Judge Mitchell announces campaign committee

Former Winston & Strawn partner Raymond W. Mitchell, appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court to the Hayes vacancy last year, has announced the formation of a campaign committee.

The committee is co-chaired by former Governor (and former Winston & Strawn managing partner) James R. Thompson and Robert A. Clifford, and, according to an email received by this blog, "his committee includes a number of prominent Chicagoans such as Bob Bingle, Tom Donovan, Paula H. Holderman, Kevin Forde, Gail Morse, John Simon and Dan Webb." That same email advises that Judge Mitchell's campaign will be managed by Mike Tierney.

The Mitchell campaign also has a website up and running. That's a link to the site; a link has also been added to the sidebar.

Abbey Fishman Romanek plans 9th Subcircuit bid

Abbey Fishman Romanek, a former Assistant Attorney General and an insurance defense practitioner with several Chicago firms, is planning to run for judge in the 9th Subcircuit in the February 2010 primary.

Ms. Romanek already has a website up and running; a link to the site has been established in the sidebar. Her campaign bio notes that, "In 2006, Abbey decided to devote herself to her family and community fulltime while still maintaining a small law practice on the side." Ms. Romanek has sought judicial office previously; another page on her website displays favorable ratings from the several members of the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening.

Illinois Supreme Court throws out judicial age limits

The Illinois Supreme Court struck down the Compulsory Retirement of Judges Act this past Thursday in Maddux v. Blagojevich.

Cook County Law Division Presiding Judge William D. Maddux filed suit attacking the law in 2007; I wrote about the suit when it was filed.

Judge Maddux will turn 75 before December 6, 2010, when his current term expires. According to the Compulsory Retirement of Judges Act, Maddux would have been "automatically retired," unable to seek retention. Under Anagnost v. Layhe, 230 Ill.App.3d 540, 595 N.E.2d 109 (1st Dist. 1992), Maddux would have been able to attempt to retain his office only if he filed for the primary -- and took his chances against all comers. (In an amended complaint, Judge Maddux indicated a willingness to seek retention, if the Act were invalidated, but said he would not seek to keep his office in a contested primary.)

The Supreme Court acknowledged that, under Article VI, section 15a of the Illinois Constitution, "The General Assembly may provide by law for the retirement of Judges and Associate Judges at a prescribed age." The court found, however, that the Compulsory Retirement of Judges Act was, "in effect, nothing but an anti-retention provision. A judge disqualified by age from running for retention, yet able to hold a judicial seat, even the one he was retired from, via an open election is, in no sense of the word, 'retired.' As such, the Act, so construed [in Anagnost], fails to fulfill the constitutional mandate of compulsory retirement." (Slip op. at p. 8.)

After overruling Anagnost, the majority opinion explained why the Compulsory Retirement of Judges Act was unconstitutional (slip op. at 14):

There is no rational basis upon which the legislature can prevent 75-year-old or older former judges from running in an election, but not citizens 75 years old or older who were never judges when the disqualifying characteristic is age. If the legitimate state interest is to insure a “vigorous judiciary,” the classification we describe above cannot be deemed rationally related to that purpose. We stress again that if age defines ability (and both the constitutional and legislative history indicate that it was believed that it does), either all those 75 years of age or older are unfit or they are not. No presumption of constitutionality could save legislation like this that so blatantly violates equal protection.

The Supreme Court's majority opinion was authored by Justice Charles Freeman, himself 75 and, because of this opinion, now eligible to seek retention in 2010, should he so choose. Abdon M. Pallasch, writing in Friday's Chicago Sun-Times, quotes William Schroeder, a law professor at Southern Illinois University, as saying that Freeman's participation in the case, "has the appearance of impropriety. It diminishes the reputation of the judiciary and calls into question the integrity of the procedures. It brings the administration of justice into disrepute and causes the citizens to question the integrity of the process."

But DePaul University Law Professor Jeffrey Shaman was not as critical. According to Pallasch's article, Shaman said, "It might have been the better part of discretion if Judge Freeman had not written the decision in the case, but, even so, I don't think this is a situation where he had to disqualify himself from hearing the case." Pallasch also reports that Supreme Court spokesman Joe Tybor said, "I really think it's presumptuous to say it would 'benefit' Freeman."

Quoting from the Sun-Times article:

Freeman's accountant told him [Tybor] that with his pension, he would make more money if he retires. Maddux's attorney David Novoselsky said that was true for all the older judges who save taxpayers money by staying on the bench instead of leaving and drawing their generous pensions.

"It's really the voters in Illinois who benefit," Tybor said.

Asian groups protest filling of Otaka vacancy

FWIW received this press release:

Local Asian American leaders are outraged, dismayed, and disappointed by the hasty action of the Illinois Supreme Court to fill a seat left vacant by the recent death of Circuit Court Judge Sandra Otaka.

Otaka, who died on Saturday, June 5th, was the first and only Asian American elected to serve as a circuit court judge in Cook County. Her successor was appointed just five days after her death -- before the judge had even been laid to rest.

"The circumstances surrounding the appointment of Judge Otaka's successor suggests that the decision was made without regard to the changing demographics of the comm unity she served," said Diana Lin, president of the Asian American Institute (AAI).

Otaka, first elected judge in 2002, was retained last November in the 9th Judicial Subcircuit District -- home to Cook County's largest concentration of Asian Americans (about 300,000 residents).

The public outcry from community leaders came after they learned that the Illinois Supreme Court had appointed, as Otaka's successor, someone with no ties, or familiarity, with the county's Asian American community.

Nearly three-dozen Asian American groups (see attached list) are demanding more transparency in the appointment process and pushing for diversity on the bench with qualified candidates. The Asian American Bar Association, which expected to be consulted for recommendations of qualified candidates, had not even been notified that the process to select Otaka's successor was already ongoing.

"There are Asian American lawyers qualified to merit consideration for Judge Otaka's vacancy," says Anne I. Shaw, immediate past president of the Asian American Bar Association (AABA). "Given the historic significance of Judge Otaka's election and her stature as a beloved icon for Asian Americans, we had hoped that the Illinois Supreme Court would have exercised some sensitivity to Cook County's Asian American community by giving strong consideration to the prospect of appointing an Asian American, appointing someone with ties to our community or, at least, alerting Asian American community leaders."

Asian Americans are the fastest-growing minority group within the legal profession, yet continue to be grossly underrepresented in the judiciary. Otaka championed the effort to increase diversity in the Cook County court system. Her death leaves only six judges of Asian ancestry in the county. However, all six are associate judges -- not full circuit court judges like Otaka.

Groups protesting the recent action of the Illinois Supreme Court include:

• Asian American Bar Association of Greater Chicago
• Apna Ghar
• Asian American Coalition of Chicago
• Alliance of Filipinos for Immigrant Rights and Empowerment (AFIRE)
• Asian American Action Fund Greater Chicago
• Asian American Institute
• Asian Chronicle USA
• Asian Health Coalition of Illinois
• Asian Pacific Americans for Progress-Chicago
• Chinese American Bar Association
• Chinese American Service League
• Chinese Mutual Aid Association
• Coalition for a Better Chinese American Community
• Filipino American Council of Greater Chicago
• Filipino American Network
• Hanul Family Alliance
• Hamdard Center for Health and Human Services
• Indo-American Democratic Organization
• Indian American Bar Association
• Japanese American Citizens League
• Korean American Association of Chicago
• Korean American Bar Association of Chicago
• Korean American Community Services
• Korean American Resource and Cultural Center
• Korean American Women in Need
• Muslim Women’s Resource Center
• National Association of Asian American Professionals - Chicago
• National Association of Asian Pacific American Educators – Illinois Chapter
• Organization of Chinese Americans- Greater Chicago Chapter
• Philippine American Chamber of Commerce of Greater Chicago
• Pui Tak Center
• Punjabi Cultural Society of Chicago
• South Asian American Policy and Research Institute
• South Asian Progressive Action Collective
• Southeast Asia Center
• Sikh American Heritage Organization

End of press release.

