Nine judges singled out as "Well Qualified" for retention by Chicago Council of Lawyers

In the post below, I reported that the Chicago Council of Lawyers had found seven of 58 Cook County judges running for retention this year "Not Qualified" to remain in office. However, the Council also singled out nine other judges as being "Well Qualified" for retention and, in this post, we look at what the Council had to say about each of these.

These are presented, according to the Council, in ballot order:

Judge Moshe Jacobius – Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Moshe Jacobius was with the Illinois Attorney General’s Office for his entire career. Judge Jacobius was appointed to the Circuit Court in 1991. He was first assigned to the Domestic Relations Division and then to the Chancery Division. In 2000, he was made Presiding Judge of the Domestic Relations Division, and presently serves as Presiding Judge of the Chancery Division.

Respondents report that Judge Jacobius knows the law and works hard. He is considered diligent by the vast majority of respondents. His courtroom is described as efficient and fair. Judge Jacobius is characterized as generally prepared for court with a good memory for his cases. He is called dignified and professional.

As presiding judge, Judge Jacobius handles the administration of the Chancery Division and hears motions and cases assigned to him. Respondents were complimentary and frequently remarked upon his honesty, integrity and knowledge of rules.

Judge Jacobius is highly regarded by attorneys and judges in both Domestic Relations and Chancery divisions. He is praised as a supervisor and as a mentor. The Council finds him Well Qualified for retention.

Judge Start Lubin – Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Stuart Lubin was a career Assistant Cook County Public Defender. Judge Lubin was appointed to the Circuit Court in 1991 and elected in 1994. He currently serves in the Juvenile Justice Division.

Judge Lubin is regarded as an extraordinary jurist with excellent legal ability. His courtroom management praised as exceptional. He is efficient in the courtroom, but is praised for taking the time to communicate with the lawyers and litigants before him. Respondents characterize him as very diligent. He is praised for his integrity and fairness. He exhibits a low key demeanor but is
reported to always be in control of his courtroom.

Respondents characterize Judge Lubin as a model judge and consider him an asset to the judiciary. The Council finds him Well Qualified for retention.

Judge Stuart Palmer – Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Stuart Palmer was an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney and served in the Felony Trial Division. Judge Palmer was elected to the Circuit Court in 1994. He was assigned to the Criminal Division until 2005 when he was transferred to the Chancery Division. Judge Palmer was assigned to the Appellate Court of Illinois by the Illinois Supreme Court effective January 6, 2012. He is seeking retention as a Circuit Judge.

Most respondents felt Judge Palmer had a strong legal ability. He “makes firm decisions and knows law” and “he processes [information] quickly and comes to sensible decisions.” He is considered courteous. Many remarked that he controls his docket and treats everyone equally and with dignity. He is often described as a “solid and fair jurist.” Judge Palmer was very recently elevated to the Appellate Court. His performance as a Circuit Court judge indicates a strong legal
ability and a judicial temperament. The Council finds him Well Qualified for retention.

Martin S. Agran – Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Martin S. Agran served as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney and was in private practice. He was also a panel attorney with the Federal Defender’s Office for 14 years. He was appointed to the Circuit Court in 1994 and elected to the bench the same year. Judge Agran was initially assigned to the First Municipal District, then to the Child Protection Division. He served in the Juvenile Justice Division and the Trial Section of the Law Division. Since 2004, Judge Agran has been in the Chancery Division.

Attorneys surveyed and interviewed indicated Judge Agran is well-respected. He is seen as a “thoughtful” jurist who takes time to do his own research and come to the right conclusion. He has the ability to “move his cases” and he does this while still taking time to ensure everyone’s cases are litigated thoroughly. Respondents noted his “judicial and cordial” demeanor and describe him as “very fair.” He is known for giving “well-reasoned decisions based on the law.” Consistently, interviewees stated that Judge Agran was “very knowledgeable” and “bright.”

This judge was also consistently praised for courtroom management skills. While he “keeps his call moving” and is “very organized,” Judge Agran is also said to be “very accommodating” and grants continuances when necessary. One interviewee pointed out that Judge Agran “always made sure everyone knew the status.” The attorneys interviewed uniformly stated that he “reads everything,” and is always “very prepared” for court proceedings. Many respondents also mentioned that he had an excellent memory and could often recall many details of the matters before him.

Judge Agran’s temperament also received praise from the attorneys surveyed. Many of the interviewees stated that he was “not excitable” and “even keeled.” A number of respondents also stated that while Judge Agran could be firm at times, he always remained “professional” and “respectful.”

Judge Agran is also highly regarded for his integrity and fairness. Many of the attorneys interviewed stated that his integrity was “beyond reproach.” Attorneys also uniformly felt they “got a fair shake” from Judge Agran. This was even said by attorneys who received unfavorable decisions from the judge. Many interviewees also made special note of Judge Agran’s treatment of pro se litigants, stating that he always treated pro se litigants fairly and listened to their arguments. One attorney stated that “you’re always on a level playing field in his courtroom whether or not you’re represented by a lawyer.”

The Council finds Judge Agran Well Qualified for retention.

Judge Maureen Connors – Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Maureen Connors was in private practice, and also served as an assistant general attorney at the Chicago Park District. Judge Connors was appointed to the Illinois Appellate Court in 2010. She became an Associate Judge in 1988 and was elected to the Circuit Court in 1994. She served in the Traffic Division, Domestic Violence Division, the Probate Division, and the Fifth Municipal District of the Circuit Court.

Judge Connors is considered an excellent, hardworking judge. She is considered to have very good legal ability and temperament. She is praised for her knowledge of the law. Attorneys report that she is “exemplary in terms of dealing with people” and “courteous and respectful to all equally.” The Council finds her Well Qualified for retention.

Judge Marya Nega – Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Marya Nega was the Principal Assistant Attorney with the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. Judge Nega was elected to the Circuit Court in 1994. She was initially assigned to the First Municipal District. In 1995, Judge Nega was assigned to the Domestic Relations Division where she is currently a preliminary judge handling Calendar E.

Respondents describe Judge Nega’s legal ability as excellent, with many interviewees stating that she has a very “in depth knowledge” of the statutes in Domestic Relations. Several respondents also remarked very favorably regarding Judge Nega’s “common sense approach” to applying the law. She is known to describe her rulings logically.

The interviewees also believed she does an excellent job managing her courtroom. Several mentioned that Judge Nega always started on time and had a system in place to ensure that all cases were heard in a timely manner. One interviewee stated that “she will skip lunch if it’s a really busy day” in order to get through her call.

Judge Nega was also repeatedly praised for her diligence and attention to detail. Several respondents stated that she always reads everything prior to the hearing and that she is “always fully engaged.” One interviewee stated that “she had a memory like a steel trap,” and “always knows what is going on.” Many attorneys remarked that Judge Nega was also very organized. Judge Nega’s temperament and fairness received particularly high praise from almost all of the respondents. The Council finds her Well Qualified for retention.

Judge Peter Flynn – Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Peter Flynn was in private practice, focusing on complex business litigation. Judge Flynn was appointed to the Circuit Court in 1999 and elected in 2000. Judge Flynn was initially assigned to the First Municipal District and then to the Law Division, Individual Commercial Calendar. He currently sits in the Chancery Division.

Judge Flynn’s intelligence and engagement with the issues before him are reported as obvious strengths by respondents. Many respondents remarked on how familiar with the cases on his docket the judge is, noting that he is prepared and runs an efficient, professional courtroom. Although respondents indicate that Judge Flynn expects similar rigor from the attorneys practicing in his courtroom, they note he does not lose his temper with unprepared attorneys, but he will pass their cases to another date.

Judge Flynn is considered very smart with an excellent legal ability. Several respondents characterized him as among the smartest or best judges in the county. He is described as having a thorough understanding of both law and procedure, as well as having control of his cases. Additionally, Judge Flynn is noted to be engaged and interested in the proceedings before him and possesses good communication skills.

“Calm” and “fair” are common assessments of his courtroom demeanor. His courtroom is regularly described as a “level playing field.” It appears that attorneys know what to expect in Judge Flynn’s courtroom and that pro se litigants are handled respectfully and fairly. Respondents believed that cases move through his docket expeditiously. The Council finds him Well Qualified for retention.

