Welcome Cook County Early Voters!

For some reason, many of you will vote as soon as early voting starts on October 22 or shortly thereafter.

I hate to be the one to break it to you -- but, even though you've already done your civic duty, you'll still have to deal with the attack ads and the phone calls right on through November 6.

You've presumably arrived on this page because you want to make choices that you think are appropriate in judicial elections. Hopefully, therefore, you also voted in the Democratic primary -- not because For What It's Worth has entered the partisan fray but, rather, for the simple reason that most of the Cook County judicial races were decided there.

Yes, I know, the Republican primary also decided who would win one seat in the 13th Judicial Subcircuit -- but the point remains: All of the open Appellate Court and countywide Circuit Court seats were decided in the primary. So were most of the subcircuit vacancies. There is a partisan contest for Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court, for one 12th Subcircuit vacancy, and for both vacancies in the 4th Judicial Subcircuit.

That's it.

On the other hand, there are 57 Circuit Court Judges and one Appellate Court Justice on the retention ballot this year. You are asked to vote Yes or No on the question of whether each of these persons should be retained in office. Any judge who fails to get a 60% (plus 1) favorable vote would be looking for work come the first Monday in December.

Most judges -- the vast majority in Cook County, certainly -- merit retention. In any given election cycle, however, there will be some who are controversial, some who have received generally bad marks from the evaluating bar associations or who have bypassed the evaluation process altogether. For What It's Worth makes no recommendations or endorsements. I will, however, shortly put up a post where voters can compare what the different bar associations have said about candidates who have been rejected by one or more of the major bar groups.

In addition to the posts I've already put and the posts I'll be putting up here in the coming days, there are other resources for the voter looking to study up on judges.

Suburban Cook County voters can obtain a sample ballot via this page on the website of Cook County Clerk David Orr. Some of the candidates' names on your sample ballot will be hyperlinked. Clicking on these links will take you to statements provided by the candidates or their campaigns. Circuit Court Judges seeking retention who have submitted statements are Moshe Jacobius, Stuart E. Palmer, Ronald F. Bartkowicz, E. Kenneth Wright, Jr., Lee Preston, James M. Varga, Marcia Maras, Carl Anthony Walker Mike McHale, Diane M. Shelley. Justice James Fitzgerald Smith, who is seeking retention on the Appellate Court, also has a candidate statement on the Cook County Clerk's website.

Voters in the City of Chicago don't get hyperlinked candidate statements on their sample ballots, but Chicago voters can get a sample ballot on the website of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

Some Cook County judges seeking retention have also answered questionnaires posed by the Illinois Civil Justice League. Questionnaire responses received by the ICJL from all Illinois judicial candidates are available through the IllinoisJudges.net website. Cook County judges seeking retention who have answered the ICJL questionnaire are Martin S. Agran, Ellen L. Flannigan, Moshe Jacobius, Lee Preston, Thomas David Roti, and Carl Anthony Walker. Justice James Fitzgerald Smith also submitted a response to the ICJL Questionnaire.

All of the judges seeking retention are listed on the 2012 Cook County Judges Retention Website. Many of the judges (and Justice Smith) also have statements on this site as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Posts on For What It's Worth:

• Chicago Bar Association finds more than 50 judges qualified for retention,
• Nine judges singled out as "Well Qualified" for retention by Chicago Council of Lawyers;
• Chicago Council of Lawyers releases 2012 judicial retention ratings;
• ISBA provides explanations for all of its Cook County judicial ratings;
• Alliance of Bar Associations releases retention grids; and
• Retention Judges: The default vote is 'yes'.

A few words about "judicial temperament"

Voters attempting to evaluate Cook County judicial retention candidates or candidates in the few contested judicial elections on the ballot in Cook County this fall will encounter all sorts of references to "judicial temperament."

The Chicago Bar Association says that "judicial temperament" is one of the eight criteria it considers when reviewing the merits of a judge seeking retention or a judicial candidate seeking election (for the record, the eight categories are "integrity, legal knowledge, legal ability, professional experience, judicial temperament, diligence, punctuality and health factors").