Anne I. Shaw, the President of the Asian American Bar Association in 2007-08, was listed on the release as a contact person and I took the liberty of following up.

Some background:

As I understand the process, while the entire Supreme Court fills vacancies, as a practical matter, the Court acts on the recommendation of the justice in whose district the vacancy occurs. In Cook County, which has three justices, the justices take turns making appointments.

These days all of the justices have committees of one sort or another to advise them on appointments. In Cook County the Chicago Bar Association, at least, will be asked to provide an opinion about the merits of proposed appointee. Many persons seeking appointments have sought judicial office before and will have already had their credentials examined by both the CBA and the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening. The Asian American Bar Association is a member of the Alliance.

In an email to FWIW, Anne Shaw, the former AABA president, acknowledged that AABA had not contacted the Supreme Court about the Otaka vacancy before it was filled. "We are and were mourning Judge Otaka’s death. She was a beloved leader and icon not just in our community, but in the community at large," Shaw said.

I have no inside knowledge of the circumstances surrounding how the Otaka vacancy was filled, but it may be that Yehuda Lebovits had already been screened and approved for appointment for the next available 9th Subcircuit vacancy before Judge Otaka's passing. That might account for how quickly the vacancy was filled. Anne Shaw had nothing to say against Mr. Lebovits individually; rather, she said, the Asian groups are calling for "greater transparency in the [appointment] process."

"Greater transparency," Shaw said, "would benefit everyone," including the Illinois Supreme Court. "We believe that this will encourage a larger pool of qualified applicants for the Illinois Supreme Court to consider."

Judge Bender campaign website up and running

Michael Ian Bender was appointed to the O'Malley vacancy in the 9th Subcircuit this past October. He now has a campaign website up and running in anticipation of the February 2010 primary.

I've started a sidebar category for Cook County 2010 judicial campaign websites; Judge Bender's is my first entry. (I had quite a list for the 2008 primary; I archived these links in this post on Page Two of this blog. Most of the 2008 links are now dead, but not all of them, and I'm sure some of these will soon join Judge Bender in the Sidebar here.)

If you know of any other 2010 Cook County judicial campaign websites already up and running, please let me know.

Yehuda P. Lebovits appointed to Otaka vacancy

Yehuda P. Lebovits, director of the Cook County Expedited Child Support Program, and a Lincolnwood village trustee, has been appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court to fill the 9th Subcircuit vacancy created by the recent death of Judge Sandra R. Otaka. Judge Otaka was the first Asian American elected to the Cook County bench.

A lawyer since 1983, Lebovits was among the finalists for the Associate Judge vacancies filled in 2007. A June 2008 Chicago Daily Law Bulletin article notes that Lebovits also served as financial secretary of the Decalogue Society of Lawyers.

The Expedited Child Support Program is a collaboration between the State of Illinois, Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Cook County State's Attorney and the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. You can find out more about the Expedited Child Support Program by following this link.

Lebovits' appointment is effective June 25 and runs through December 6, 2010.

Kull, Wasilewski receive Cook County judicial appointments

Geary W. Kull started his judicial career today. He was appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court on May 27, 2009 to fill a countywide vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Francis J. Dolan. The appointment ends on December 6, 2010.

A June 4 Chicago Daily Law Bulletin article notes that Kull was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1974. A sole practitioner, Kull's practice was focused on criminal law and civil rights law. He represented Floyd Durr, who pled guilty in 2006 to the murder of 11-year old Ryan Harris. (Durr was charged after charges were dropped against the initial suspects, aged 7 and 8.)

Kull has sought judicial office previously. In the 1994 primary, Kull was a candidate for the countywide Durham vacancy. At the time, the CBA rated him qualified, saying "Kull is a hardworking and diligent attorney with broad legal experience. Kull would be a fine addition to the bench." A search of Law Bulletin archives on Westlaw reveals that Kull also applied for an associate judgeship in 1997.

John A. Wasilewski was serving as an Associate Judge when the Illinois Supreme Court tapped him to fill a vacancy in the 15th Subcircuit created by the retirement of Judge Marcella C. Lipinski. Wasilewski's appointment was effective May 6; his appointment will also terminate on December 6, 2010.

Wasilewski was a member of the first graduating class (in 1978) of what was, briefly, the Lewis University College of Law (the law school is now part of Northern Illinois University). An October 2008 Law Bulletin article noted that 17 of the roughly 300 members of that graduating class became judges. According to the Law Bulletin, Wasilewski co-chaired the 30th anniversary gathering along with Cook County Associate Judge Gloria G. Coco.

Wasilewski joined the State's Attorney's office after law school; he became an Associate Judge in 1988. John Flynn Rooney's 1997 profile of Judge Wasilewski in the Law Bulletin noted that, while an ASA, Wasilewski "was known as a 'law guy,' or someone who diligently read the most recent criminal law cases."

The difference between red light & speed cameras

State Sen. Terry Link (D. Waukegan) has made quite a splash recently with a proposal to allow cameras to catch speeders and issue tickets. Jon Hilkevitch writes about the proposal in yesterday's Chicago Tribune; you can find the text of SB 1852 by following the link embedded in this sentence.

In the City of Chicago and certain Illinois counties the law already permits the erection of 'red light cameras' that automatically spit out tickets to violators. (For the state statute, see §11-208.6 of the Motor Vehicle Code, 625 ILCS 5/11-208.6.) These cameras seem to work: Where signs warn of camera enforcement, even at intersections where a red light was previously taken as little more than a suggestion, motorists seem to have modified their behavior. More of them actually stop when they're supposed to. (In one sense these cameras may have worked too well: Complaints have surfaced in some quarters about the cameras failing to generate promised revenues.)

But determining who is a speeder is fundamentally different from determining whether someone has, or has not, blown a red light. Running a red light is an either/or proposition. An unthinking, unblinking camera can reasonably make that call. But can it really decide when someone is really "speeding"?

What is a "speed limit" anyway? On most arterial streets, at rush hour, it's an impossible dream; at non-peak hours, though, on those same streets, a speed limit is more like a posted minimum. A "speed limit" is not a "limit" at all. A limit is an absolute: Try buying three items when the store says "limit two." Watch what happens when you exceed your credit limit. A speed limit is more a target average.

A police officer observing traffic may see that traffic is moving safely and smoothly at 40 mph... and choose not to enforce a 35 mph limit. A police officer observing traffic on an icy Winter's day may see that it is unsafe to drive at even 20 mph and pull over a motorist who tries. A driver can be ticketed under §11-601(a) of the Motor Vehicle Code for "driving too fast for conditions." ("The fact that the speed of a vehicle does not exceed the applicable maximum speed limit does not relieve the driver from the duty to decrease speed... when special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.")