Judge Michael Howlett – Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Michael Howlett clerked in the Federal District Court in Chicago and in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. He worked for the U.S. Attorney’s Office before entering private practice. He also served as counsel to Cook County State’s Attorney Richard Devine. Judge Howlett served as an Associate Judge from 1983-86 and was appointed to the Circuit Court in 2005. He was elected to the bench in 2006, spending two years in the Juvenile Justice Division before moving into the Criminal Division. He currently sits in the Second Municipal District, hearing felony cases from the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court.

Attorneys praised Judge Howlett in all categories, including his legal ability, courtroom management skills, preparedness and diligence, integrity, temperament, and fairness. He is “upto speed” on his cases and “isn’t afraid to ask questions.” He is also reported to “listen and stay focused,” remain “engaged” in the proceedings, and he “mak[es] sure everyone understands what’s going on in his courtroom. Judge Howlett is reported to be hard working and focused on the cases in front of him: he “cares about people and doing a good job.” Respondents noted that he is well-prepared for his call and well-versed in the law, rules and procedure.

Attorneys roundly praised his tone, judicial demeanor, diligence and integrity. Many attorneys focused on his integrity, temperament and fairness, giving him high marks in these areas. Respondents feel he has a good tone and demeanor while on the bench. Judge Howlett is described as “courteous and respectful” and lawyers repeatedly echoed the sentiment that “both sides get a fair shake” in front of him. He was uniformly praised for his fairness, judicial independence, and for being a “professional, a dignified man who is fair and respectful.” The Council finds him Well Qualified for retention.

Judge Grace Dickler – Well Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Grace Dickler a legal aid attorney and was in private practice as a solo practitioner. Judge Dickler was appointed as an Associate Judge in 1988 and elected to the Circuit Court in 2006. She served in the Second Municipal District. In 2010, she became Presiding Judge in the Domestic Violence Division, and transferred to the position of Presiding Judge of the Domestic Relations Division in 2011.

Respondents were largely positive with regard to Judge Dickler. They describe her as decisive with good temperament. She is considered to have very good legal ability. Judge Dickler is reported to be both a good judge and a good administrator. In her current role as the Presiding Judge of the Domestic Relations Division, she has assembled a series of task forces to advise her on reform efforts. For example, she spearheaded a reportedly successful program through which lawyers volunteer to do emergency orders of protection for indigent persons. She is engaged and serious in her duties both as a judge on the bench and as a presiding judge interested in reform. Judge Dickler is considered an asset to the court system. The Council finds her Well Qualified.

The Council's complete report may be accessed through its website (VoteForJudges.org) or by clicking on this link.

Chicago Council of Lawyers releases 2012 judicial retention ratings

The Chicago Council of Lawyers has released its ratings for Cook County judges seeking retention in the November 2012 election.

The Council's complete report is available through its website (VoteForJudges.org) or by clicking here (.pdf document).

The Council finds most of the 58 judges seeking retention to be at least "Qualified" to continue in their posts. Nine were singled out by the Council as "Well Qualified" for retention. Seven other judges were identified by the Council as "Not Qualified."

In this post we look at the judges found wanting by the Council along with the Council's reasons for so stating (presented, according to the Council, in ballot order):

Kathy Flanagan – Not Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Kathy Flanagan was in private practice. Judge Flanagan was elected to the Circuit Court in 1988. She was initially assigned to the Domestic Relations Division as a trial judge. Judge Flanagan currently sits in the Law Division on a motion call.

With regard to fairness and legal ability, Judge Flanagan is generally considered intelligent, with a good grasp of the law, and appropriate diligence. Respondents believe her to be very engaged in the courtroom, giving full attention to the details. With regard to rulings, she is described as “consistent, predictable and follows the law.” Many interviewees characterize her as “very fair” and “always prepared.”

However, a substantial number of respondents had a negative impression of Judge Flanagan’s judicial temperament. She was called “hostile,” “imperious,” “rude” and “discourteous.” She was frequently described as impatient or inflexible. A number of attorneys believe these qualities negatively affected her ability to manage her courtroom efficiently. However, even some respondents who were highly critical of her temper noted that she is “bright” and “truly cares” about the outcomes in her courtroom.

Responses indicate that Judge Flanagan is clearly diligent and capable on the bench. She is prepared for court, punctual and engaged in the proceedings with a reputation for intelligence and general fairness. However, responses show that Judge Flanagan displays inappropriate temper and has created a courtroom atmosphere that is readily described as hostile or unpleasant. In 2006 the Council found Judge Flanagan Not Qualified for retention for these same reasons. There reportedly has been no significant improvement. The Council finds her Not Qualified for retention.

Judge Cynthia Brim – Not Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Cynthia Brim was an Assistant Illinois Attorney General. Judge Brim was elected to the Circuit Court in 1994 and initially assigned to the First Municipal District. Judge Brim is presently assigned to the Fifth Municipal District but has been suspended from duty since March 12, 2012. Judge Brim was arrested on March 10, 2012 on misdemeanor charges related to an altercation with a Cook County Sheriff’s Deputy at the Daley Center.

Most respondents indicated a lack of confidence in her legal abilities. Even though the judge hears generally non-complex matters, her rulings are often described as unpredictable and delayed. Respondents indicate that they regularly file motions for substitution of judge, despite the cost and inconvenience to their clients.

Additionally, there are many complaints that Judge Brim is late to take the bench. Attorneys report repeated continuances because court starts late and because the call is handled inefficiently. Attorneys feel that Judge Brim is particularly rude and unaccommodating of counsel who are on call in multiple courtrooms. Many attorneys described her as “consistently late” and there is some concern that her case management delays resolution of cases.

The consistently negative reports about Judge Brim’s judicial performance and her arrest at the courthouse at the Daley Center in downtown Chicago raise serious questions about whether she can remain effective on the bench. The Council finds her Not Qualified for retention.

Judge Christopher Donnelly – Not Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Christopher Donnelly spent one year in private practice before working as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney. Judge Donnelly was elected to the Circuit Court in 1994. He served in the Juvenile Justice Division prior to being transferred to the Sixth Municipal District in Markham, where he currently sits.

Most attorneys agree that Judge Donnelly has the aptitude to understand the law and apply it. Attorneys reported that Judge Donnelly is “a smart man,” intelligent,” and has “an excellent grasp of what’s going on in his courtroom.” Regarding his courtroom management, interviewees repeatedly praised his efficiency, describing him as running a tight ship and being capable of moving the call along. His judicial diligence and preparedness were not generally questioned.

While many attorneys complimented his intelligence and legal aptitude, a substantial number raised concerns about Judge Donnelly’s temperament and his professionalism. Interview respondents roundly criticized his tone and demeanor while on the bench. Some respondents referred to him as a “bully,” stating that “he goes out of his way to demean people unnecessarily,” he is “mean spirited” and “sometimes can just explode over the insignificant,” and that he “is unprofessional, rude and disrespectful.”

Many respondents had negative responses about Judge Donnelly’s judicial fairness, with most attorneys reporting that he has an unabashedly pro-prosecution perspective. Another attorney suggested that Judge Donnelly’s experience as a former prosecutor weighs heavily on his current role as a judge. One interviewee who summed up many concerns in moderate terms hoped that the evaluation process would inspire the Judge to consider the impression his demeanor makes. The Council finds him Not Qualified for retention.

James Egan – Not Recommended
Judge Egan failed to submit materials to the Council for evaluation, indicating that he would be retiring. However, his name appears on the November retention ballot and thus we are required to rate him as Not Recommended in light of his failure to submit evaluation materials. Nonetheless, given the unique circumstances here – Judge Egan has submitted his materials in the past and it appears he did not do so this time because he plans to retire – the Council has decided to include the following evaluation of Judge Egan based on the work of the Judicial Performance Commission of Cook County:

Evaluation of Judge Egan based on research conducted by the Judicial Performance Commission of Cook County:

Prior to becoming a judge, James Egan was both an Assistant Cook County Public Defender and an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney. Judge Egan was appointed as an Associate Judge in 1989 and became a Circuit Court judge in 1995. He was first elected in 2000. He was initially assigned to the First Municipal Traffic Court and subsequently transferred to the Second Municipal District Criminal Court and the Criminal Division. He currently hears a motion calendar in the Law Division.