The Chicago Council of Lawyers likewise considers "judicial temperament" as one of the 12 factors it considers in regards to judicial candidates (the CCL's 12 categories being "fairness, including sensitivity to diversity and bias; legal knowledge and skills (competence); integrity; experience; diligence; impartiality; judicial temperament; respect for the rule of law; independence from political and institutional influences; professional conduct; character; and community service").

But what is judicial temperament and how important is it to determining a person's ability to serve (or continue to serve) as a judge?

For What It's Worth endorses no candidates and makes no recommendations about candidates. But I've been around, practicing in courts around this state for over 30 years.

I can tell you that a temperate judge treats all persons in front of the bench with respect and courtesy and that a temperate judge expects and usually receives courtesy and civil behavior from those who appear in his or her court.

Nobody likes being bullied. And, sadly, a judge with a poor temperament is often a bully, pushing people around simply because he or she can, embarrassing lawyers in front of their clients, and in general not treating the people who appear in court with the respect and civility which one might expect.

On the other hand, I've appeared in front of judges who had awful temperament... and were good judges... and I've appeared in front of judges who were the distilled essence of excellent judicial temperament... and were terrible judges.

No, I'm not naming names. But one judge comes to mind -- and this was a long time ago and not in Cook County -- who was grouchy, irascible, sour, and even downright mean to those appearing in front of him. To everyone who appeared before him. In that county, at that time, some judges treated Cook County lawyers with disdain, openly favoring the members of the local bar. Not this judge. He didn't seem to like anyone.

Now, don't get me wrong: I didn't enjoy my visits to this man's courtroom. But, temperament aside, I thought him a pretty good judge: From what I could observe, his rulings were based on the law, sound, and understandable -- even when they went against me. I could live with that.

It beats the heck out of the alternative.

Again, years ago, there was a judge who was good temperament personified. I appeared on a regular basis in front of this judge and was always treated civilly and with respect. And I often left that courtroom coming thisclose to losing my temper. (There were a number of incidents in this courtroom where other lawyers actually did lose their tempers.) The problem was that, while this judge was a decent, nice, caring person, this judge was also indecisive, inconsistent and unpredictable.

No, the law is not an exact science. One can never predict with absolute certainty that this motion will be granted or that another motion will be denied. Lawyers can not ethically guarantee results in any case. But some things in some cases are pretty predictable. Judges are guided by statutes and the common law, as set out in the reported cases. In many instances, therefore, when judges follow the law, the results should be fairly predictable.

Clients hire lawyers because of the lawyer's perceived expertise and skill. A lawyer who tells a client she has a great case -- and then loses -- will likely not get more business from that client. But how do we know what is a 'good case' or a 'close case" or a 'great case' or a 'tough case'? We know the law (or we've looked it up) and we evaluate how a court or jury should respond to the facts and the governing law. I do a lot of insurance coverage work. Much of my career has been spent evaluating how a court should rule in particular circumstances and recommending client actions based on those evaluations. When I think my client has a close case, I say so, and the client decides how, or whether, to proceed. But when I evaluate a case as a strong one, one in which the statutes and cases predict victory, I expect to win.

From my perspective, therefore, if a judge doesn't follow the law and rules unpredictably, especially when I believe (in the best exercise of my professional judgment) that I have a strong case, I don't care how nice the judge may be, or how good his or her temperament is: Legal knowledge, ability, skills and respect for the law and precedent trumps temperament, in my opinion, every time.

Given my druthers, of course, I'd take both.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Programming note: Round-up posts on contested Cook County judicial elections and on the retention election will be forthcoming in the next several days.

Why Illinois write-in votes only sometimes count

UPDATE 11/7/16: For information about eligible write-in candidates in the 2016 general election, see this post.

Even casual observers of the election scene understand, on some level, that it takes quite a bit of effort -- and paper! -- to qualify for the ballot in Illinois.

But perhaps very few realize that, in Illinois, even write-in candidates have to file papers in order to have their votes counted.