A police officer has training, judgment and discretion. The most advanced unthinking, unblinking eye has none of these.

Well, says the Tribune editorial this morning, in Arizona cameras are set to catch only those traveling 11 mph over the posted limit. An article by William M. Bulkeley in today's Wall Street Journal notes the same assertion.

But there's no guarantee that an 11 mph cushion would remain in place for long. It all depends on whether the cameras generate the anticipated revenue.

Don't blame me for a cynical assertion. Bulkeley's article cites "a study in last month's Journal of Law and Economics [which] concluded that, as many motorists have long suspected, 'governments use traffic tickets as a means of generating revenue.' The authors, Thomas Garrett of the St. Louis Fed and Gary Wagner of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, studied 14 years of traffic-ticket data from 96 counties in North Carolina. They found that when local-government revenue declines, police issue more tickets in the following year." Thin the cushion, fatten the revenues.

The Tribune thinks that cameras will make the highways safer. But Bulkeley reports that studies are mixed on whether speed cameras enhance safety:

Some research indicates they may increase rear-end collisions as drivers slam on their brakes when they see posted camera notices. A 2005 Federal Highway Administration study of six cities' red-light cameras concluded there was a "modest" economic benefit because a reduction in side crashes due to less red-light running offset the higher costs of more rear-end crashes.

A study of crash causes released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration last July found about 5% of crashes were due to traveling too fast and 2% were from running red lights. Driving off the side of the road, falling asleep at the wheel and crossing the center lines were the biggest causes identified.

Speed cameras are about revenue, not safety. Unless we're going to make speed limits into real limits -- top end speeds beyond which no one can travel safely at any time, under any conditions -- discretion is always going to play a role in determining what constitutes speeding. Machines just can't do this job.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Bulkeley's WSJ article discusses countermeasures some citizens have taken in response to unthinking, unblinking eyes. The funniest of these is shown in a YouTube video and you can watch that on page two.

Daniel B. Malone appointed to Cook County bench

Daniel B. Malone, a partner at the Healy Law Firm Ltd., has been appointed to the Cook County Circuit Court effective February 24, 2009. Malone will fill the "A" vacancy in the Third Subcircuit. His appointment will expire on December 6, 2010.

Malone obtained his undergraduate degree in 1979 from the University of Illinois and his law degree from DePaul University in 1986. He's been a partner at the Healy Law Firm since 2001 concentrating in personal injury and worker's compensation matters. According to his biography on the Healy firm website, Malone "currently serves as the Vice President and was the former Treasurer and on the Board of Directors for the Workers' Compensation Association. He is on the Board of Managers of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association."

Malone made the Law Bulletin last March when the Illinois Appellate Court reinstated a claim he brought against Commonwealth Edison on behalf of a City of Chicago electrician who was injured while working in the Heating and Refrigeration (H & R) building at O'Hare International Airport, performing maintenance work on a circuit breaker. The Appellate Court held that the construction statute of repose did not apply to Commonwealth Edison's duty to maintain its equipment, even if the equipment had been installed more than 20 years before. The case is Ryan v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 381 Ill.App.3d 877, 885 N.E.2d 544 (1st Dist. 2008).

According to the Healy Firm website, Malone has served as Chairman of the Finance Committee of St. Mary Star of the Sea Parish in Chicago, also participating as a cantor and in the church choir. Malone has also been "a long term Commissioner and was the former Chairman of the Southwest Home Equity Assurance Program" and "currently serves as a Commissioner on the Midway Noise Compatibility Commission."

Rep. Scully appointed to 15th Subcircuit vacancy

Flossmoor State Representative George Scully, Jr. (D-80) has been appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court to fill the 15th Subcircuit vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Thomas P. Panichi. According to a February 5 post by Ashley Rueff on the Tribune's "Clout Street" blog, Scully broke the happy news yesterday to his House colleagues. They responded with a round of applause. Rueff's post quotes Scully as saying that, as a judge, "I have to keep my opinions to myself, and that is a big transition."

According to his House biography, Scully did his undergraduate work at Northern Illinois University and obtained his law degree from John Marshall Law School in Chicago. He also took graduate courses at Oxford University. Scully was admitted to practice in Illinois in 1981. His law office was located in Tinley Park.

Scully's appointment is effective February 27, 2009 and terminates December 6, 2010.

William R. Jackson Jr. appointed to Riley vacancy

The Illinois Supreme Court has announced the appointment of Evanston attorney William R. Jackson Jr. to the Circuit Court of Cook County. Mr. Jackson, a partner in the firm of Bradley & Jackson, will fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Ronald C. Riley. The appointment begins on March 2, 2009 and terminates on December 6, 2010.

A 1974 graduate of the Northwestern University School of Law and a certified public accountant, Jackson worked for Winston & Strawn from 1974 to 1978. He founded Bradley & Jackson in 1988 and, in between, worked for Price Waterhouse Coopers in Chicago, Container Corporation of America, and Borg-Warner Corporation. Since 2001 Jackson has worked as an administrative law judge in Evanston; in addition, according to the Supreme Court's press release, Jackson has been a arbitrator with the Financial Institute Regulatory Authority since 1992, "mediating cases between the investing public against brokerage firms and their employees."

Jackson was among the finalists for Associate Judge in 2008. The Chicago Council of Lawyers reported at that time that, "Attorneys view Mr. Jackson as smart, well prepared, and knowledgeable. He is praised for his even temperament and his calming influence in heated situations."

Postal service in Chicago Loop picks up unintended consequence of Obama election

It has been an almost nightly ritual for me: Trying to get as much stuff done and copied and posted by 5:00 pm when the mail would be picked up at my Chicago office building. Some nights, particularly in the rush to Christmas, the letter carrier might be delayed until 5:20 or even 5:30 p.m.

But, says the Sun-Times this morning, my ritual has ended: The Postal Service, citing both budgetary and security concerns, has discontinued 5:00 p.m. mail pick-ups in Loop office buildings. Lisa Donovan's story quotes Chicago postal service spokesman Mark Reynolds as explaining that the late afternoon pick-ups were discontinued "in larger part out of security concerns, and then we took a broader look at overall efficiencies we could make." Reynolds told Donavan that the Secret Service asked the postal service to "make some adjustments at the Kluczyski Federal building where the transition office is, so we could comply with security" restrictions.

But -- writes Donovan -- there is good news: "Stand-alone blue boxes dotting the Loop will continue with regular pickups, including the final 5 p.m. timeslot."

This would be good news... if in fact there were any stand-alone blue boxes still left in the Loop. Most of these disappeared after 9/11.

If anyone reading this knows where a mailbox might be found on the street in the Loop, please leave a comment. Perhaps we can generate a list. If that won't violate some security protocol.

Cook County retention judges all hold on

Four jurists targeted for removal by both the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times were retained by the voters in yesterday's election.

Combining figures provided by Cook County Clerk David Orr and the Chicago Board of Elections, it appears that Judge Evelyn B. Clay received a 68.69% "yes" vote from the voters, easily besting the 60% retention threshold.

Judge Vanessa A. Hopkins received a 74.24% "yes" vote in the City and a 66.20% "yes" vote in the suburbs for a combined favorable percentage of 69.92%.

Judge Cassandra Lewis got a combined 68.55% approval rating and Judge Edward N. Pietrucha received "yes" votes from 65.40% of the Cook County electorate.