Respondents had a high opinion of Judge Egan’s legal ability, his diligence and his fairness. Comments with regard to the Judge’s diligence are good, calling him “prompt and alert,” “very diligent,” and “cordial, prompt and familiar with matters he must address.” Likewise, he is described as “well versed in the law and . . . very fair in his application of the law.” Respondents also felt Judge Egan’s courtroom management is excellent, noting that he never wastes time and maintains a courteous professional manner while moving cases through his courtroom. Attorneys seem comfortable in his courtroom, considering Judge Egan to be calm and even tempered.

Judge Joyce M. Murphy Gorman – Not Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Joyce M. Murphy Gorman worked with the Office of the Presiding Judge of the Sixth Municipal District in Markham for four years. Judge Murphy Gorman then worked as a sole practitioner for one year immediately before being elected to the bench. Judge Murphy Gorman was elected to the Circuit Court in 2000. She was initially assigned to the First Municipal District’s Traffic Court. In 2002, Judge Murphy Gorman was assigned to the Civil Trial Section, non-jury call where she presently presides.

Judge Murphy Gorman was described by most respondents as knowledgeable about the law. Attorneys say she takes the time to understand the issues and respondents reported that she keeps current on developments in the law relevant to the cases heard in her courtroom. There were several respondents who praised her for using her courtroom mediators effectively. The judge is described as punctual and prepared for court and she issues her rulings in a prompt, timely manner. She is considered fair and independent.

Judge Murphy Gorman’s courtroom management skills were given generally favorable marks. Several interviewees stated that she always started her call on time and did not “dilly dally.” Others mentioned how she worked to accommodate attorneys with multiple cases in order to keep the call moving.

Many interviewees stated that Judge Murphy Gorman was diligent. Most attorneys believed she was “always engaged” and “interested in doing a good job.” She also “allowed each side to make their case.” Judge Murphy Gorman was also repeatedly praised for her handling of pro se litigants. Respondents said that she explains things well to pro se litigants “while remaining even-handed.”

However, many respondents believed that Judge Murphy Gorman needs to improve her judicial temperament. Comments included: “could be calmer;” “she can be short with people;” “she lets lawyers get under her skin;” “she is short and testy with people in her courtroom.” The Council found Judge Murphy Gorman Not Qualified for retention in 2006 due primarily to reported problems with her temperament. We continue to hear these complaints. On balance, the Council finds her Not Qualified for retention.

Judge Pamela Hill-Veal – Not Recommended
Judge Hill-Veal failed to submit materials for evaluation. The Council finds her Not Recommended for the Circuit Court.

Judge Gloria Chevere – Not Qualified
Prior to becoming a judge, Gloria Chevere was a partner at the general practice firm of Ogden & Chevere. From 1987 to 1991, Judge Chevere was Senior Executive Deputy Director for the Chicago Transit Authority. Then from 1991 until 2006, she was a prosecutor and hearing officer for the Secretary of State, as well as a hearing officer for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District. She was elected to the Circuit Court in 2006, and was assigned to the First Municipal District.

In May 2010, Fox Chicago News in conjunction with the Better Government Association, investigated whether Cook County Judges were leaving work early. The article mentioned Judge Chevere as a judge who often left the courthouse early. Judge Chevere was reassigned shortly after the story was made public.

Judge Chevere generally received good scores from most attorneys for being able to “move her call.” One respondent stated that he had “seen hundreds in her courtroom” and that Judge Chevere was “still able to keep on top of things.” Many interviewees also believed they were treated fairly in her courtroom.

Her legal ability is generally considered adequate for her call and attorneys believe she runs her courtroom efficiently. However, she is reported to be sometimes "dismissive and rude" on the bench. She reportedly is often unprepared -- many respondents believe she has not read pleadings sufficiently before ruling. She has the reputation of unilaterally cancelling her 2:30 pm call, saying that it is not necessary. There were many negative comments about her performance as a judge, primarily related to temperament and diligence.

Several respondents believe the judge unnecessarily issues arrests warrants for defendants who are late to court, which wastes resources. About half of the respondents also complained that her rulings are erratic, which some attributed to her being too often unprepared. The Council finds her Not Qualified for retention.

Alvarez fundraiser October 15

Bill Raines, who was a judicial candidate in 2010, sent an email asking that I mention an October 15, from 6:00 to 8:00pm, fundraiser for Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez at the officesGoldberg Weisman Cairo, One East Wacker Drive, 38th floor. He provided a copy of the invite:

Tickets are $100 each. Contact information about the event is shown in the invite, above.

Alvarez's Republican opponent in the November election is Chicago attorney Lori Yokoyama.

ISBA provides explanations for all of its Cook County judicial ratings

The Illinois State Bar Association has posted brief explanations for all ratings it has issued for Cook County judicial candidates, both for open seats and in the retention election.

These explanations are available to the public on the ISBA website in a .pdf format.

In retention races, the ISBA found 53 of the 58 retention candidates "qualified" for retention.

Five were found "not qualified." The ISBA's comments about each of these retention candidates follow below.

Hon. Cynthia Brim – Not Qualified
Hon. Cynthia Brim was elected to the Circuit Court of Cook County in 1994. She was retained for six-year terms in 2000 and 2006. She was in the 6th Municipal District presiding over Misdemeanor, Traffic Civil, Paternity, Child Support, Custody, Visitation, Domestic Violence, Bond hearings, and Ordinance Violation cases. Other previous judicial assignments include the Domestic Relations Division, the 1st Municipal District, and the 5th Municipal District. Hon. Cynthia Brim has currently been removed from all judicial duties by Special Order No. 2012-14 of the Executive Committee of the Circuit Court of Cook County.

The Committee evaluation questioned Judge Brim’s legal knowledge and ability. For the 2012 General Election, the Illinois State Bar Association determined Hon. Cynthia Brim is not qualified for retention as a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Hon. Gloria Chevere - Not Qualified
Hon. Gloria Chevere is currently assigned as a “swing judge” in various branches within the 1st Municipal District. She ran unopposed for a vacancy in the 6th Subcircuit in 2006 and was assigned to hear misdemeanor and felony ordinance offenses.

The Committee evaluation raised concerns over Judge Chevere’s diligence, legal knowledge and ability. For the 2012 General Election, the Illinois State Bar Association determined Hon. Gloria Chevere is not qualified for retention as a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Hon. Christopher Donnelly – Not Qualified
Hon. Christopher Donnelly is currently assigned to the 6th Municipal District, hearing traffic and misdemeanor cases. Prior to serving the 6th Municipal District, Judge Donnelly was assigned to the Juvenile Justice Division. In 1994, he was elected to the Circuit Court of Cook County. Judge Donnelly was retained for six-year terms in 2000 and 2006.

Judge Donnelly’s litigation and professional experience along with his legal knowledge and ability are considered adequate. The Committee evaluation, however, revealed that there are concerns regarding his poor judicial temperament. In addition, Judge Donnelly failed to fully participate in the evaluation process by not completing the evaluation materials and refusing to answer questions posed during his interview. Therefore, in accordance with its guidelines for judicial candidates, for the 2012 General Election the Illinois State Bar Association determined Hon. Christopher Donnelly is not qualified for retention as a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County for failure to complete the evaluation process.

Hon. James D. Egan – Not Qualified*
Hon. James Egan currently hears Motion Calendar X in the Law Division. He became a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County in 1995. His previous assignments include the 1st Municipal District Traffic Court, 2nd Municipal District Criminal Court, and the Criminal Division. Judge Egan was retained for six-year terms in 2000 and 2006.

Judge Egan did not submit documentation for evaluation for the 2012 General Election. Therefore, in accordance with its guidelines regarding judicial candidates, for the 2012 General Election the Illinois State Bar Association determined that Hon. James D. Egan is not qualified for retention as a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County for failure to complete the evaluation process.

Hon. Pamela E. Hill-Veal – Not Qualified
Hon. Pamela E. Hill-Veal is currently assigned in the 1st Municipal District within the Civil Trial Section. She was appointed to the Circuit Court of Cook County in 2004 and elected in 2006.

Judge Hill-Veal did not submit documentation for evaluation for the 2012 General Election. Therefore, in accordance with its guidelines regarding judicial candidates, for the 2012 General Election the Illinois State Bar Association determined that Hon. Pamela E. Hill-Veal is not qualified for retention as a judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County for failure to complete the evaluation process.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
* As reported here yesterday, the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening (of which the ISBA is a member) stated that Judge Egan told them that he was retiring in December and that this was the reason he would not participate in the screening process. According to the Alliance, however, because of a missed deadline, Judge Egan's name will still appear on the ballot and, under its rules, the Alliance was obliged to issue this negative review.