The operative Illinois Statutes are §§17-16.1 and 18-9.1 of the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/17-16.1 and 10 ILCS 5/18-9.1). You may think your neighbor Bob would make a better state representative than anything the Democrats or Republicans have on offer this year, but unless Bob has filed a notarized declaration of intent with the appropriate election authority "not later than 61 days prior to the election," your vote for Bob won't count.

On the other hand, recent news accounts (here, for example, or here) have quoted Anthony W. Williams, a write-in candidate for Congress in the south suburban 2nd Congressional District (where Jesse Jackson, Jr. is the incumbent). Rev. Williams has filed a declaration of candidacy, and votes for him will be counted.

Election attorney James Scanlon confirmed that at least one purpose of the write-in laws is to stop public records from being cluttered with votes for Donald Duck and the like. In response to an email inquiry from FWIW about how write-in votes are counted, Scanlon advised, "At the end of election day and the close of the polls, the judges will remove the paper optical scan ballots from the ballot box. The optical scanner is designed to detect whether there is a marking on the line reserved for write-in candidates and to deposit those ballots into a separate bin in the front of the ballot box. Judges of election are instructed to remove these ballots and review them for valid write-in votes. The judges then record the results of the valid write-in votes on a certification form, which is returned to the Board. Any votes recorded on a touchscreen are automatically tallied and shown on the total tape generated after the polls close."

A number of individuals have qualified as write-ins in Illinois for President and Vice-President of the United States. Among these are Jill Reed and Tom Cary, the candidates of the Twelve Vision Party, which promotes "The Prime Law, the three-thousand-year-old-secret" (which would presumably be revealed should Reed and Cary win); Jerry White and Phyllis Scherrer, the candidates of the Trotsky-ite Socialist Equity Party; Virgil Goode and Jim Clymer, the candidates of the Constitution Party, which wants to dramatically restrict immigration and even deny citizenship to children of foreign nationals born on American soil; and Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson, the candidate of the Justice Party, which bills itself as "a grassroots, broad-based, real political alternative to the corporate-controlled Democratic and Republican parties."

Others qualifying for write-in votes for President (or Vice-President) in Illinois are:

• Paul Chehade (Steve McAllister);
• Stephen Durham (Christina Lopez) ;
• Tom Hoefling (Jonathan D. Ellis);
• Richard Duncan;
• Michael W. Hawkins;
• Nelson Lee Keyton, Jr.;
• Dennis Knill;
• Barbara A. Prokopich;
• Cecil James Roth;
• Beverly Simmons-Miller;
• James T. Struck;
• Mary Ann Tomkins Segal; and
• Roy Wayne Tyree.

No individuals filed timely declarations as write-in candidates for any Cook County judicial office.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Information about presidential candidates obtained from September 4 and September 25 articles on Mental Floss.

CBA holds seminar for persons interested in becoming judges

Early voting for the 2012 election does not begin until October 22 but, on September 27, 2012, it was the 2014 election that was on the minds of attendees at a Chicago Bar Association continuing legal education seminar, "Do You Want to Become a Circuit Court Judge?"

The distinguished panel that spoke at this event event is shown above. From left to right are Edward Austin, immediate past Chair of the CBA Judicial Evaluation Committee; Associate Judge Mathias W. Delort, a former election law attorney, who is about to take office as a Justice of the Illinois Appellate Court; attorney Daniel P. Madden, who serves as Cook County Clerk David Orr's designee on the Cook County Officers Electoral Board; Presiding Judge William D. Maddux of the Law Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County; and Associate Judge Thomas R. Mulroy, who also served as moderator of the program.

Judge Maddux spoke about the qualities a judge should have, starting with Socrates' recipe for a good judge: "Four things belong to a judge: to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly, and to decide impartially." Judge Maddux explained how these principles are enshrined in Illinois' Code of Judicial Conduct.

In his remarks, Judge Maddux suggested that, of all the qualities identified by Socrates, impartiality is the most important and difficult. The craft of judging, Maddux said, is not visible; the judge's craft lies in the ability to separate from his or her biases, prejudices and preconceptions.

