. Links to those responses are posted below. Judges responding the ICJL questionnaire so far are:

• Nancy Arnold,
• Robert Bertucci,
• Paul Biebel,
• Deborah Dooling,
• Laurence Dunford,
• Thomas Fecarotta,
• Allen Goldberg,
• Sophia Hall,
• Cheryl Ingram,
• Raymond Jagielski,
• Michelle Jordan,
• Thomas Kelley,
• Bertina Lampkin,
• Diane Joan Larsen,
• William Maddux,
• Susan McDunn,
• Sheryl Pethers,
• Leida Gonzalez Santiago,
• Irwin Solganick,
• Daniel Sullivan,
• Alexander White, and
• Susan Zwick.

For updates on ICJL questionnaire responses, or to see responses provided by judges running for retention in other parts of Illinois, visit IllinoisJudges.net.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Related: The Tribune posts retention judge questionnaires

The Tribune posts retention judge questionnaires

Cook County Circuit Court retention candidates were offered the opportunity to respond to questionnaires propounded by the Chicago Tribune. Not every retention candidate responded, though many did. Herewith a list of the retention judges, linked to the Tribune "Election Center" where the responses are posted:

• Nancy Arnold
• Robert Balanoff
• Jeanne Bernstein
• Robert Bertucci
• Paul Biebel Jr.
• Richard Billik Jr.
• Jennifer Brice
• Kathleen Burke
• Charles Burns
• Paula Daleo
• Thomas Davy
• David Delgado
• Deborah Dooling
• Laurence Dunford
• Timothy Evans
• Thomas Fecarotta Jr.
• Denise Filan
• Nicholas Ford
• Vincent Gaughan
• Allen Goldberg
• Susan Grussel
• Sophia Hall
• Kay Hanlon
• LaQuietta Hardy-Campbell
• Thomas Hogan
• Nathaniel Howse Jr.
• Arnette Hubbard
• Cheyrl Ingram
• Raymond Jagielski
• Dorothy Jones
• Daniel Jordan
• Michelle Jordan
• Thomas Kelley
• Carol Kelly
• John Kirby
• William Kunkle
• Bertina Lampkin
• Diane Larsen
• Jeffrey Lawrence
• Daniel Lynch
• William Maddux
• William Maki
• LeRoy Martin Jr.
• James McCarthy
• Susan McDunn
• Clare McWilliams
• Mary Mikva
• Patrick Murphy
• Timothy Murphy
• Donald O'Brien Jr.
• William O'Neal
• Kathleen Pantle
• Sheryl Pethers
• Robert Quinn
• Jim Ryan
• Leida Santiago
• Kevin Sheehan
• Irwin Solganick
• Paul Stralka
• Daniel Sullivan
• Sharon Sullivan
• John Turner Jr.
• Edward Washington II
• Alexander White
• Susan Zwick

The Cook County Retention Judges own website is available as well. Information on some (but not all) of the retention judges can be accessed at that site (depending on whether the judge has provided information for posting).

And there is more: Responses to questionnaires promulgated by the Illinois Civil Justice League are expected to be available later this week at IllinoisJudges.net.

On further review, Chicago Council of Lawyers finds Judge Ryan "Not Qualified"

The Chicago Council of Lawyers has changed its evaluation for Cook County Circuit Court Judge James J. Ryan. Although, as reported here earlier, the Council previously found Judge Ryan qualified for retention, persons clicking over to the Council's evaluation will now find this entry:

Hon. James J. Ryan – Not Qualified

Judge James J. Ryan was admitted to practice in 1992 and was elected to the bench in 2004 after refusing to be evaluated by the Council. Before taking the bench, Judge Ryan was an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney from 1993 to 1995 and was the Director of Operations and General Counsel for the Cook County Sheriff’s Office from 1995 to 2004. From 2004 to 2006 he sat in Traffic Court after which he was assigned to the courthouse in Bridgeview, where he presided over traffic and domestic violence cases. He currently hears felony preliminary hearings. His judicial career has mostly involved less complex matters.

While many praise Judge Ryan's ability to manage his voluminous court call, many others report that he can be short-tempered on the bench, and some have characterized his judicial behavior as an embarrassment. In addition, the Council has uncovered certain misstatements and omissions in Judge Ryan’s evaluation material with respect to the circumstances surrounding his assignment in Bridgeview and his transfer to his current assignment. These misstatements and omissions raise concerns for the Council regarding the candidate's judgment, his candor, and his respect for the judicial screening process. Subsequent investigation of these matters did not allay the Council’s concerns. The Council finds him Not Qualified for retention.