It should also be pointed out that Judge Egan is not listed among the judges seeking retention at the Cook County Retention Judges website.

Retention Judges: The default vote is 'yes'

Judicial retention elections seem strange to many voters. The nearly 60 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.

Past results suggest that the current class of judges have excellent prospects for success in this 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 2010 retention election, for example, out of the roughly 70 judges on the retention ballot, only two Circuit Court judges received more than an 80% "yes" vote (Judges Sophia Hall and Carol Kelly, with 'yes' votes of 80.07% and 80.16% respectively).

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. Those inclined to 'throw the rascals out' will vote the retention ballot no matter what. Can we safely assume that the just-say-nay voters will number no more than 20 or 25% of the retention voters? Well, as a lot of people learned first-hand with their IRAs in recent years, past results are not a guarantee of future performance.

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 more persuasive view. I will try and report the good and the bad, the agreements and the disagreements, on various retention candidates in this blog. I mean to express no opinion about whether any particular judge should or should not be retained.

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

Alliance of Bar Associations releases retention grids

The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening has released ratings for candidates on this November's Cook County judicial retention ballot.

The bar groups that together comprise the Alliance are the Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Chicago Area (AABA), Black Women’s 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), Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois (HLAI), 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).

Of the 58 judges listed below, there are only two judges who received negative ratings from each bar group, Judge James D. Egan and Judge Pamela E. Hill-Veal. Neither participated in the Alliance candidate evaluation.

According to the ISBA's Joyce Williams, who coordinates judicial evaluations for the Alliance, Judge Egan advised the group some time ago that he would be retiring in December and, accordingly, he was not scheduled for interviews. Unfortunately, because of a paperwork snafu, Judge Egan did not get his name removed from the retention ballot in time. Because Judge Egan's name will be on the ballot and because he did not participate in the screening process, under Alliance guidelines, he automatically receives negative ratings from each member.

More will follow about the retention ratings here later, as both the Illinois State Bar Association and the Chicago Council of Lawyers are expected to shortly release narratives explaining their respective candidate ratings. The Chicago Bar Association is also expected to reveal its recommendations on the retention ballot in the next few days. For now, however, the Alliance grids ('Y' means that a particular group recommends a 'yes' for the candidate; 'N' means the group recommends a 'no' vote):

Click on any image to enlarge or clarify.

In a few cases you will note that one group or another has given a candidate a rating of 'NE.' That means that the candidate was not evaluated by that particular group. It is not a negative rating.

Alliance ratings in contested judicial races

The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening has released ratings for candidates in contested judicial races on the November ballot.

The bar groups that together comprise the Alliance are the Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Chicago Area (AABA), Black Women’s 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), Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois (HLAI), 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).

The foregoing list of abbreviations and this key will explain the symbols used in the Alliance "grids":

Candidates for the Illinois Supreme Court

Contested Elections for the Cook County Circuit Court

Each of the candidates in these contested Circuit Court races has a campaign website; links to their respective sites are in the blog sidebar.

Cynthia Ramirez fundraiser October 11

Cynthia Ramirez won her primary race for the countywide O'Brien vacancy in March. Although she faces no opposition in November, she does have a campaign debt to retire.

Toward that end, a Ramirez fundraiser has been planned for October 11, from 6:00 to 8:00pm, at the law offices of Reyes Kurson, 600 W. Van Buren, Suite 909. Cook County Democratic Party Chairman Joe Berrios is hosting the event.

Tickets are scaled at $500 (blue level), $250 (red level), and $100 (white level). To reserve tickets, or for more information, contact James Robinson at 312-332-0055.

Ed Maloney fundraiser September 24

Retired Cook County Circuit Court Judge James F. Henry and the Friends for Ed Maloney are hosting a fundraiser for 4th Subcircuit judicial candidate Edward M. Maloney on September 24 from 5:00 to 7:00pm at Crown Imports, One South Dearborn, 17th floor.

The minimum suggested donation is $100 per person, but tickets are $30 for country employees. Tickets will be available at the door. For more information about the event, or to reserve tickets in advance, email Maloney4Judge@aol.com.

So you want to be a judge?

The Chicago Bar Association will sponsor a seminar, "Do You Want To Become a Circuit Court Judge," on September 27, from 12:00 to 2:10pm, at the Chicago Bar Association, 321 S. Plymouth Court.

Among the scheduled speakers are Judge William Maddux, the Presiding Judge of the Law Division; Cook County Clerk David Orr; Associate Judge Mathias W. Delort (who will be sworn in as a Justice of the Illinois Appellate Court later this year); Associate Judge Thomas R. Mulroy; and Edward Austin, the immediate past chair of the CBA Judicial Evaluation Committee.

Enrollment for the seminar (which offers 2.0 CLE credits) is free for CBA Advantage Members, $50 for other CBA members ($35 for government members), and $100 for non-CBA members. Further information about the seminar is available on the CBA website. Registration can be accomplished through the CBA website or by emailing seminars@chicagobar.org.

Pictures from 2012 Retention Judges Reception

Preston Bradley Hall at Chicago's Cultural Center was filled to capacity Thursday night for the 2012 Retention Judges Reception.

I'd like to tell you that this fuzzy, soft-focus crowd shot was really a skilled, arty composition, but that would not be true. Fortunately a few of the other shots I took came out better.

Judge Moshe Jacobius, one of the nearly 60 judges seeking retention, was on hand to greet early arrivals.

Judges Jean Prendergast Rooney and Alfred M. Swanson, Jr.

Judges Joyce Marie Murphy Gorman and E. Kenneth Wright, Jr.
Both are on the retention ballot.

Associate Judge Leon Wool and Judge Steven Bernstein
came out to support their colleagues.

Judges Jesse G. Reyes and Sophia Hall

Recent judicial candidate Gerald V. Cleary, Judge Diann Karen Marsalek
and current 4th Subcircuit candidate Edward M. Maloney

Lots of ideas about judicial reform at BGA Idea Forum

From L to R: BGA President and CEO Andy Shaw, ISBA President John Thies,
former Circuit Court Judge and State Rep. Anthony Young; ICPAR
Executive Director Brian Gladstein, and former Illinois
Appellate Court Justice Gino L. DiVito

Tuesday night's Better Government Association Idea Forum was entitled, "Improving Judicial Selection: Are we ready for reform?" and, from the title alone, I attended with the full expectation that this would be a meeting of the Saved preaching the gospel of merit selection to the Already Converted.

I was pleasantly surprised to find instead a frank and lively debate.

Yes, ISBA President John Thies was on the panel and the ISBA has long been a supporter of judicial merit selection proposals, as President Thies noted in his opening remarks. And retired Appellate Court Justice Gino DiVito has long been an advocate of merit selection. But retired Cook County Circuit Court Judge Anthony Young, speaking for himself and, he said, for the Cook County Bar Association, was on the dais supporting the continued election of Illinois judges, especially from the subcircuits.

There is no need to reform a process that isn't broken, Young said repeatedly. Judicial reform was achieved with the creation of subcircuits, Young said. A former state legislator, Young credits the subcircuit system with increasing diversity on the bench, providing many female, African-American, and openly gay judges. He argued that the creation of Cook County's subcircuits was a legislative reform and response to the scandals of Operation Greylord. Young objected to the notion that subcircuit elections have produced judges of inferior quality or ability, noting that many of the highest-ranking judges in the Circuit Court of Cook County were elected from subcircuits.

Justice DiVito agreed that the Cook County bench is both strong and diverse, but "we have outstanding judges despite the way we select judges, not because of it." People guess when they vote for judges, DiVito said. The media, he said, is incapable of informing voters on judicial candidates' qualifications and the voters are not engaged. Opponents of merit selection, DiVito said, say they are concerned about giving people the right to choose their judges, but the right to choose is "illusory" where there are too many candidates and voters are making choices among them based on their names alone.

Thies and DiVito said Illinois should adopt a merit selection process that depends on bi-partisan nominating commissions to minimize political influence on the process. In one proposed merit selection model, the Attorney General would appoint half the members of the nominating commission in each circuit (attorneys or lay persons) while the next highest-ranking statewide official elected from the other party would choose the other half of the members. Of course, in some years, there may be constitutional officers from only one political party; some arrangement would have to be made, in that case, to allow equal participation by the minority party. The commissions would certify three names to the appointing authority, whether that might be the Governor or the Supreme Court. Either way, the appointment would have to be made from among the three names certified.