Mr. Madden focused on the practical aspects of running for judge, the forms that must be completed, the deadlines that must be met, and the consequences of failing to do all that must be done properly. As Cook County Clerk David Orr's designee on the Cook County Officers Electoral Board, Madden sits in judgment when objections are raised to a candidate's nominating petitions.

Madden explained some of the general rules governing judicial candidates, how a circuit court candidate can file for only one countywide and one subcircuit vacancy; when a candidate must choose which race to run in; how, under Goodman v. Ward, a subcircuit candidate must be a resident of the of the subcircuit at the time he or she files for that office. Madden mentioned that a person may be elected, but if he or she had not been entirely forthcoming about being a resident of the subcircuit, he or she can be removed from office when the true facts of residence surface.

Madden went into detail about what must be contained in a candidate's nominating petitions and what must be filed with a candidate's nominating petitions (a notarized statement of candidacy, a receipt for the candidate's Statement of Economic Interest, and a loyalty oath -- although this last 'requirement' has been ruled invalid by Communist Party of Illinois v. Ogilvie, 357 F. Supp. 105 (N.D.Ill. 1972). And Madden pointed out that the actual Statement of Economic Interest is filed with the Secretary of State; it is only the receipt that is filed with the nominating papers. Filing the Statement with the election authority instead can be fatal to a person's candidacy. See, Kellogg v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 347 Ill.App.3d 666, 807 N.E.2d 1161 (1st Dist. 2004).

Judge Delort also spoke on the practical aspects of running for judicial office, but his focus was on the political aspects. Delort said, the last Republican elected to judicial office in Cook County in a contested countywide election was Reginald Holzer -- in 1966. (The last Republican elected judge countywide was Charles Travis in 1996, but he was unopposed after the Democratic candidate withdrew.)

Delort explained the organization of the Cook County Democratic Party, the system of ward and township committeepersons, the import of making one's 2014 aspirations known to the Cook County Democratic Party offices by mid-summer of 2013. He explained that the Party's Candidate Outreach & Recruitment Committee, chaired by Cook County Board President (and 4th Ward Committeeperson) Toni Preckwinkle, will thereafter schedule brief interviews of persons who make their interest known. The full Central Committee will meet in October, and approximately half of the ward and township committeemen will sit on the committee that screens judges. Candidates will be invited to address this committee for brief presentations. Persons not already known to a significant number of committeepersons will most likely not be slated.

Judge Delort also addressed the special ethical considerations that apply to judicial candidates: Though not judges, judicial candidates are bound by the Canons of Judicial Ethics. That precludes the candidate's direct involvement in fundraising -- counter-intuitive things, like not signing thank you notes to donors, for example. Judge Delort used his own recent successful primary campaign as an example, describing how his campaign established a system so that donations could be vetted to prevent any appearance of impropriety.

Edward Austin spoke about the CBA judicial evaluation process. The CBA's forms are available online (click here), Austin noted. The judicial evaluation process is a searching inquiry into the totality of a candidate's career. The forms are lengthy and detailed and, when they are completed, a committee of nearly 200 volunteers, roughly divided in half between investigators and hearing panel members, goes to work.

The investigators go first, contacting references listed. The CBA form (and the Alliance forms for that matter) require a candidate to disclose adversaries in recent matters. Most people (presumably) are civil toward their friends and neighbors, but how do they treat those who are adverse? The committee expects that there will be disgruntled persons in anyone's past, but by contacting as many people as possible -- and following up with disclosed contacts by asking these for additional people who might have information about the candidate -- the investigators can develop as accurate an assessment of the candidate's reputation as possible.

The investigators' findings are presented to a hearing panel; this is where the candidate is invited in. Austin stressed that this is not intended as an adversarial or confrontational process. In fact, Austin said, the CBA does not want candidates to be 'surprised' by anything that is disclosed at a hearing. If the investigation has disclosed some particular area that the panel will want the candidate to address (a particular case, for example, or some financial issue) the panel chair will typically contact the candidate in advance to give the candidate a 'heads up.' The hearing panel will typically consist of between 12 to 18 members of the Judicial Evaluation Committee. All participants agree to keep matters disclosed at the hearing confidential. The panel makes a recommendation about the candidate after the hearing and the CBA rating will issue soon thereafter. The candidate is always the first to find out about the rating, Austin said.