Judge Ryan did secure positive ratings from the AABA, BWLA, CCBA, DSL, HLAI, PRBA, and WBAI. The Judicial Performance Commission of Cook County recommended Judge Ryan's retention, but the Chicago Bar Association did not. In addition to the Council, three other Alliance members made negative recommendations, namely, the HBA, ISBA and LAGBAC.

Alliance ratings grids in "ballot order" order

The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening has released its ratings "grids" for Cook County judicial retention candidates in ballot order. Herewith the grids (click to enlarge as necessary):




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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Related:

More on Alliance retention ratings

CBA says four "not recommended" for retention

Judicial Performance Commission of Cook County says three judges "not recommended" for retention

See also: Cook County Retention Judges Website

Chicago Council of Lawyers retention ratings explained

The Chicago Council of Lawyers has released the explanations of its ratings for the coming election. For the complete report, follow this link.

Several Circuit Court judges were found "well qualified" for retention by the CCL. These are:

• Judge Paula Daleo,
• Judge Thomas Davy,
• Judge Jennifer Duncan-Brice,
• Judge Thomas P. Fecarotta, Jr.,
• Judge Michelle Jordan,
• Judge Carol Kelly,
• Judge John Patrick Kirby,
• Judge Mary Mikva,
• Judge Donald J. O’Brien, Jr., and
• Judge Kathleen Pantle.

Most of the other Cook County Circuit Court judges seeking retention were found "qualified" for retention in office. However, as mentioned in Saturday's post, the CCL chose not to recommend seven Circuit Court judges. These are:

• Judge Dorothy Jones,
• Judge Laurence Dunford,
• Judge Jeffrey Lawrence,
• Judge Susan J. McDunn,
• Judge Patrick T. Murphy,
• Judge William O’Neal, and
• Judge John D. Turner.

The CCL noted that Judge Jones opted not to participate in the CCL evaluation process. In an article in this evening's Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, John Flynn Rooney reports that Judge Jones chose not to participate in any bar evaluation. "I don't participate in the [bar groups evaluation] process because unfortunately I don't think it's fair," Jones told Flynn in an interview. "I let the people decide."

Here are the comments posted by the CCL for each of the seven judges the Council does not recommend for retention:

Hon. Dorothy Jones – Not Recommended
Judge Dorothy Jones refused to participate in the evaluation process. The Council finds her Not Recommended for retention.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Hon. Laurence Dunford – Not Qualified
Bio: Judge Laurence Dunford was elected to the bench in 2004 and is currently assigned to the First Municipal District. Judge Dunford was admitted to practice in 1971. Prior to election, he was in private practice.

Judge Dunford presents a difficult case. Most respondents say that he has a good knowledge of the law and with adequate legal ability and temperament. But other respondents find fault with his temperament, saying that he can be short-tempered and unpredictable from day to day. The Council concludes that he is Not Qualified for retention.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Hon. Jeffrey Lawrence – Not Qualified
Judge Jeffrey Lawrence was elected to the bench in 1992. He is currently assigned to the Law Division. Previously, he was in the Domestic Relations Division. Judge Lawrence was admitted to practice in 1969. Prior to election, he was in private practice.

Judge Lawrence is considered to have good legal ability. He is a capable judge who is praised for his ability to handle more complex cases. However, the Council is concerned that there are numerous reports that Judge Lawrence is not punctual in terms of starting his court call. This is a complaint that lawyers have directed at Judge Lawrence since the 1998 retention election evaluation conducted by the Council. In addition, there are lawyers who report that he is sometimes not prepared for their cases and that he is sometimes intemperate on the bench. On balance, the Council finds him Not Qualified for retention.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Hon. Susan J. McDunn -- Not Qualified
Judge Susan McDunn was elected to the bench in 1992. She is currently assigned to the Law Division. Previously, she was in the County Division and the First Municipal District. Judge McDunn was admitted to practice in 1980. Prior to election, she was in private practice.