These figures are taken from unofficial County results showing 2250 of 2290 precincts counted and unofficial City results showing 2504 of 2575 precincts counted.

A quick survey of the other results showed no other retention candidate in jeopardy of losing his or her seat.

Cook County contested subcircuit results

According to figures posted on the website of Cook County Clerk David Orr, with 98.56% of the votes counted, Democrat Pat Rogers easily defeated Republican Maureen H. Masterson-Pulia for the Fourth Subcircuit Schultz vacancy.

In the 15th Subcircuit, with 98.12% of the votes counted, Democrat Anna Helen Demacopoulous bested Republican Peter Fera, with a margin of over 32,000 votes.

In the 12th Subcircuit race for the Devlin vacancy, with 97.64% of the votes counted, Democrat Pamela Elizabeth Loza appears to have bested Republican Laura J. Morask by just over 10,000 votes.

The margins in the two contested 13th Subcircuit races were much closer. In the race for the Ryan vacancy, with only eight precincts still outstanding, Republican Annie O'Donnell was clinging to a 385 vote lead in her race over Democrat Ann Catherine Brady. As of 2:58 a.m., the Cook County Clerk's website showed O'Donnell with 56,208 votes to Brady's 55,823.

The race for the Tobin vacancy is not quite as close. Republican Margarita Kulys Hoffman had a 1,488 vote lead over Democrat Carol L. Barnes 293 of 301 precincts reporting. Hoffman had 55,951 votes to Barnes' 54,463.

Illinois voters: You should receive this notice before voting

(Click to enlarge if necessary.)

You are looking at a notice you should receive tomorrow when you vote. (Early voters, absentee voters, you should already have seen this notice.)

From an email received from the CBA and sent to all CBA members:

As you have probably heard, the CBA has filed suit challenging the form of the ballot for the referendum in the upcoming election about the calling of a Constitutional Convention in Illinois. The CBA has not taken a position supporting or opposing holding a Constitutional Convention. Our lawsuit is simply intended to ensure that the referendum is conducted in a fair and constitutional manner.

The circuit and appellate courts have agreed with us that the form of ballot certified by the State Board of Elections is inaccurate, biased, and misleading. The courts have ordered that each voter, before voting, be given a "Corrective Notice" in the form [shown above]. All voters throughout Illinois are supposed to receive the Notice, including those voting by absentee ballot, Early Voting, and on Election Day.

If you don't receive this notice when you vote, ask for it.

Today's CBA "vote no" ad is slightly misleading

Here is the ad inserted in this morning's Chicago Sun-Times by the Judicial Evaluation Committee of the Chicago Bar Association. (Some of the names appear toned differently than others in this copy, but that is a reflection of my limited scanning skills. No names were differently presented in the actual newspaper ad.)

The Chicago Bar Association does not endorse candidates for judicial office. None of the major bar associations do. But the CBA does rate candidates as either "Qualified" (and occasionally as "Highly Qualified") or "Not Recommended." (You can read what the CBA said about each of the retention candidates that it has found "Not Recommended" at this linked post.)

This morning's ad tells voters which current sitting judges ("Judges Running to Retain Their Seats") that it finds "Not Recommended."

But it also suggests that voters vote "no" on five other candidates, one running countywide, the other four running in subcircuit races.

The problem is -- and here is where the ad can be somewhat misleading -- in three of these five races there is no other candidate.

Kristyna Colleen Ryan, Dominique C. Ross, and Jackie Marie Portman were all assured of victory tomorrow when they won their primary races. There are no Republicans running against them; there are no Green Party candidates running against them. They are unopposed.

Voters wanting to follow the CBA's recommendations in these races may be understandably confused: They have no one else to vote for.

Kristyna Colleen Ryan narrowly outpolled the candidate endorsed by the Democratic Party, Paula M. Lingo, in a three-way race. Dominique C. Ross was not declared a winner in her neck-and-neck contest with former Cook County Bar Association President Stephen Stern until late August -- after a recount trial.

Only Jackie Marie Portman's race was won by a relatively comfortable margin. She bested two opponents, Nkrumah Lumumba Hopkins and Furmin D. Sessoms. Sessoms had been appointed to the bench by the Illinois Supreme Court.

In any event, the CBA can not influence the outcome of these three races at this point. And voters who usually vote only in general elections, and not in primaries, should remember, in the future, that many judicial elections are already decided when the polls close on Primary Day.

Morask responds to negative Council evaluation

Click here for 12th Subcircuit roundup post.

Since the linked roundup post appeared, I've received an email from Republican candidate Laura J. Morask responding to the new, harsh evaluation of her candidacy issued by the Chicago Council of Lawyers for the general election. (The entire text of the new evaluation can be accessed at the linked post.)

The Council initially found Morask "not recommended" because she did not participate in the Alliance of Bar Associations screening process. Morask has said that she could not comply with the tight Alliance screening deadline because of a planned family vacation. But the new evaluation suggested that Morask had an ulterior motive for ducking the Council evaluation, namely, trying to avoid calling attention to past accusations of prosecutorial misconduct.

From Morask's email:

I am dumbfounded that the Chicago Council of Lawyers would be so dishonest and misleading to the voting public as to print their "conspiracy theory" as to why I did not participate in their ratings. The simple fact is that had they or anyone else asked or researched the truth about these accusations at all, they could find that I had a full and complete hearing in the ARDC, the board that regulates conduct and was completely cleared. The chronology painted by the Council of Lawyers is a complete lie and extremely misleading to the public to say an intentional pattern of misconduct occurred. I have prosecuted the highest number of jury trials in Cook County and to have three cases (not nine) in which my sarcasm has been criticized is by far the best record of any attorney much less prosecutor. Only one of these cases was ever reversed and our office appealed it to the highest court. If one looks at the record instead of the conspiracy oriented drivel written by the Council you can see the following.

People v. SanAntone Moss-prosecuted in October 1998-jury convicted, sentenced to death for multiple murder, Govenor Ryan communted in Mass Commutations.
People v. Roy Fluker-prosecuted in December 1998-Conviction and sentenced to 35 yrs.
People v. Evan Griffith-prosecuted in June, 2001, sentenced to life for second murder.

People v. Roy Fluker conviction reversed in opinion December 2000 (criticism of closing argument allowed by trial court pursuant to pre-trial proper motion)
People v. Moss-appeal and conviction affirmed (with criticism of closing argument allowed by Trial Judge) October, 2001(commuted in mass Ryan commutations)
People v. Griffith-appealed with affirmance (criticism of my conduct which was pursuant to pre-trial motions allowed by Trial Judge) in opinion issued in 2002 which was then appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court by the defendant where no less a person than the State's Attorney of Cook County made a special appearance to argue to the Justices on behalf of my integrity and lack of prosecutorial misconduct and to decry the misleading push to make it appear as if a pattern existed when in fact the above chronology demonstrates the simple fact that the three cases were prosecuted before the first opinion issued. In other words, I never flouted any court ruling or admonishment. This fact was recognized by no less august a tribunal than the ARDC, and the Chicago Bar Association and the Northwest Suburbuan Bar who all had the same exhaustive application wherein one must attach any complaints.

It is dumbfounding to me that the Council of Lawyers violated their oath as responsible lawyers and citizens by printing what they did. Mr. Devine and every single judge involved in any of these cases will and has vouched for me repeatedly to the bar associations that are the major peer reviewed bars-the CBA, and NWSBA. The Alliance has demonstrated on prior occasions their agenda as a mere glance at their application reflects a bias that is not appropriate for judicial candidates. Unlike my opponent I have sat on the judicial evaluation and investigation committees of many of the Alliance and the CBA.