Judge Mulroy wrapped up the program with a presentation about becoming an associate judge. The associate judge selection process is an election, too, he said, but the electors are the full circuit judges. Seeking an associate judgeship can be a good fallback plan for a person who unsuccessfully runs for judicial office. There are 146 associate judges in Cook County, Mulroy noted, and, while this was not always the case in the past, associate judges now can look forward to possible posting to the most challenging and demanding assignments.

Get to know the judges, Mulroy said. Become acquainted with your own and other committeepersons. Be active in your community. Know your subcircuit. Keep track of vacancies. Prepare for slating. Prepare for the evaluation process. If a person is interested in running for judge, form a committee to help raise money.

Mulroy acknowledged that politicians sometimes attempt to assert influence in the associate judge selection process. But, he said, the judges who vote are more interested in what a candidate's skills and abilities are. The committeeman who can help an associate judge candidate is one who can address those concerns.

One suggestion made, to varying extents, by each of the speakers was this: Seek out good counsel, knowledgeable in the arcane art and science of election law. (I am not an election lawyer.) When the leaves start to fall again next autumn, and the next round of candidates begin to circulate petitions, it will be far too late to start thinking about a run in 2014. As Judge Mulroy said, persons interested in a career on the bench should "begin preparing for this career change now."

Chicago Bar Association finds more than 50 judges qualified for retention

The Chicago Bar Association has released its 2012 Green Guide to Judicial Candidates (click here for the complete .pdf report).

The Judicial Evaluation Coommittee of the Chicago Bar Association found 51 of the 58 Cook County judges seeking retention qualified to remain in office. Seven, however, were rated "Not Recommended" by the CBA for retention. The judges rated "Not Recommended" by the CBA, and the CBA's comments about each, follow:

CYNTHIA BRIM -- 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.

RODNEY HUGHES BROOKS -- NOT RECOMMENDED
Judge Rodney Hughes Brooks is “Not Recommended” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Brooks was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1980 and has served as a judge since 1994. Judge Brooks has a pleasant demeanor, but does not possess the requisite knowledge of the law and judicial ability to effectively manage a court call. Judge Brooks has made no attempt to improve his knowledge of the law and judicial ability and should not be retained.

GLORIA CHEVERE -- NOT RECOMMENDED
Judge Gloria Chevere is “Not Recommended” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Chevere was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1981. The candidate was elected in 2006 and is assigned to various First Municipal Felony courtrooms. Reports from attorneys describe the candidate as punctual with adequate legal knowledge and that she runs an efficient courtroom. Nevertheless, the candidate is found not recommended due to her unwillingness to conform to attendance policies established for all judges. This comes after she was the subject of a highly publicized news report about leaving her courtroom assignment early.

LORETTA EADIE-DANIELS -- NOT RECOMMENDED
Judge Loretta Eadie-Daniels is “Not Recommended” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Eadie-Daniels was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1977 and served in the legal departments of the Chicago Transit Authority and the Chicago Housing Authority. In addition, Judge Eadie-Daniels served as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney from 1989-2000 before her election to the Circuit Court in 2000. Judge Eadie-Daniels is currently assigned to the Sixth Municipal District in Markham. Judge Eadie-Daniels’ “Not Recommended” finding is the result of continuing concerns about the judge’s temperament and knowledge of the law.

JAMES D. EGAN -- 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.

PAMELA E. HILL-VEAL -- 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.

LISA RUBLE MURPHY -- NOT RECOMMENDED
Judge Lisa Ruble Murphy is “Not Recommended” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Murphy was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1984 and has served as a judge since 1994. Judge Murphy has been in the Domestic Relations Division since 1995. Judge Murphy has been an Individual Calendar Domestic Relations Judge since 1997. The judge is experienced and knowledgeable in the field of domestic relations. Concerns about diligence, work ethic, and considerable delays in issuing written decisions resulted in a “Not Recommended” finding.

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.