Judge McDunn is considered to have adequate legal ability. Judge McDunn was found Not Qualified for retention in 2004, having been publicly rebuked by the Illinois Appellate Court for judicial conduct the court says, “disgraced the judiciary and the people of Illinois.” The Council found her behavior in failing to follow Illinois adoption law based on her personal beliefs to be “unacceptable and fall well beyond the pale of appropriate judicial conduct.” The Council believes this behavior alone disqualifies Judge McDunn, but an evaluation conducted for the 2010 retention election revealed that many lawyers believe she has difficulty handling complex matters that come before her and that she demonstrates an inappropriate temperament. The Council finds her Not Qualified for retention.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Hon. Patrick T. Murphy – Not Qualified
Judge Patrick T. Murphy was elected to the bench in 2004, and serves in the Fifth Municipal District Domestic Relations Division, where he runs the Unified Family Court Project. Previously, he served in the First Municipal District and the Sixth Municipal District Domestic Relations Division. Judge Murphy was admitted to practice in 1964 after earning his J.D. Prior to election, Judge Murphy served as the Cook County Public Guardian. He was also an assistant Cook County state’s attorney, an attorney with the National Legal Aid & Defender Program and Legal Assistance Foundation, and in private practice.

Judge Patrick Murphy is considered to have very good legal ability and is held in high esteem by many for his work as Public Guardian prior to the time he took the bench. But many practitioners report that he is inconsistent in his rulings as a judge. They say he often makes inappropriate, sometimes insulting remarks to the parties in front of him. Some say that he fails to follow the law, ruling in a way that he believes is correct. He is considered to be an advocate rather than a neutral arbiter. The Council respects Judge Murphy for his commitment to reform but finds him Not Qualified for retention to the Circuit Court.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

William O’Neal – Not Qualified
Judge William O’Neal was elected to the Circuit Court in 1992. He has served in the Sixth Municipal District since his election. Judge O’Neal was admitted to practice in 1971. Prior to election, he was in private practice and had been a Cook County Public Defender.

Judge O’Neal is reported to demonstrate concern about each defendant who comes before him. His integrity is unquestioned. However, many lawyers question whether he always follows the law. In addition, some lawyers complain about his impatience on the bench. The Council finds him Not Qualified for retention.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Hon. John D. Turner – Not Qualified
Judge John Turner was elected to the Circuit Court in 1998. He is currently assigned to the Sixth Municipal District and was previously in the First Municipal District. Judge Turner was admitted to practice in 1984. Prior to election, he was an attorney for the Chicago Transit Authority, for the Chicago Park District and both with the Office of the Public Guardian and the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services.

Judge Turner hears misdemeanor cases. Some lawyers say he can be short-tempered on the bench and others complain that he does not always apply the law to the facts. Many other lawyers, however, say that he is doing an adequate job in his current assignment. On balance, the Council finds him Not Qualified for retention.

More on Alliance retention ratings

The 11 members of the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening have recommended a "yes" vote for the vast majority of the more than 60 Cook County Circuit Court judges seeking retention this November. Literally dozens of judges received favorable retention recommendations from every single Alliance member. (The Alliance "grids" can be found in this post.)

But not all of the Alliance bar associations recommend "yes" votes on all the judges. The Chicago Council of Lawyers (CCL) has recommended a "no" vote on seven judges; the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago (LAGBAC) recommends a "no" vote on eight judges; and the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA) recommends a "no" vote on six judges. Judge Dorthy F. Jones, received negative recommendations from the CCL, LAGBAC, the ISBA and all of the other Alliance members. (Jones also received negative ratings from the Chicago Bar Association (CBA) and the new Judicial Performance Commission of Cook County (JPC).)

Judge Susan J. McDunn received "yes" recommendations from the Black Women Lawyers' Association of Greater Chicago (BWLA), the Cook County Bar Association (CCBA), the Hellenic Bar Association (HBA), and the Women's Bar Association of Illinois (WBAI). However, the Asian American Bar Association (AABA), the CCL, the Decalogue Society of Lawyers (DSL), the Hispanic Lawyers of Illinois (HLAI), the ISBA, the LAGBAC, and the Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois (PRBA) all recommended "no" votes. (Judge McDunn was also "not recommended" by the JPC and the CBA.)

Judge William D. O'Neal was "not recommended" by the CBA because he did not participate in that organization's evaluation process. However, Judge O'Neal received "yes" recommendations from the AABA, BWLA, CCBA, DSL, HBA, HLAI, PRBA, and WBAI. Judge O'Neal did receive "no" recommendations from the CCL and the ISBA, but was recommended for retention by the JPC.