Thies acknowledged that such a system could be blended with continued elections of subcircuit judges if that were a matter of political necessity. Young insisted that subcircuits are small enough that a candidate can really go door-to-door, bypassing the political power structure and still winning election. DiVito was skeptical of this notion.

Young suggested that nominating commissions might be able to pick out the best lawyers, but the best lawyers do not always make the best judges, just as the best baseball players do not always make the best managers. Michael Jordan, he added, was the greatest basketball player of all time, but Jordan has had great difficulty in picking talented players when he moved into ownership. Moreover, Young said, he was concerned that the selection of the nominating commissions would be highly political, and insulated from public input.

While Young felt that judicial elections should be continued at all levels, DiVito pointed out that, in essence, half our serving judges in Illinois are already appointed. He referred, he said, to the associate judges, who are elected by the full judges in each circuit. Many of these, DiVito said, are "among the best judges we have." Moreover, he pointed out, many judges who win election first attain the bench by Supreme Court appointment to a vacancy. DiVito said appointed judges have an advantage in the electoral process (FWIW readers know that any such 'advantage' is inconsistent at best).

Contributions and recusal standards

Host and moderator Andy Shaw, the BGA's President and CEO, steered the discussion into areas of financial reform and Brian Gladstein, the Executive Director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, provided a truly jaw-dropping statistic.

In a recent nationwide survey of sitting judges, Gladstein said, fully 35% of the judges felt that their colleagues' decisions were influenced by contributions received.

Pause for Personal Opinion Clearly Labeled as Such: It's one thing if sore losers feel that way -- at least 50% of the parties in any given case will go away unhappy; such is the nature of litigation -- but if judges themselves begin to believe that their colleagues have indeed been corrupted by campaign contributions, we have a serious problem in this country.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was singled out by the panelists as a major obstacle to meaningful campaign finance reform. Thies noted, however, that the ISBA is working on a proposed change to the Supreme Court Rules whereby a judge's receipt of lawful campaign contributions, when combined with other factors, might result in mandatory recusal in a given case.

Thies explained that some judicial candidates are very careful to avoid finding out who has contributed to their campaigns, thereby avoiding any possible influence. Other candidates, just as ethical, want to know about every contributor, so that the campaign can return any contributions from any questionable source. Young said he did not believe changes in campaign financing laws were necessary because the men and women who run for the bench are honest and upstanding persons; on the other hand, he could support a public financing provision at the Supreme Court level to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Gladstein noted that in other jurisdictions -- he singled out New York -- public financing supplements or matches private donations in judicial campaigns, sometimes on as much as a 6:1 basis. DiVito said that the very fact that judicial candidates must raise money is a strong argument against the current electoral system.

The evening concluded with Shaw asking the panelists how the present system may be improved. Discussion focused on different ways of getting information about candidates to the public. FWIW was not mentioned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Reading:

"Who picks the pickers?" Local bar associations present seminar on judicial selection;

Judicial election reform in the wake of the Emanuel case;

ICJL joins call for judicial election reform.

Cook County retention judges' website is online

Not all the Cook County judges seeking retention this November have yet posted biographies on the Cook County Retention Judges website, but many have and more are sure to follow.

That's a link to the site in the preceding sentence; the accompanying graphic was taken from the site. I've also added a link to the site in the Sidebar.

In other retention election news, the Alliance of Bar Associations is expected to release its ratings for each of the 60 judges seeking retention later this week, perhaps as soon as tomorrow. I'll be posting that information here as well.

The Chicago Bar Association ratings for the retention candidates is expected before the end of the month. When available, those ratings will be posted here as well.

4th Subcircuit Dems plan joint fundraiser Oct. 7

Edward M. Maloney and Terry Gallagher, Democratic nominees for the 4th Subcircuit "A" and Riley vacancies, will hold a joint fundraiser on Sunday, October 7, from 2:30 to 4:30pm, at Kenny’s Pub, 917 W. 55th Street, Countryside.

Tickets (for $75 each) will be available at the door. Appetizers, beer and wine will be provided and, yes, the Bears-Jaguars game will be on the TV. For more information about the event, or to pre-order tickets, email gall784@gmail.com.

Today is "Love Litigating Lawyers Day"

No, seriously. I found it on line. And, as we all know, if it's on the Internet it must be true. Right?

Right?

Well, anyway, this should do wonders for civility in the profession, at least for a day.

And if there's a special day for transactional lawyers, please let me know. I'll post that too.

Finally, a note to the CBA and ISBA: It's probably too late for your 2013 paper diaries, but "Love Litigating Lawyers Day" should be included in your 2014 books. And don't forget "International Be Kind to Lawyers Day" on April 10.

Judicial selection reform: Panel discussion on 9/11

"Improving Judicial Selection: Are We Ready for Reform?" That's the title of a panel discussion that Better Government Association will sponsor on September 11, from 5:30 to 7:00pm, at the Union League Club, 65 W. Jackson.

BGA President and CEO Andy Shaw will moderate the discussion. Panelists will include Retired Appellate Court Justice Gino L. DiVito and Brian Gladstein, the Executive Director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform.

Admission to the event is free but registration is required. To register, visit this page on the BGA website.

P.A. 97-1104 provides only illusion of enhanced school safety

I heard about the new school safety statute on WBBM. For details I turned to Capitol Fax.com -- and, sure enough, in a Sidebar, there was a link to the Governor's August 27 press release on HB 5602, now P.A. 97-1104. The new statute becomes effective on January 1, 2013. Or does it merely go into effect?

Among the statutes amended by P.A. 97-1104 is §22-20 of the School Code, 105 ILCS 5/22-20.

The addition to §22-20 made by the new statute is underlined; the language deleted is stricken out:

Sec. 22-20. All courts and law enforcement agencies of the State of Illinois and its political subdivisions shall report to the principal of any public school in this State whenever a child enrolled therein is detained for proceedings under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, as heretofore and hereafter amended, or for any criminal offense or any violation of a municipal or county ordinance. The report shall include the basis for detaining the child, circumstances surrounding the events which led to the child's detention, and status of proceedings. The report shall be updated as appropriate to notify the principal of developments and the disposition of the matter.

The information derived thereby shall be kept separate from and shall not become a part of the official school record of such child and shall not be a public record. Such information shall be used solely by the appropriate school official or officials whom the school has determined to have a legitimate educational or safety interest principal, counselors and teachers of the school to aid in the proper rehabilitation of the child and to protect the safety of students and employees in the school.

Governor Quinn's press release states that this new statute was inspired by "an incident at School District U-46 in Elgin where a teacher was attacked by a student who was under investigation at the time for two other violent attacks."

If the school had known about the ongoing criminal investigation of the student, you see, the school might have been able to prevent the incident entirely.

The important thing to keep in mind, however, is that §22-20 has been on the statute books, in one form or another, since 1961. At the time of the Elgin school attack which inspired HB 5602's principal sponsors, Rep. Carol Sente (D-Vernon Hills) and Sen. John Millner (R-Carol Stream), the police who were investigating the student for two other violent attacks were under an affirmative, mandatory obligation to report that investigation to the principal of the school where the student was enrolled.

Now, I am not privy to the facts of the Elgin incident. Perhaps the local police followed the law and told the principal about ongoing criminal investigation of the student who subsequent assaulted a teacher. Perhaps the principal was the bottleneck in that case -- afraid to disseminate the information too broadly among the endangered faculty. The new language arguably clarifies the principal's discretion to tell anyone who needs to know, anyone who has "a legitimate educational or safety interest."

But perhaps the police did not tell the principal in Elgin either.

And do you know the consequence that the police face for failing to follow the express mandate of §22-20?

None whatsoever.

This harsh assessment is based on a recent Illinois case, Doe v. Village of Schaumburg, 2011 IL App (1st) 093300.

Full Disclosure: I was one of the attorneys for the losing plaintiffs in that case.

The facts of the case are heart-rending, even in the brief summary offered by the Appellate Court opinion (2011 IL App (1st) 093300, ¶6):

From August to October 2005, [Christopher] Girard was enrolled in a physical science class at Hoffman Estates High School. Minor Doe and minors Amy, Ann, Jane, and Mary Roe, who were enrolled in a special education program at the high school, also attended the class. During the class, Girard forcibly engaged in various acts with them such as touching their “breasts, vagina and buttock” and anal and vaginal penetration. In August 2007, Girard pleaded guilty to a number of sexual assault charges, including charges of assaulting girls at Hoffman Estates High School in 2005.