13th Subcircuit roundup (Ryan vacancy) -- Brady v. O'Donnell

In the race for the Ryan vacancy in the 13th Judicial Subcircuit, Republican Annie O'Donnell opposes Democrat Ann Catherine Brady (at right).

The Chicago Bar Association found O'Donnell qualified:

Annie O'Donnell is "Qualified" for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. O'Donnell was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1987 and has extensive experience in criminal law. Ms. O'Donnell is knowledgeable, hardworking, and possesses all the requisite qualifications to serve as a Circuit Court Judge.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers stood by the "not qualified" rating it issued to O'Donnell at the time of the 2004 judicial primary:

Annie O'Donnell received her license to practice law in 1987. She has been a solo practitioner engaged in criminal defense work since 1995. Before that, she served as an Assistant Cook County Public Defender. Ms. O'Donnell has good legal ability and a good temperament. The Council is concerned about the narrowness of her practice, including lack of sufficient courtroom experience in complex matters. The Council finds her Not Qualified for the Circuit Court.

Brady was found qualified by the CBA:

Ann Catherine Brady is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. Brady was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1987. Ms. Brady is well regarded for her legal knowledge and ability and possesses all the requisite qualifications to serve as a Circuit Court Judge.

The Council disagreed:

Ann Catherine Brady has been a lawyer since 1987. She has handled principally domestic relations cases in private law firms throughout her career. Lawyers report that she has good legal ability and a good temperament. The Council is concerned, however, that her practice is narrow and too often involves non-complicated litigation matters. She has no jury trial experience. The Council finds her Not Qualified for the Circuit Court.

Here is the chart showing all of the Alliance ratings for these candidates (click to enlarge):

The Chicago Sun-Times endorsed Brady in this race. The Chicago Tribune said, "Democrat Ann Catherine Brady and Republican Annie O'Donnell are capable, experienced lawyers, each with 21 years of private practice. A slight edge goes to O'Donnell for her broader range of litigation experience as a criminal defense lawyer and public defender. She is endorsed."

I have been unable to find a website for O'Donnell. Brady's website can be found at bradyforjudge.org.

13th Subcircuit roundup (Tobin vacancy) -- Barnes v. Kulys-Hoffman

There are two contested judicial contests in the northwest suburban 13th Judicial Subcircuit.

In the race for the Tobin vacancy, Democrat Carol L. Barnes (at left) will face Republican Margarita Kulys-Hoffman.

Kulys-Hoffman is already serving as a judge, having been appointed to the post by the Illinois Supreme Court and, in September, being elected as an Associate Judge of the Cook County Circuit Court.

Barnes did not participate in the Chicago Bar Association evaluation process and was automatically found "NOT RECOMMENDED" as a consequence. She also did participate in the Alliance of Bar Association evaluation process; she was therefore found "not recommended" or "not qualified" by each of the Association members including the Chicago Council of Lawyers.

Here is what the CBA had to say about Kulys-Hoffman:

Judge Margarita Kulys Hoffman is "Qualified" for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Judge Hoffman was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1983 and practiced law for 23 years before her appointment to the bench in 2006. Judge Hoffman has extensive experience and is highly respected for her knowledge of the law, work ethic, integrity, and fine judicial temperament.

The Council stated:

Margaret Kulys-Hoffman has been a lawyer since 1983. She was appointed to the bench by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2006. She currently presides over traffic court and misdemeanor courtrooms in the Rolling Meadows courthouse. The Council, in an earlier evaluation done before she took the bench, found Judge Kulys-Hoffman Not Qualified due to insufficient litigation experience. The Council’s current evaluation is based on her performance as a judge. She is considered by lawyers appearing before her to have good legal ability and temperament. She is praised for her courtroom management skills in high volume courtrooms. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.

Here is the grid showing the ratings issued by each of the Alliance members in this race (click to enlarge):


The Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times both endorsed Kulys-Hoffman. Kulys-Hoffman's website may be accessed at www.judgehoffman.org. Barnes' website is found at www.votecarolbarnes.com.

4th Subcircuit roundup -- Rogers vs. Masterson-Pulia

In Cook County's Fourth Judicial Subcircuit, Democrat Pat Rogers faces Republican Maureen Masterson-Pulia.

Again, the disparity in the photograph sizes is due to my technical limitations and not to any preference of any kind.

The Chicago Bar Association has rated Rogers qualified:

Patrick Toal Rogers is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Rogers was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1983 and has practiced law for 23 years. He has a diverse practice and possesses the depth and breadth of legal experience to serve as a Circuit Court Judge.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers, however, disagrees:

Pat Rogers was admitted to practice in 1983. He has been in private practice since 1988 and, is currently a solo general practitioner handling municipal, criminal and traffic cases. From 1983 until 1988, he was an Assistant Cook County State's Attorney. Since 1993, he has been a Supervisor for the Township of Lyons and also serves as an Administrative Hearing Officer for several other cities. Mr. Rogers is considered to knowledgeable about his practice areas, which are mainly limited to traffic and municipal matters. His integrity is unquestioned and he has a good temperament. The Council is concerned, however, that he has little experience in complex litigation matters and does not have the range of experience necessary to be judge. The Council finds him Not Qualified for the Circuit Court.

Neither the CBA nor the CCL rated Masterson-Pulia as qualified. Said the CBA:

Maureen Masterson-Pulia is “Not Recommended” for the office of Associate Judge. Ms. Masterson-Pulia was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1994. Prior to her legal career, the candidate served as a Village Clerk and Village Trustee. She has good management skills and is articulate and poised. She has worked as an arbitrator for the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission for the last six and a half years and is well regarded for her timely and well-written decisions. Ms. Masterson-Pulia is a fine candidate but needs to acquire some litigation experience.

As the text of the CBA rating indicates, this is not a new evaluation but is an evaluation that dates from a prior effort by Masterson-Pulia to seek the office of Associate Judge. A footnote explains:

Pursuant to Section 27.4 of the JEC Resolutions and Procedures, a candidate who has been evaluated and found "NOT RECOMMENDED" for the office of Associate Judge and who shall within two years of such a finding be a candidate for Circuit Judge shall be found "NOT RECOMMENDED" without hearing.

The Council stated (also repeating its 2006 Associate Judge evaluation:

Maureen Pulia was admitted to practice in 1984. From 2003 to present, she has been an Arbitrator with the Illinois Workers Compensation Commission. From 1997 to 2003 she was Senior Public Service Administrator and Staff Attorney for the Illinois Workers Compensation Commission. Ms. Pulia is reported to have good legal ability and temperament. The Council is concerned, however, that her practice has been narrow and that she lacks sufficient litigation experience as a practitioner in complex matters. The Council finds her Not Qualified to serve in the Circuit Court.

Here are the complete Alliance of Bar Association ratings for Rogers and Masterson-Pulia (click to enlarge):


The Tribune and the Sun-Times have both endorsed Rogers.

In Thursday's Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, John Flynn Rooney reports that Rogers has raised $192,452 for this campaign, including a loan by the candidate to the campaign of $18,987 in late September. Masterson-Pulia has raised $15,381, according to that same article.