Judge Jim Ryan received positive ratings from the AABA, BWLA, CCL, CCBA, DSL, HLAI, PRBA, and WBAI. The JPC recommended Judge Ryan's retention, but the CBA did not. Three Alliance members made "no" recommendations, however, namely, the HBA, ISBA and LAGBAC.

Judge Jeffrey Lawrence received a negative recommendation from the JPC and a positive one from the CBA. Eight of the 11 Alliance Bar Associations rated Judge Lawrence favorably (the AABA, BWLA, CCBA, DSL, HLAI, LAGBAC, PRBA, and WBAI), although the CCL, HBA and ISBA made negative recommendations.

Judge Patrick T. Murphy was rated favorably for retention by the AABA, BWLA, CCBA, LAGBAC, and PRBA. However, the CCL, DSL, HBA, HLAI, ISBA and WBAI all made negative recommendations. The CBA and JPC both recommended Judge Murphy's retention. The CBA's evaluation stated:

Judge Patrick T. Murphy is “Qualified” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Murphy was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1965. Judge Murphy practiced law for 40 years prior to his election to the Circuit Court, including over 25 years as the Cook County Public Guardian. Judge Murphy is well-known for his diligence, punctuality, and hard work. Those who appear before him find him to be earnest with a good grasp of the law. Judge Murphy’s integrity is unquestioned and he has demonstrated the requisite qualities necessary to serve as a Circuit Court Judge.

The JPC summarized its findings with regard to Judge Murphy as follows:

The Commission notes that Judge Murphy is conscientious, knowledgeable and committed to the best interests of children involved in the divorce proceedings. He has made extensive contributions to the community during his legal career. However, while the Commission believes Judge Murphy should be retained, we have received reports that Judge Murphy can be, at times, intemperate and inconsistent in his rulings.

No other Cook County Circuit Judge seeking retention received more than two negative ratings from the 11 member bar associations.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Related:

CBA says four "not recommended" for retention

Judicial Performance Commission of Cook County says three judges "not recommended" for retention

Alliance releases retention ratings

See also:Cook County Retention Judges Website

Alliance releases retention ratings

More to follow. For now, here are the Alliance "grids." (Click to enlarge.)




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

Judicial Performance Commission of Cook County says three judges "not recommended" for retention

The new Judicial Performance Commission of Cook County has released its report on the qualifications of Cook County Circuit Court judges seeking retention. The entire JPC report may be found at this link (PDF format). (For more about the Judicial Performance Commission, see this post or JPC's own explanation of its history, purpose and methodology)(PDF format).

The three judges that the JPC does not recommend for retention are:

• Dorothy F. Jones,
• Jeffrey Lawrence, and
• Susan Jeanine McDunn.

Here are the JPC's comments on each of these three judges:

Hon. Dorothy F. Jones

The Judicial Performance Commission does not recommend Judge Dorothy F. Jones for retention.

Biography: Dorothy Jones graduated from DePaul University College of Law and was admitted to practice in 1979.

Judge Dorothy Jones was elected to the Circuit Court in 1992. She is currently assigned to a primarily pro se call in the First Municipal District. Prior to election, she was an assistant public defender in Cook County.

Summary: The Commission found predominantly unfavorable impressions of Judge Jones in the legal community. The investigation revealed a lack of clarity and consistency in her decisions, as well as questions about her temperament and ability to manage the courtroom. Although Judge Jones has a reputation for honesty and efficiency, the Commission does not feel those qualities outweigh the deficiencies of performance, temperament and management found in the investigation.

The Judicial Performance Commission does not recommend Judge Dorothy F. Jones for retention.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Hon. Jeffrey Lawrence

The Judicial Performance Commission does not recommend Judge Jeffrey Lawrence for retention.

Biography: Jeffrey Lawrence graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law and was admitted to practice in 1969.

Judge Lawrence was elected to the bench in 1992. He is currently assigned to the Law Division. Previously, he was in the Domestic Relations Division. Prior to election, he was in private practice.

Summary: Respondents indicate that Judge Lawrence issues detailed written rulings and has a good knowledge of the law. However, the Commission notes a serious issue of punctuality that has been consistent throughout his eighteen years on the bench. The Commission also notes a number of respondents who complain that he is not always prepared. Interviewees indicate Judge Lawrence often takes the bench well after the scheduled start time and sometimes does not appear prepared for court when he arrives. The Commission received numerous comments about significant delays created when the judge does not take the bench promptly and is not prepared for hearings. Judge Lawrence was made aware of complaints about his punctuality through bar association evaluations in previous retention elections but the Commission’s investigation suggests he has not addressed the recurring problem. On balance, the Commission cannot recommend Judge Lawrence for retention[.]