The tragedy here was that Girard had been arrested by Schaumburg police in July 2004 and charged with aggravated criminal sexual assault of a minor child but the Schaumburg police did not tell the Hoffman Estates principal. A Schaumburg officer may have mentioned something about Girard's arrest to the Hoffman Estates police officer assigned to the school, but that officer did not tell the principal either. (2011 IL App (1st) 093300, ¶5.)

(The case arose on the pleadings; these are the allegations of the Complaints filed by the several victims. Whether discovery against remaining parties reveals different facts is beyond the scope of this post and is entirely beyond my knowledge.)

The Appellate Court agreed that violation of §22-20 of the School Code might give rise to a duty in tort against the police officer defendants (2011 IL App (1st) 093300, ¶11):

We agree with plaintiffs that a violation of a statute such as the School Code can give rise to a tort claim. See Noyola v. Board of Education, 179 Ill. 2d 121, 130-31 (1997). Furthermore, plaintiffs’ well-reasoned arguments may very well support their contention that the School Code imposes certain duties upon those parties subject to its provisions. However, we need not address whether defendants here owed a statutory or common-law duty to plaintiffs. The existence of a duty and the applicability of an immunity are separate issues.

And, the Appellate Court held, the police were immune from liability despite their failure to comply with the law, determining that, "even if defendants owed such a duty and breached that duty, provisions of the Act may immunize them from liability," §§4-102 and 2-205 of the Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/4-102 and 745 ILCS 10/2-205, "immunize defendants from the tort liability alleged in plaintiffs' complaints" (2011 IL App (1st) 093300, ¶11).

Section 4-102 of the Tort Immunity Act states:

Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals. This immunity is not waived by a contract for private security service, but cannot be transferred to any non-public entity or employee.

Section 2-205 of the Tort Immunity Act states, "A public employee is not liable for an injury caused by his adoption of, or failure to adopt, an enactment, or by his failure to enforce any law."

The Appellate Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the failure to follow (to obey) the law is not the same thing as failing to "enforce" a law. "The failure to follow the provisions of a statute is, in essence, the failure to enforce the statute." (2011 IL App (1st) 093300, ¶17.) The Illinois Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal.

The Tort Immunity Act serves a valuable purpose, protecting the taxpayers from raids against the public purse. In these difficult economic times, the concern for the public purse is particularly understandable.

But it is absolutely pointless to pass a statute requiring disclosures for the protection of teachers and students and staff unless there is some expectation that the statute will be obeyed. In Doe, the failure to obey the statute resulted in no adverse consequence to the police departments that failed to obey the law. Why should any department be expected to obey the law as now amended?

While P.A. 97-1104 also amends two provisions of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, P.A. 97-1104 does not amend any provision of the Tort Immunity Act. It therefore provides no new incentive for any police department to follow the law to replace that which was conclusively removed by the Doe court. Nor is it unfair to suppose that police departments or individual officers may be reluctant to advise school authorities of students who have become embroiled in the criminal justice system. The default mode in all juvenile cases is confidentiality. That has been the hallmark of the juvenile justice system in this state from the time it was first established at the turn of the 20th Century. Police officers are trained not to disclose the identities of arrested juveniles outside the juvenile justice system. On paper, at least, P.A. 97-1104 represents a narrow departure from, or exception to, that rule of confidentiality -- but, while Doe remains good law at least, it is a meaningless, toothless exception that can be routinely ignored.

Thus, as stated at the outset, P.A. 97-1104 goes into effect on January 1, 2013. But it will not be effective. It provides a mere illusion of enhanced safety in our schools.

Kaplan, Kyriakopoulos receive new assignments

The Illinois Supreme Court has appointed Judge James L. Kaplan to a 12th Subcircuit vacancy created by the recent death of Judge Edward R. Jordan.

In another order entered this week , the Supreme Court appointed Judge Anthony C. Kyriakopoulos to a 10th Subcircuit vacancy created by the recent retirement of Judge Daniel J. Sullivan.

At the time of this new appointment, Judge Kaplan was serving pursuant to an appointment to the Cole vacancy in the 8th Subcircuit. Judge Kaplan was a candidate for this vacancy in the March primary, but Chicago Deputy Corporation Counsel John H. Ehrlich emerged as the victor in a crowded field.

At the time of his new appointment, Judge Kyriakopoulos was serving by appointment to the Locallo vacancy in the 10th Subcircuit. He filed for that vacancy in the March primary, but withdrew after former Chicago Ald. Thomas R. Allen (who had been appointed to the countywide Pucinski vacancy) filed in that same race.

The new appointments for Judges Kaplan and Kyriakopoulos became effective August 23; the appointments expire on December 1, 2014.

Retention Judges Reception September 13

The Committee for Retention of Judges in Cook County in 2012 is hosting a reception to raise funds for judges seeking retention in Cook County this year.

The reception will be held on Thursday, September 13, from 5:00 to 8:00pm in the Preston Bradley Hall at the Chicago Cultural Center (the old main library building), 78 E. Washington Street. Tickets are $125 each.

For more information about the event, or to reserve tickets at the door, email mleavitt@grundlaw.com.

Two articles in today's Law Bulletin suggest structural flaw in the legal profession

Today's Chicago Daily Law Bulletin carries two articles that expose what may be a structural flaw in the legal profession itself.

Too big a claim, you say? I believe I can back it up.

First, read Jerry Crimmins' front page story, "Increase in law firm head count exceeds the demand." Crimmins writes that two independent reports, the Citi Midyear Report from the Citi Private Bank Law Firm Group and the Peer Monitor Index Report from Hildebrandt Institute, have concluded, "An increase in lawyer head count in U.S. law firms exceeded demand for legal work in the first half of 2012."

The surveys cover the bigger firms, of course -- the "silk-stocking" firms, the "white shoe" firms (when was the last time any big firm partner actually wore white shoes?) -- the firms that have hitherto set the pace in all the partner income surveys (per Crimmins' article, 114 firms were surveyed by Hildebrandt, while 176 firms were surveyed by the Citi Private Bank).

A lot of these firms slowed hiring and shed talented attorneys at the height of the Great Recession. It was thought that recent hiring increases portended a return to business as usual.

But these surveys suggest otherwise.

Crimmins quotes Joseph B. Altonji, a law firm consultant and co-founder of the LawVision Group as saying that "demand for law firm work 'never recovered' from the drop at the start of the recession in 2008" and probably will not recover "to recover to prerecession levels 'even if the economy gets better.'"

Meanwhile, on page 6, the Law Bulletin reprints an AP story by Dave Collins under the headline, "More people go to court without representation."

Collins begins by focusing on one pro se litigant, Jennifer Garcia, a single mother of two, who has gone to court representing herself on various matters several times over the last three years. Collins writes, "Garcia is part of a crush of people who are representing themselves in the nation's civil courts because they can't afford lawyers, who typically charge $200 to $500 an hour. The boom has overwhelmed courts and sparked new efforts to get attorneys to meet what the American Bar Association says is its professional responsibility to offer free legal services to people in need."

This has been the traditional response of the legal profession to pro se litigants: All (or nearly all) pro se litigants are poor people and we lawyers, better educated and more fortunate, must volunteer to help them, without cost, pro bono.

It is a generous, laudable response. This spirit animates the Illinois Supreme Court's recent adoption of Rule 10-100. The impulse to provide professional services on a voluntary basis has its roots in many religious and ethical traditions (see, for example, Matthew 14:7, "The poor you will always have with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them....").

But are all these new pro se litigants really "poor people"?

Per Collins' article:

Several states report high percentages of civil and family cases with at least one self-represented person. In Connecticut, 85 percent of the approximately 45,000 family law cases in the 2011 fiscal year had at least one self-represented party.

In other words, pro se litigants are starting to show up with increasing frequency in courtrooms that hear matters other than collection cases or mortgage foreclosures.

To meet this influx of unrepresented litigants, court systems are increasingly stretching the definition of "voluntary." Illinois lawyers are already required to report whether they perform any pro bono work or donate to legal charities and, if so, to reveal how many hours they've worked or dollars they've given. According to Collins' article, New York State will now require attorneys in that state to 'volunteer' 50 hours of pro bono service in order to keep their licenses.