Pat Rogers' campaign website is at www.electpatrogers.com. Maureen Masterson-Pulia's website is maureenforjudge.com.

15th Subcircuit roundup: Demacopoulos v. Fera

I begin this roundup with a confession: I lack the technical skills to make this photo of 15th Subcircuit Democratic Candidate Anna Helen Demacopoulous the same size as the only photo that I have for her Republican challenger, Peter Fera.

That's Mr. Fera on the upper right.

So please don't read anything into the photographs as displayed. And please read on:

The Chicago Bar Association found both Demacopoulous and Fera qualified for the bench. Of Fera, the CBA stated:

Peter Fera is "Qualified" for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Fera was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1968. Mr. Fera is well regarded for his knowledge of the law and extensive practice experience. Mr. Fera possesses all the requisite qualifications to serve as a Circuit Court Judge.

These were the CBA's comments regarding Demacopoulous:

Anna Helen Demacopoulos is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. Demacopoulos was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1985 and currently serves as a supervisor in the special prosecutions unit of the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office. Ms. Demacopoulos is highly regarded for her integrity, legal knowledge and ability, and outstanding temperament.

But the Chicago Council of Lawyers split on the candidates. Of Demacopoulos, the Council stated:

Anna Helen Demacopoulos was admitted to practice in Illinois in 1985. Ms. Demacopoulos has spent her entire career with the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office and is currently the Supervisor, Special Grand Jury, in the Narcotics Bureau at 26th and California. Prior to that she was a Deputy Supervisor in Felony Review (3 years), a Deputy Supervisor in the First Municipal Division (5 years), and an Assistant State’s Attorney (8 years). From 1987 to the present, she has been an adjunct professor at the John Marshall Law School teaching all levels of trial advocacy. Since 1997, she has been the Grant Reviewer and Program Consultant on Domestic Violence, Stalking, Hate Crimes and Community Prosecution for the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, Violence Against Women’s Office. The investigation of this candidate confirmed her talent as a lawyer, her integrity and her work ethic.

Ms. Demacopoulos identified two cases in which her professional conduct has been commented on by the Appellate Court. A Chicago Tribune investigation also uncovered a 1989 Batson violation that the district judge found to be the product of the candidate’s inexperience. Upon review, we regard these matters as insufficiently serious or current to disqualify the candidate. The Council finds Ms. Demacopoulos Well Qualified to serve in the Circuit Court.

These comments were apparently generated by the Council in 2002 when Demacopoulos applied to serve as an Associate Judge.

The Council said this about Fera:

Peter A. Fera has been a lawyer since 1968. Mr. Fera is considered to be a highly experienced attorney in will and estates, trusts, banking regulations and compliance, mortgage law, and real estate work. He is considered to have good legal ability in transactional work. While his litigation work is limited, he has done some insurance defense litigation and eviction work during his career. Mr. Fera is a highly respected transactional lawyer who has demonstrated solid ability. The Council is concerned, however, that judges need to have substantial litigation experience before going on the bench. On balance, the Council finds him Not Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Alliance of Bar Associations (which includes the Council, but not the CBA) issued these ratings of the two candidates (click to enlarge):


The Chicago Tribune has endorsed Demacopoulous in this race. Ms. Demacopoulos' campaign website is www.annaforjudge.com. If Mr. Fera has a campaign website, I have been unable to locate it (remember: I do not claim superior technological skills). I will of course update this post if someone points me to Mr. Fera's site.

12th Subcircuit roundup: Loza v. Morask

In the 12th Subcircuit race for the Devlin vacancy Democrat Pamela Loza (at left) is battling Republican Laura J. Morask (right).

The Chicago Tribune recently endorsed Loza; the Fraternal Order of Police endorsed Morask.

Both Morask and Loza have been rated "qualified" by the Chicago Bar Association. Of Morask, the CBA stated:

Laura J. Morask is "Qualified" for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. Morask was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1987 and is a highly skilled and experienced supervisor in the Cook County State's Attorney's office. Ms. Morask possesses all the requisite qualifications to serve as a Circuit Court Judge.

The CBA said this about Loza:

Pamela E. Loza is “Qualified’ for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. Loza was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1978. Ms. Loza is a sole practitioner who handles her family practice well and efficiently. She has both civil and criminal trial experience. She is bilingual and knowledgeable about diverse communities and practice issues. She is smart and organized and capable of handling any cases presented to her.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers also found Loza qualified:

Pamela E. Loza has been a lawyer since 1977. She is currently a sole practitioner specializing in family and criminal defense law. From 1984 to 2003, she handled similar cases as a lawyer in the firm of Cameron, Loza & Associates. From 1978 to 1981, she did appellate work as a Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney. Lawyers report that she has good legal ability and that she is a zealous, but fair advocate for her clients. She has substantial litigation experience. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers initially found Morask "not recommended" because she failed to participate in the Alliance evaluation process. All of the other Alliance groups found likewise.

This chart shows the Alliance ratings for both Loza and Morask (click to enlarge):

In a January 11 comment to this January 9 post, Ms. Morask explained that Alliance "required their application back in the last week of August after only a short time of being available." She was unable to comply with that "strictly enforced deadline," she wrote, because she "was out of town on our only annual family trip with my husband and two teenage boys before one goes off to college."

There is no question that moving the primary from mid-March to early February created enormous time pressures for candidates and evaluators alike.

But the Chicago Council of Lawyers believed Ms. Morask's family vacation was not the only reason why she did not participate in the Alliance evaluation and it said so in this revised evaluation:

Laura Morask is running to fill a judicial vacancy in the 12th Subcircuit. For the February 2008 primary, she refused to cooperate with any of the ten bar associations comprising the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening. As a result, she was found either Not Recommended or Not Qualified by all of these bar groups. The Chicago Council of Lawyers followed its policy of finding Not Recommended any judicial candidate who refuses to submit materials to the Council for evaluation. However, upon further analysis, it is clear why Ms. Morask refused to be evaluated by the Council – a bar group which has been evaluating judges since 1970. For the past nine years, she has been cited numerous times by both the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court for prosecutorial misconduct. As a career Cook County prosecutor, Ms. Morask has the job of upholding justice – convicting guilty defendants while upholding the ethical framework of the criminal justice system. Based on court opinions she has done the former but has ignored the latter. In 1999, the Illinois Appellate Court found that Ms. Morask "acted contrary to the spirit of discovery rules and that her conduct "troubled" the court." In 2000, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed a murder conviction and remanded for a new trial due to Ms. Morask's "pervasive misconduct" in rebuttal argument. The Illinois Supreme Court rebuked her performance in a 2001 decision. In 2002, the Illinois Appellate Court found that she engaged in "intentional and systematic misconduct" that "called into question the State's commitment to fair and just enforcement of the law." In 2003, the Illinois Appellate Court concluded that Ms. Morask misstated the law, but that her misconduct did not affect the outcome of the case. In 2004 an Illinois Appellate justice described Ms. Morask’s courtroom statements as "uncivil and overly sarcastic, if not downright boorish" and had "no place in a trial." In 2006, the Illinois Appellate Court in an unpublished decision found that Ms. Morask's closing argument mischaracterized the evidence to the jury. The Council believes that Ms. Morask’s history demonstrates that she cannot be impartial as a judge and we change our finding to Not Qualified.