The Judicial Performance Commission does not recommend Judge Jeffrey Lawrence for retention.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Hon. Susan J. McDunn

The Judicial Performance Commission does not recommend Judge Susan J. McDunn for retention.

Biography: Susan J. McDunn graduated from DePaul University College of Law and was admitted to practice in 1980.

Judge McDunn was elected to the bench in 1992 and seated in 1993. She is currently assigned to the Law Division. Previously, she was in the County Division and the First Municipal District. Prior to election, she was in private practice.

Summary: Judge McDunn appears attentive to proceedings and is punctual for court. However, the Commission notes significant concerns about her ability to handle difficult, complex matters. She is described as unwilling to reconsider rulings when presented with additional case law and demonstrates an inappropriate temperament. The Commission received reports of the judge losing her temper and appearing unable to control her courtroom.

In an adoption case in 1999, Judge McDunn was rebuked by the Appellate Court for judicial conduct that the court said “disgraced the judiciary and people of Illinois.”

Although the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board concluded that Judge McDunn did not make statements against persons based upon their sexual orientation, her actions demonstrated a lack of respect for the law. There is no indication that Judge McDunn has rehabilitated her performance. Moreover, the Commission received comments from some lawyers that in light of this event, Judge McDunn does not command the respect of the legal community.

The Judicial Performance Commission does not recommend Judge Susan J. McDunn for retention.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Differences between JPC and CBA ratings

Two of the judges receiving 'not recommended' ratings, Judges Jones and McDunn, also received a 'not recommended' rating from the Chicago Bar Association. (See, this earlier post for details.)

Judge Lawrence, on the other hand, was recommended by the CBA. The CBA stated:

Judge Jeffrey Lawrence is "Qualified" for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Lawrence was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1969 and has served as a judge since 1992. Judge Lawrence is currently assigned to the motion call in the Law Division. Judge Lawrence possesses the requisite legal knowledge, ability, and integrity to be retained.

The JPC recommended two judges for retention that the CBA refused to recommend. The CBA automatically rated Judge William D. O'Neal 'not recommended' because he refused to participate in the CBA evaluation process. The JPC, however, stated, in summary, that "Respondents generally felt that Judge O’Neal makes appropriate rulings. While the Commission believes he should be retained, the Commission notes there have been some concerns raised about his temperament and ability to maintain order in the courtroom." On balance, though, he was recommended.

Judge Jim Ryan was also rated 'not recommended' by the CBA but 'recommended' by the JPC. Of Ryan, the JPC said, in summary, "Survey respondents generally found Judge Ryan to be efficient and appreciate the deliberation he gives to defendants during the preliminary hearings heard in his courtroom. He manages his call efficiently and maintains a good relationship with court personnel. He is praised for being fair to all defendants when making his rulings." The JPC added, "While the Commission believes he should be retained, the Commission notes significant reports that Judge Ryan sometimes seems impatient and inattentive during court."

CBA says four "not recommended" for retention

The Chicago Bar Association has announced its ratings for Cook County judges seeking retention in November. (Click here for complete CBA "Green Guide" in .pdf format.)

Supreme Court Justices Thomas R. Fitzgerald and Charles E. Freeman were both rated "qualified" in their retention bids, as were Appellate Court Justices Joseph E. Gordon and Shelvin Louise Marie Hall.

All Cook County Circuit Court judges seeking retention were also deemed qualified by the CBA with four exceptions. The four judges rated "not recommended" by the CBA are:

• Dorothy F. Jones
• Susan Jeanine McDunn
• William D. O'Neal
• Jim Ryan

Here is the text of the CBA's evaluation for each of these retention candidates:

DOROTHY F. JONES.........................NOT RECOMMENDED
The candidate declined to participate in the Judicial Evaluation Committee (JEC) screening process and, therefore,according to The Chicago Bar Association's governing resolution for the JEC, is automatically found NOT RECOMMENDED.

SUSAN JEANINE MCDUNN...............NOT RECOMMENDED
Judge Susan Jeanine McDunn is “Not Recommended” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge McDunn was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1980 and has served as a judge since 1993. Since 2007, Judge McDunn has served in the Law Division and is considered a hard worker. However, Judge McDunn does not possess the requisite legal knowledge and ability to serve as a Circuit Court Judge.