Judges privately express frustration with dockets increasingly clogged with pro se cases; even careful viewing of The People's Court turns out to be less than optimal training for real-life courtroom appearances. Given a choice, most judges would want all parties before them to be represented by counsel.

But the trend now is otherwise.

So: On the one hand we have slowing demand for legal services, even among well-heeled or corporate clients and, on the other, we have a huge uptick in pro se litigants in our courts.

What does that tell us? Even allowing for inescapable truth that the Great Recession has swelled the ranks of truly poor people, I submit that these two stories, taken together, suggest that those that can afford to hire us are doing so as infrequently as possible; those who might be able to afford to hire us are choosing to try to go it alone. And that means we may be pricing ourselves beyond the reach of our customers. In a time when many new lawyers can't find work and established lawyers are tightening their belts, we have many prospective clients choosing not to use lawyers at all, or to use them minimally. I think this may constitute a structural flaw in our profession.

Interestingly enough, a third article in today's Law Bulletin suggests one possible explanation for how lawyers are pricing themselves beyond the reach of clients -- a topic to which I hope to return in a few days. (And, no, it's not hourly rates.)

Christine Cook campaign website found

A campaign website for Christine Cook, Republican nominee for the "A" vacancy in Cook County's 4th Judicial Subcircuit, is now up and running.

That's a link in the preceding sentence; a link has also been added to the Sidebar.

Cook's opponent in the November election is Democrat Edward M. Maloney.

Judge Larry Axelrood's final fundraiser August 27

Associate Judge Larry Axelrood eked out a narrow victory in the race for the Epstein vacancy in the 9th Subcircuit this March. Although he faces no opposition in November, he does have a campaign debt to retire.

Accordingly, per email received from Thom Mannard, Judge Larry Axelrood has scheduled his final fundraiser for Monday, August 27 at the Wilmette Golf Club, 3900 Fairway Drive in Wilmette from 5:30 to 7:00.

For further information about the event, or to make reservations, email electjudgeaxelrood@gmail.com.

Judge Bill Taylor appointed to Appellate Court

The Illinois Supreme Court has appointed Cook County Circuit Court Judge Bill Taylor to the Illinois Appellate Court vacancy created by the recent death of Justice Joseph Gordon.

Judge Taylor's appointment became effective July 27 and runs through December 1, 2014.

Clerk's employee arrested for taking records home... to shred

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that, "A veteran Cook County Circuit Court employee was ordered held in lieu of $750,000 bail Saturday for allegedly taking court files from work and then shredding them at her kitchen table."

Rumman Hussain writes that Jeannette Neibauer was arrested at the Daley Center last Friday. At the time of her arrest, Neibaurer was assigned to a courtroom in the Law Division (and, no, the paper did not specify which room).

Hussain's article also does not specify what records were allegedly shredded. Were whole files really removed from the courthouse? Or (and this seems more likely if my understanding of work flow patterns is not too long out of date) does this loss involve the removal of documents that were to be coded for the Clerk's computer docket system before physical filing?

Every Cook County attorney who's handled a civil appeal recently has a story or ten about documents missing when it came time to assemble the Record on Appeal. The allegations against Ms. Neibaurer, if true, may solve some of those mysteries.

Gov. Quinn's gain is a loss for local judicial election coverage

From yesterday's Sneed:

Bye, Abdon . . .

Gov. Pat Quinn snagged the Chicago Sun-Times’ award-winning political reporter Abdon Pallasch to be Illinois’ assistant budget director.

◆ Let’s hope his 25 years dissecting federal, state, county and city budgets for the Chicago Sun Times and other publications will help him sort out the state’s financial mess.

Pallasch, an alumnus of the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, was one of the few reporters on either of Chicago's major newspapers to provide serious coverage of Cook County judicial elections.

His articles on Cook County Democratic Party judicial slatemaking sessions will be particularly missed.

Illinois Judges Foundation sponsors Comedy Night on July 24

Email received this morning from Christine Athanasoulis advises that the Illinois Judges Foundation is sponsoring a Comedy Night this coming Tuesday, July 24, at The Second City e.t.c. Stage, 230 W. North Avenue (2nd floor).

Tickets for the event are $100 each. The price includes admission to a pre-show reception (with open bar) and a ticket to the show (at which there's a cash bar).

To register for the event, simply click this link. For more information about the event, or for sponsorship opportunities, contact Kathy Hosty at khosty@chicagobar.org.

The Illinois Judges Foundation was founded in 2007 and is the charitable arm of the Illinois Judges Association. The IJF funds educational, civic, and scholarship projects that benefit youth and law students, and encourages judicial participation in these endeavors, to advance the rule of law, the legal profession, and the administration of justice.

Can law schools be used for the actual training of new lawyers?

The cover story in this month's ABA Journal, by Indiana University Law Professor William D. Henderson and Rachel M. Zahorsky, "The Pedigree Problem: Are Law School Ties Choking the Profession?," raises (inadvertently, I suspect) a real question about the basic use or purpose of a law school education.

Is law school just three years' penance that must be served before becoming eligible to sign up for a bar review course (the bar review course being the real prerequisite for passing a state's bar exam)? I would like to think otherwise, but Professor Henderson and Ms. Zahorsky noted that graduates of even the nation's most prestigious laws schools have long been deemed incapable of practicing their profession without extensive post-graduate training:

The most successful of corporate law firms adapted to this business climate by hiring promising law school graduates and embedding them into their own training system, which over several years supplied inductees with a well-rounded and complete skill set that could be deployed for the benefit of clients.

The most famous training program was implemented by Paul Cravath, the brilliant business lawyer who went on to build the white-shoe firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore. According to the firm’s history, published eight years after Cravath’s death in 1948, the primary purpose of the Cravath system was to create “a better lawyer faster.”

One key operational question of this training model was entry-level hiring. Cravath and his contemporaries favored graduates of a handful of Ivy League schools — namely Harvard, Columbia and Yale — and so-called national law schools, including the universities of Virginia and Michigan, for the coveted training positions.

A young man or woman graduates from any medical school and is thrown into the overnight shift in the a busy ER, treating traumas and heart attacks and chronic diseases right from the start. But a young man or woman, even one from the law schools at Harvard or Yale, goes to a silk-stocking firm and disappears into the library for a few years, looking up cases, reviewing documents, eventually getting the opportunity to carry a senior associate's briefcase to court for a status hearing (the senior associate's hands are full carrying the junior partner's briefcase; the junior partner is encumbered with the senior partner's papers). Despite the superior 'legal education,' the firm's lawyers had to be 'built' from the ground up.

Henderson and Zahorsky cite a number of reasons why the white-shoes firms took (and still take) only Ivy League graduates (or graduates of a few others, depending on the city where the firm is located): "They required extensive undergraduate education, their courses of study were full time and taught by scholarly faculty, and they tended to admit students well-connected to the commercial world."

Only this last factor is relevant: The Ivy Leaguers knew the captains of finance and industry for whom they'd toil. They were related by blood or marriage, or at least had common acquaintances from their prep school or undergraduate days. The kid from Loyola's night school or Henderson's own Indiana University would probably have none of these connections. These people from the hinterlands might not 'fit in.' At one time, this 'they're-not-our-people' approach was blatantly racist and sexist both. Times have changed; the school tie is now more important than ethnicity or gender. But the large law firms, for all their pro bono efforts, are not social service agencies; they will only hire people that their clients will feel comfortable with from the start, lest their clients go somewhere else where they will feel more at home. (Actually, pro bono cases give the new big-firm lawyers opportunities to develop courtroom skills without jeopardizing real business -- it's become an important part of the training program.)

Henderson and Zahorsky write about how law schools around the country aped the Ivy League casebook method, apparently believing -- and certainly asserting -- that there was something in the curriculum that gave the Ivy League graduates greater opportunities. Henderson and Zahorsky are on familiar ground here; this is an oft-told tale. But could these long-ago law school advocates really have been that naive?

When law schools try to teach practical skills (such as those displayed at mock trial competitions), the supposed distinctions among law schools blur considerably. Henderson and Zahorsky cite the results of the National Trial Competition:

Since its inception in 1986, a handful of teams has dominated the league tables, including Stetson (five-time winner), Northwestern (four-time winner), Chicago-Kent (three-time) and Temple (three-time). The trial teams are judged blind; law school affiliations are not revealed until the end of the tournament.