I have been able to confirm that Morask was criticized by the Appellate Court for "prosecutorial excess" in People v. Griffith, 334 Ill.App.3d 98, 777 N.E.2d 459 (1st Dist. 2002), and that her trial conduct came under unfavorable scrutiny by the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Moss, 205 Ill.2d 139, 792 N.E.2d 1217 (2001). It may be that none of the other cases cited by the Council were published. (The Appellate Court disposes of many cases in unpublished orders pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23.)

Non-lawyers may be surprised to learn that lawyers seeking judicial office are expected to disclose instances where they've been criticized by a court -- to tell on themselves -- but that does not explain how the Council would have had access to unpublished orders critical of Ms. Morask, assuming that Ms. Morask refused to cooperate with the Council, as the Council report states.

Loza and Morask were both rated "qualified" by the Northwest Suburban Bar Association for the February primary.

Both Morask and Loza have posted statements about their candidacies on Cook County Clerk David Orr's website. Here is Loza's statement; this is a link to Morask's statement. Ms. Morask was one of several primary candidates who submitted a statement to this blog in her own words.

Ms. Loza's campaign website is www.lozaforjudge.com. Ms. Morask's website is electlaura.net.

Should Cook County retention judges be nervous about "no" votes?

Although the judges up for retention this year, and their friends and families, are surely paying close attention, there are not a lot of experts who can give advice or counsel about their situation.

I am aware of one: Albert J. Klumpp, PhD, a research analyst with McDermott Will & Emery LLP. Dr. Klumpp responded to a number of posts here during the primary season, and, more recently, when I brought up the topic of retention judges (in this post) Klumpp commented:

The judges have nothing to worry about. In fact, because of the almost certain high Chicago turnout of Obama supporters, I believe that approval rates may well break the all-time Cook County record of 80.5% (median, 1972). Casual voters, and minorities, are relatively more likely to cast all-yes votes on retention slates. In addition, the elimination of straight-party voting and the shift away from punch cards have also given indirect boosts to approval rates. I would be VERY surprised if any judge is seriously threatened in this election.

These are points that Dr. Klumpp made in an October 2006 Illinois Bar Journal article, "Voter Information and Judicial Retention Elections in Illinois," 94 Ill.B.J. 538 (membership required). A footnote to that article informs us that Dr. Klumpp wrote "the first doctoral dissertation ever... on judicial retention elections."

But I just can't be as confident. Consider this post on the very popular Second City Cop blog. There, the anonymous SCC says:

We have a fun tradition when voting for judges in Cook County. We run down the list of judges and vote "no" for each and every one of them. * * * Every "no" vote means the judge has to garner something along the lines of 3 additional "yes" votes, so if every SCC reader voted "no," we might be able to effect some tiny change by throwing sand in the gears of the Machine.

As of this evening, according to Sitemeter, SCC averages 8,576 readers per day. It may well be that SCC is a long-standing member of that group of 10-15% of voters who vote "no" on every retention judge at every election. Certainly some of the people who left comments on that SCC post are regular "no" voters.

Still, persons wishing to support the retention bids of qualified judges should remember to express that support at the polls.

Final Alliance ratings on Cook County retention judges

The Hellenic Bar Association ratings are now in and the The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening ratings for retention judges in the November election is now complete. Here are the final grids (click any page to enlarge):


The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening is comprised of the Asian American Bar Association, Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago, Chicago Council of Lawyers, Cook County Bar Association, Decalogue Society of Lawyers, Hellenic Bar Association, Illinois State Bar Association, Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago, Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois, and Women’s Bar Association of Illinois working collaboratively to improve the process of screening judicial candidates in Cook County, Illinois.

Trib turns thumbs down on four retention candidates

In an October 15 editorial the Chicago Tribune advised voters to reject the retention bids of four Cook County jurists, Evelyn Clay, Vanessa Hopkins, Edward Pietrucha, and Casandra Lewis.

The Tribune encouraged 'yes' votes for all the other Cook County Judicial candidates.

Of the four candidates rejected by the Tribune, both the Chicago Bar Association and the Chicago Council of Lawyers agreed that Judges Clay, Hopkins and Lewis do not merit retention. More information about these judges, including the CBA and CCL comments about them, can be found at this post.

Judge Edward N. Pietrucha's page on the Cook County Retention Judges Website can be accessed by clicking here.

The Asian American Bar Association, the Black Women Lawyers' Association of Greater Chicago, the Decalogue Society of Lawyers and the Puerto Rican Bar Association all endorse Judge Pietrucha's retention. However, the Chicago Council of Lawyers stated:

Hon. Edward N. Pietrucha was elected to the bench in 1996. He began his judicial career with an assignment to the First Municipal District. Since 1998, he has sat in the Juvenile Justice Division, where he has been a floating judge since January 2002. Judge Pietrucha is considered to be a smart and hard working judge. However, during his evaluation, many judges, defense counsel, prosecutors, and probation officers expressed outrage at the temperament displayed by Judge Pietrucha. He is reported to exhibit bullying behavior toward lawyers, children, and their parents and guardians. Some lawyers commented that he can be inconsistent in his rulings. Others commented that he inappropriately does not take into account the recommendations of probation officers – an important part of the juvenile justice system. The Council finds him Not Qualified for retention.

The Chicago Bar Association recommended that Judge Pietrucha be retained, but its evaluation was not entirely complimentary:

Judge Edward N. Pietrucha is "Qualified" for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Pietrucha was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1989 and was elected to the Circuit Court in 1996. Judge Pietrucha is currently assigned to the Juvenile Justice & Child Protection Department of the Circuit Court. While Judge Pietrucha knows the law, serious concerns were raised about his temperament, which reflects a disregard and disrespect for the litigants and lawyers who appear before him.

Update on Con Con ballot suit

The battle has moved into the Appellate Court, and may soon be moving directly to the Illinois Supreme Court, according to this update from Steve Merican.

According to the above linked post, on Merican's Illinois Appellate Lawyer blog, Merican has been retained by the individual plaintiffs in the ballot suit to file a motion to bypass the Appellate Court and proceed immediately to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Triggering the decision, according to Merican's blog, was an order from the First Appellate District on the plaintiff-appellants' motion for an expedited briefing schedule. The order, entered October 8, gave the government agency defendants until October 14 to respond to the motion and set hearing on the motion for October 15. Only then would the Appellate Court decide whether to expedite the case.

This is a whirlwind timetable in almost any case -- but, as persons following this case already know, state and local election officials were protesting to the trial court, before the end of September, that it was already too late to correct the ballot. At some point, and presumably at some point soon, even if that claim was once exaggerated, it must certainly become true. And yet, as Judge Howse ruled on October 1 that language framing the question for Illinois voters was "downright misleading" and unconstitutional.

Michael Ian Bender appointed to 9th Subcircuit vacancy

The Illinois Supreme Court has named Cook County Public Administrator Michael Ian Bender to a 9th Subcircuit vacancy created by the resignation of Judge William Patrick O'Malley. The appointment, effective November 8, will terminate on December 6, 2010.

In addition to his service as Cook County Public Administrator, Bender is a member of the firm of Nadler, Pritikin, and Mirabelli, LLC. According to the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin article noting the appointment, Bender was a previously a partner in the firm of Bender & Bender, from 1993 to 2004. He has served as a prosecutor for the Village of Skokie and was President of the Skokie Park Board of Commissioners from 2001 to 2005.