WILLIAM D. O'NEAL........................NOT RECOMMENDED
The candidate declined to participate in the Judicial Evaluation Committee (JEC) screening process and, therefore,according to The Chicago Bar Association's governing resolution for the JEC, is automatically found NOT RECOMMENDED.

JIM RYAN.......................................NOT RECOMMENDED
Judge Jim Ryan is “NotRecommended” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Ryan was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1992 and was elected to the Circuit Court in 2004. Judge Ryan does not possess the requisite legal knowledge, ability, and temperament to serve as a Circuit Court Judge.

ICJL to post judicial retention questionnaires

The Illinois Civil Justice League is asking all Illinois judges seeking retention to complete a questionnaire. The responses from Cook County jurists will be posted on this page at IllinoisJudges.net.

Here are the questions that the ICJL is asking judges to answer:

1. State the main reason why voters should return you to the bench.

2. What actions have you taken as a judge of which you are most proud?

3. Name and describe one change you would make in the Illinois court system.

4. One prominent Illinois judicial evaluation survey asks attorneys to evaluate candidates on Integrity, Impartiality, Legal Ability and Temperament. Critique yourself in these four areas as to how you personally approach your job as a judge?

(Emphasis in original.)

My thanks to the ICJL's Allen Admoite for sending a copy of the ICJL survey my way. If you know of other questionnaires that Cook County retention judges are being asked to answer, please leave a link in a comment or send me an email.

Retention Judges Fundraiser September 20

My invite to the September 20 fundraiser hosted by the "Citizens for Retention of Judges in Cook County, 2010" arrived in the mail this week.

Full disclosure: If I can scrape up the requested $125 donation, I plan to attend this function, which will run from 5:00 to 8:00pm in the Preston Bradley Hall of the Chicago Cultural Center, 78 E. Washington Street.

Entertainment, says the invitation, will be provided by "Judge Gregory Paul Vazquez & His Jazz Ensemble."

This is the one fundraiser held on behalf of all the retention judges in Cook County and it will be extraordinarily well attended.

Judicial retention elections are a strange thing. The 70 judges up for retention in Cook County this year do not run against anyone; the candidate's name is on the ballot in the form of a question that comes down to this: Should Judge X remain a judge? Or should Judge X look for work elsewhere come December?

If Judge X receives at least a 60% "yes" vote, he or she keeps the job.

It is rare indeed for a judge to thrown out of office at a retention election; the last time any Cook County judges failed to achieve a 60% yes vote was in 1990 when seven judges were removed (though one was simultaneously elected to the Appellate Court).

But that doesn't mean that judges have no reason to take retention elections seriously. It is a fact that at least two out of 10 voters will mark "no" on every single judge, no matter how qualified. In the 2008 retention election, for example, only one Circuit Court judge received more than an 80% "yes" vote (and she received, by my calculation, 80.1%).

Thus, the stars of the newspapers' editorials, the individuals rated most highly qualified by all the various bar groups, can still expect to be rejected by 20% or more of the voters -- and that's in a normal year. Across the nation, there is evidence to suggest that the theme of the current election cycle may be "throw the rascals out" -- rascals being loosely defined as anyone holding office.

But wholesale removal of judges in Cook County would not be in the public's best interests.

We have many very good, hard-working, scholarly judges in Cook County. There will also be some judges on this year's retention ballot who, in the opinion of some bar associations, or some newspapers or community groups, should join the ranks of the unemployed. Usually, there will be some disagreement: Judge X may be rejected by one bar association, but recommended by another. It is up to the voters to educate themselves, in these cases, as to which bar association, or which newspaper editorial board, has the correct view. I will try and report the good and the bad, the agreements and the disagreements, on various retention candidates in this blog.

But the default vote on the retention ballot, in the absence of a good reason to vote otherwise, should be "yes."

And that is why I plan to buy my ticket for September 20.

CBA soliciting member input on retention judges

The Chicago Bar Association is soliciting member input on Cook County judges up for retention on the November ballot. Members "are invited to submit comments if you have appeared before a judge or know the candidates and have personal knowledge about their qualifications and abilities." Visit the CBA website (that's a link to the CBA home page in the preceding sentence) to complete a confidential questionnaire.