The appearance of top-tiered Northwestern Law with tier-two Temple and Chicago-Kent and tier-three Stetson suggests incoming credentials do not preordain performance as a lawyer. And the repeat appearance of a handful of schools suggests expert coaching and practice — a form of legal education — may be the real linchpin of excellent courtroom advocacy.

A few years ago, in an undergraduate trial practice competition, Elgin Community College beat Yale. (The team from ECC hadn't been invited initially; they were only permitted to enter after a scheduled team dropped out. They were brought in as punching bags. And they punched back!)

I wrote for the law school newspaper when I was in law school, roughly 35 years ago. When the schedule for an upcoming semester was announced, all the 'bar courses' -- that is, the courses that one would want to take if one had an interest in, say, passing the bar examination -- were distributed throughout the day in such as way as to make it difficult, if not impossible, for a student to put together enough consecutive hours to present him or herself as a viable law clerk to a firm. As a student journalist, it fell to me to interview the school administrator to find out why the schedule was thus arranged. "We don't want our students to work outside of school," the administrator told me. (And, yes, I'm being deliberately vague about the identity of the interview subject.)

But it was only by clerking that most students could hope to find jobs. One or two might get a sniff from a local big firm, a few more would get state court clerking jobs -- but what about the rest of us?

In the ER, no one cares where your medical degree is from. The new doctors from Harvard or Acme Night School must all perform to the same standard of care -- and right from the start, too. Professor Henderson and Ms. Zahorsky cite a lot of psychological jargon in their article, but it's all beside the point. Until law schools produce graduates who can appear in court or document or close complex transactions right from day one, they are irrelevant obstacles that must be overcome before a hopeful young lawyer can begin to learn his or her chosen trade.

Distinctions among law schools: Real or random?

You can read the cover story in this month's ABA Journal, by Indiana University Law Professor William D. Henderson and Rachel M. Zahorsky, "The Pedigree Problem: Are Law School Ties Choking the Profession?," and decide for yourself.

For my part, however, that aspect of the article called to mind this cartoon I'd seen on xkcd some time ago.

(Click on the link to see Randall Munroe's embedded comment.)

The ABA Journal article also addresses ways in which law schools are trying to reinvent themselves, update their curricula, and make themselves more relevant in the modern age -- all of which raises an (I think) unintended question of just how useful or relevant law school ever was to the actual practice of law.

More on that in the next post.

The miserable employment situation for new law graudates: One 2011 graduate's story

My June 15 post, Congratulations 2012 law school graduates: What were you thinking, generated a fair amount of traffic, as did the follow-up,Update on last Friday's post on the parlous prospects for new law grads. The posts also generated a thoughtful letter from a 2011 law graduate. I've communicated with this individual since.

When I wrote advising that I intended to publish his letter, he asked me not to publish his name because he's recently found work on a "document review project" paying $30 an hour. Although he says the work is "mind numbing," and only temporary, he does not want to jeopardize either his present situation or his future prospects by revealing too much identifying information. I've chosen to respect his wishes and edited the letter accordingly:

I graduated from a Midwestern state law school. The school was ranked among the top 50 nationally. Tuition is comparable to most of the rates you listed. I believe I received a good education there and the school actually maintained all scholarships. (This is unlike many schools where a student who fails to meet the merit requirements after the first year loses that scholarship. Schools extend so many scholarships that statistically some students will lose them after the first year by not being above x% of the class. At my school, many of my classmates avoided crushing debt because the school's willingness to extend all scholarships.)

One of the main questions you seem to ponder is: "Why do we do this to ourselves?" You talk about how courts have dismissed lawsuits by basically saying: "if you were smart enough to get into law school, you should have been smart enough to see through the rosy employment and salary figures put out by all the law schools."

My only explanation is:

1. I understood the numbers were "rosy," but it was hard to really understand how badly they were off at the time. It's like the old quote: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." The numbers are just so far out of tune with reality that no one knew how bad it was. Eventually you just assume there is some accountability there. That law schools wouldn't and couldn't fudge the numbers that badly. We were wrong. The University of Illinois, a school I considered, was making numbers up!
2. Everyone assumed the economy would be better by the time we graduated law school. When you are in your twenties, three years is a long time. You assume things will be different when it's your turn to be actively job hunting. For that we have no one to blame but ourselves.
3. We just really wanted to be attorneys. Most of us still do.

As for the job market itself, it's as miserable as advertised. It's been seven months since I was admitted to the bar and I have had two interviews. Short of those interviews, I have had no success greater than a courtesy email informing me that my application was received. I have spent most of my time either covering appearances for other attorneys or working on document review projects for an hourly wage. Nine out of 10 times an alum won't return a phone call or email. When they do, normally their advice is to go get an MBA. My story is a dime a dozen among my classmates and peers. In fact, it's much better than most, as you generally can't get document review jobs anymore without prior document review experience! If a respectable firm offered me $10,000 for a position, I would leap at it. Right now experience is worth its weight in gold. There are jobs for attorneys being advertised, but very very few entry level positions.

The problem is, what's the alternative? Most attorneys have English or Poli-Sci backgrounds. What kind of job will you get with that? I have a Business and Finance double major and I have yet to even get a response from a company based on that. It's easy to think that we should just move on, but many of us just can't.

If recent news accounts can be believed, this young man's experience is all too common. Roughly half of the members of the 2011 graduating class of Loyola and IIT-Kent are apparently in this same situation; six out of 10 DePaul's 2011 graduates are still looking for full-time legal work. Twelve per cent of the University of Chicago's graduates can't find work, for cryin' out loud. Yes, the unemployment situation for newly minted lawyers is clearly exacerbated by the many continuing problems with the economy as a whole -- but the theory has always been that the more education one has, the less likely one is to become a victim of the economy. Clearly, the experience of recent law school graduates has been quite different; that suggests that something is fundamentally wrong with our legal education system, doesn't it?

Science explains the benefits of aging generally, and perhaps the benefit of aging for mediation in particular

"At twenty years of age the will reigns;

at thirty the wit; at forty the judgement."

-- Benjamin Franklin

At one point, all human cultures accepted a correlation between age and wisdom. In Republican Rome, for example, the first to speak in any Senate debate was the princeps senatus, the most senior senator, drawn from the ranks of the patrician consulares; only after he spoke could the rest of the consulares, that is, those who had held been elected consul (and no one could be elected counsel before 'his own year' -- 42 for plebeians, 40 for patricians) provide their opinions.

Then, in America, came the Baby Boomers -- and they proclaimed that no one over 30 could be trusted. That was, of course, before the Baby Boomers began turning 30. Now the Boomer generation orbits somewhere around 60 -- and, not surprisingly, science has been deputized to discover why gray hair should now be considered a good thing.

An article by Helen Fields on Smithsonian.com, "What is So Good About Growing Old," says that researchers are discovering that there are real advantages to aging.

"In a University of Illinois study," for example, Fields writes, "older air traffic controllers excelled at their cognitively taxing jobs, despite some losses in short-term memory and visual spatial processing. How so? They were expert at navigating, juggling multiple aircraft simultaneously and avoiding collisions."

As we age, apparently, we become better at conflict resolution as well:

For a 2010 study, researchers at the University of Michigan presented “Dear Abby” letters to 200 people and asked what advice they would give. Subjects in their 60s were better than younger ones at imagining different points of view, thinking of multiple resolutions and suggesting compromises.

The current research on aging provides a scientific explanation for the increasing importance of mediation in resolving civil disputes.

The trial of a lawsuit is a win or lose, 1 or 0, hit or miss proposition. Mediation, however, under the direction of one sufficiently trained and experienced, can provide the compromises or "multiple resolutions" that can send all parties to a dispute home satisfied (if not exactly happy).

Judicial service is not an essential prerequisite of the successful mediator. Judicial service is merely one kind of experience that a good mediator can draw upon in helping to facilitate the resolution of civil disputes. In a lot of cases, judicial service may be very relevant experience on which to draw and, thus, many ex-judges have become quite successful mediators. But it is the wealth and variety of experience, judicial or otherwise, that the mediator brings to the process that enhances the prospects for success: It is the mediator's age, and the wisdom that experience has provided, that is important, not whether there is an old robe hanging in the mediator's closet.