The Nadler, Pritikin and Mirabelli website notes that Bender is a past president of the Decalogue Society of Lawyers, that he has served "as a Board Member for the North Shore Center for the Performed Arts and is currently an Executive Board Member of the Holocaust Memorial Foundation of Illinois."

Looking more at the retention evaluations

In a post earlier today I mentioned that the Chicago Bar Association singled out four judges (out of 68 Circuit judges evaluated in all) as "not qualified" for retention: Anthony Lynn Burrell, Evelyn B. Clay, Vanessa A. Hopkins, and Casandra Lewis. Voters trying to decide if they will vote according to the CBA's assessment may also want to look at the ratings these judges received from the Alliance of Bar Association ratings.

Also, voters can look at what has been posted on behalf of these judges on the Cook County Retention Judges website.

Through the miracle of the Internet, we can pull all this information together here. (Click on the individual's highlighted name in order to link to that judge's information on the Retention Judges' website.)

Judge Anthony Lynn Burrell

The Chicago Bar Association (CBA) gave this explanation for its "not recommended" rating:

Judge Anthony Burrell is “Not Recommended” for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Burrell was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1989 and elected to the Circuit Court in 2002. Judge Anthony Burrell has problems with punctuality and absences. In addition, Judge Burrell is poorly organized which affects his ability to run a high volume courtroom.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers found nine of the 68 retention candidates "not qualified." But it found Judge Burrell "qualified":

Hon. Anthony Burrell was elected to the bench in 2002 and currently sits in the First Municipal District, hearing civil non-jury trial cases. He has in the past presided over forcible entry and detainer cases. Before his election to the bunch, he worked with the Chicago Public Schools as a consultant, as a solo practitioner, and as an Assistant Cook County State's Attorney. Judge Burrell is reported to be doing well in his current high volume court call. He is considered to have good legal knowledge and temperament. The Council finds him Qualified for retention.

Judge Burrell was also recommended for retention by each of the other Alliance members who have so far issued a rating -- the Asian American Bar Association, the Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago, the Cook County Bar Association, the Decalogue Society of Lawyers, the Illinois State Bar Association, the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago, the Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois, and the Women’s Bar Association of Illinois. (As of this writing, the Hellenic Bar Association has not issued a rating for Judge Burrell.)

Judge Evelyn B. Clay

The CBA gave this explanation for its "not recommended" rating:

Judge Evelyn B. Clay is "Not Recommended" for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Clay was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1981 and was elected a Circuit Court Judge in 1996. Judge Clay is currently assigned to a felony courtroom in the Criminal Division. Concerns were raised about Judge Clay’s knowledge of the law and poor judgment in making insensitive comments from the bench.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers agrees:

Hon. Evelyn B. Clay was initially assigned to the First Municipal District after her election to the Circuit Court in 1996. In 1997, she was transferred to the Felony Trial Division, where she sat in the Evening Narcotics Section and as a floating judge. She has been in her present assignment, hearing felony trials, since April 2000.

However, Judge Clay's retention bid has been endorsed by every other member of the Alliance of Bar Associations.

Judge Vanessa A. Hopkins

The CBA gave this explanation for its "not recommended" rating:

Judge Vanessa A. Hopkins is "Not Recommended" for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Hopkins was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1994 and was elected to the Circuit Court in 1996. Judge Hopkins’ lack of legal experience and legal knowledge is a concern. Judge Hopkins is extremely slow and prone to giving very long continuances for a call that should move more quickly. There is a general report by lawyers who appear before her that she has a temperament problem and takes challenges or questions personally. Judge Hopkins also has problems with being on time and seems unable to figure out what she needs to do to efficiently and effectively manage her court call.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers also found Judge Hopkins "not qualified":

Hon. Vanessa A. Hopkins was first assigned to the Traffic Division following her election in 1996. She has been assigned to Juvenile and Municipal Districts, and presently hears jury cases in the First Municipal District. Judge Hopkins came to the bench with just two years of legal experience. In her 2002 evaluation, the Council questioned her ability to manage her call. In her 2008 investigation, while some lawyers say she has improved, there are continuing negative reports about her courtroom management. Lawyers complain that she too often loses control over her courtroom, has an imperfect temperament, and is sometimes not punctual. The Council finds Judge Hopkins Not Qualified for retention.

On the other hand, except for the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago, all the other Alliance members have recommended Judge Hopkins for retention.

Judge Cassandra Lewis

The CBA gave this explanation for its "not recommended" rating:

Judge Casandra Lewis is "Not Recommended" for retention as a Circuit Court Judge. Judge Lewis was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1991 and was elected to the Circuit Court in 2002. Judge Lewis has problems in a number of areas including starting her call on time and diligently carrying out her duties on the bench. Judge Lewis needs to improve her work ethic and was less than respectful of the bar associations’ peer review process.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers had this to say in finding Judge Lewis "not qualified":

Hon. Cassandra Lewis was elected to the bench in 2002. She currently hears jury and bench trials in the First Municipal District. Prior to becoming a judge, she spent nine years in private practice and two years as an Assistant Kane County State's Attorney. Judge Lewis has adequate legal ability for her current assignment and is praised for her temperament. She receives mixed reviews, however, for her work ethic -- many lawyers complain she is not well-prepared and is often not punctual in taking the bench. The Council has received reports that some lawyers will take a substitution of judge rather than appear before her. The Council finds her Not Qualified for retention.

Many of the Alliance members agreed with these evaluations: The Decalogue Society of Lawyers, the Illinois State Bar Association, the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago, the Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois, and the Women’s Bar Association of Illinois all declined to endorse Judge Lewis' retention bid. On the other hand, the Asian American Bar Association, the Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago, and the Cook County Bar Association have recommended Judge Lewis for retention.

Alliance posts evaluations so far in retention races

The Alliance of Bar Associations has nearly completed its evaluation of all 70 Circuit and Appellate judges seeking retention in Cook County on November 4. Only the Hellenic Bar Association has yet to finish weighing in on the retention judges; when I receive that organization's evaluations, I will post it as well.

The ISBA's Joyce Williams, who organizes the process of collating and distributing all this information for the Alliance, said in an email, "Since we are sensitive to the fact that many voters would prefer a composite rating, we included a percentage column of favorable ratings from those Alliance members who have submitted ratings." In looking at the grids that follow (and, please, click to enlarge each grid in order to read it more easily), the percentage of favorable ratings is the number in the first left column after the judge's name.

There are two initial things that should be kept in mind while evaluating these grids. First, an impressive majority of judges seeking retention was recommended for retention by each of the Alliance bar associations. Second, while some bar associations differed with each other (and with the Chicago Bar Association) over the merits of particular retention candidates, every single judge up for retention this year was found qualified by one or more of the bar associations that investigated the judges' credentials.

Here, then, are the Alliance grids as of today's date:



This list is in alphabetical order. The ballot order will be different. Ms. Williams mentioned that, "The Chicago Council of Lawyers/Appleseed For Justice has their 'voteforjudges.org' website up and running." That site, she said, "does show ballot order with 'yes' and 'no' punch numbers to answer the 'should this judge be retained' question."

The Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening is comprised of the Asian American Bar Association, Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago, Chicago Council of Lawyers, Cook County Bar Association, Decalogue Society of Lawyers, Hellenic Bar Association, Illinois State Bar Association, Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago, Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois, and Women’s Bar Association of Illinois working collaboratively to improve the process of screening judicial candidates in Cook County, Illinois.