While the information provided is confidential, you will note that the CBA form requests each contributor to leave identifying information including name, address and phone number. Not only does this prevent anonymous attacks, it provides the opportunity for investigators from the CBA Judicial Evaluation Committee to follow up on responses, if necessary, seeking clarification or additional information.

Voter resources for retention judges are coming

The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (subscription required) reported this week about the new Judicial Performance Commission of Cook County. A project of the Chicago Appleseed Fund and the Chicago Council of Lawyers, and supported by a grant from the Joyce Foundation, the JPC is surveying lawyers who've appeared before judges up for retention this year with a view toward making retention recommendations for November.

A key difference in the methodology of the JPC surveys is that the JPC is contacting attorneys based on court appearances supplied by the Clerk of the Circuit Court. "In the evaluation process conducted by members of the Alliance and the Chicago Bar Association," John Flynn Rooney's Law Bulletin article explains, "judges up for retention provide names of lawyers who have appeared before them." The JPC is using an independent research team, separate from the Commission, to conduct its surveys. According to an explanatory letter issued by the JPC, more than 8,000 will be contacted in an online survey; another 1,400 lawyers will provide "interviews using structured interview instruments."

In response to an email inquiry from this blog, Elizabeth Monkus of the Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice explained that the JPC is "attempting to identify or control for attorneys with a particular axe to grind, or a single bad experience in front of a judge in a couple ways."

First, Monkus said, survey respondents are asked about their own levels of experience and are also asked straight out how often they've appeared before the particular judge. In addition, Monkus said, "independent social science researchers are serving as consultants to the project, performing statistical analysis of the responses. Their analysis allows us to identify outlier responses and discover patterns in the responses. For instance, it may be that a judge rates very highly in the administrative capacity metric with attorneys that routinely appear in her courtroom, but rates very poorly on the same questions with attorneys who infrequently practice before her. Statistical analysis of the responses allows us to understand conflicting responses to survey questions and allows us to form a nuanced evaluation which accounts for the discrepancies."

Rooney's article mentions that the Chicago Council of Lawyers will also continue to participate in the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening and will issue independent ratings. Given the involvement of the CCL in setting up the Commission, I asked Monkus whether separate evaluations from the JPC and CCL might not be seen as a way for the CCL to exercise disproportionate influence over the retention process. In an email, Monkus responded, "No members of the Commission currently serve on the CCL board, nor has any member of the Commission been part of the CCL’s state judicial evaluation process." While representatives of the CCL "helped plan" the JPC, Monkus said that Chicago Appleseed, which is providing "administrative support" for the JPC, is independent of the CCL, although Chicago Appleseed and the CCL "do work together on systemic reform projects."

It should also be noted that two of the JPC's 17 members, Leonard Jay Schrager, a former dean of the John Marshall Law School, and Roy E. Hofer, a partner with Brinks, Hofer, Gilson & Lione in Chicago, are former presidents of the Chicago Bar Association. (For a complete list of Commission members, see this post on page two.) The CBA is also expected to issue separate recommendations on judicial retention hopefuls.

The JPC hopes to complete its surveys and evaluations and issue its retention recommendations by early November. This June 29 post on the Chicago Appleseed blog solicits lawyer-volunteers to assist the JPC in its work. Interested persons will find contact information by following the link in the preceding sentence.

Retention Judges website in development

Judges running for retention will not be dependent solely on surveys of lawyers who appear before them to make their case for retention.

The Cook County Retention Judges website has been launched. Eventually, information for each of the 70 judges up for retention this year will be added, but, as of this writing, the site is still incomplete. If the last election cycle is any indication, some judges will put more effort into making their case for retention than others. This site will provide a place where judges can make their retention claims directly to the voters.

A link to this site has been added to the Sidebar.

ICJL to evaluate retention hopefuls as well

The Illinois Civil Justice League will survey all candidates for judicial office in Illinois and post candidates' responses and other relevant information on Illinois Judges.Net, the ICJL's judicial election website.

According to the July 8 ICJL News Update, Illinois judicial candidates, including all Cook County retention hopefuls, "will be invited to respond to an ICJL questionnaire and include information related to their background and philosophy. Candidate endorsements by various bar associations and newspapers will be included and candidates may provide links to their own websites."

More information on the ICJL surveys, the bar association retention evaluations, the JPC evaluation process, and on the Cook County Retention Judges' own website will be posted on For What It's Worth in the coming weeks.