Protecting Fair Courts in a Citizens United World — Blog
Today at 3 pm, we will begin blogging the Protecting Fair Courts forum on judicial recusal and campaign contributions disclosure.
We are co-sponsoring the forum with Justice at Stake, American Bar Association Standing Committee on Judicial Independence, American Constitution Society, Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, Chicago Council of Lawyers, and the Union League Club of Chicago is hosting the discussion.
We have superb panelists for the forum:
Judge Jonathan Lippman, Chief Judge of the State of New York
Adam Skaggs, Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice
Bert Brandenburg, Executive Director, Justice at Stake
Cynthia Gray, Director, American Judicature Society Center for Judicial Ethics Peter Bennett, Chair, ABA Standing Committee on Judicial Independence
With opening remarks from ABA President-‐Elect Laurel G. Bellows.
Check back soon for updates!
Save the Date: 5/23/12 “Judicial Independence in a Citizens United World”
Please join us…
Protecting Judicial Independence in a Citizens United World – New Ways of Looking at Judicial Recusal and
Campaign Contribution Disclosure
Sponsored by Justice at Stake Campaign
and
Co-Sponsored by
Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice
Illinois Campaign for Political Reform
May 23, 2012
3:00 pm – 5:00 pm
Union League Club
65 W. Jackson Blvd
Chicago
Speakers include:
Judge Jonathan Lippman, Chief Judge of the State of New York
Adam Skaggs, Brennan Center for Justice
Bert Brandenburg, Executive Director, Justice at Stake
Cynthia Gray, Director, American Judicature Society Center for Judicial Ethics
_________________________
1.5 hours of MCLE credit will be provided to attendees.
Program is FREE, but you must RSVP to Chicago Appleseed at: caffj@chicagoappleseed.org
Fax: 312-397-1338
For more information, please contact Malcolm Rich at:
malcolmrich@chicagoappleseed.org or 312-988-6552.
From the IABG Blog: Small Dollar Lending Guidelines from the CFPB
This post originally appeared the Illinois Asset Building Group Blog.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released “Examination Procedures: Short-term, Small Dollar Lending,” (pdf) which are guidelines for examining small dollar loan products. The guidelines are written for financial institution examiners, but offer insight into the CFPB’s expectations for five key areas affecting small dollar lending:
- Marketing
- Application and Origination of Loans
- Payment and Processing and Sustained Use
- Collection, Accounts in Default, and Consumer Reporting
- Third-Party Relationships
Publication of the guidelines accompanied a January 19, 2012 CFPB press release announcing the agency’s first-ever field hearing on the payday lending market. In that release, newly appointed CFPB Director Richard Cordray stated that the CFPB “will be giving payday lenders much more attention.”
The release states that the CFPB is authorized to regulate small dollar loans made by all institutions, including payday lenders. It says:
“The CFPB will be implementing its payday lending supervision program based on its assessment of risks to consumers, including consideration of factors such as the volume of business and the extent of state oversight. The CFPB also will be coordinating with federal and state partners to maximize supervisory capability and minimize regulatory burden. If a violation of a federal consumer financial law has occurred, the CFPB will determine whether supervisory or enforcement actions are appropriate.”
In Illinois, a state law passed in 2011 offers consumers certain protections against payday lenders. The law prohibits unlimited rollovers and requires loans are based on a borrower’s ability to pay. Even with these reforms, payday loans still are expensive. The APR on a payday loan can run as high as 400%.
Illinois consumers who can’t pay off a payday loan when it’s due are entitled to enter into an interest-free repayment plan after more than 35 days. It is against the law for lenders to issue a new payday loan if it would indebt a borrower for more than 45 days in a row.
The CFPB guidelines offer a comprehensive overview of all laws and regulations affecting small dollar lending. They also hint at practices within each topic the CFPB deems particularly important to examiners:
- Marketing: Fair marketing methods, especially with respect to the use and compensation of lead generators.
- Application and Origination of Loans: Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT) and Automated Clearing House (ACH) authorizations, fair and straightforward disclosure of loan terms, repayment terms, and consumers’ rights to dispute.
- Payment Processing and Sustained Use: Traditional compliance with Regulations B and Z, with an eye toward lenders’ use of “rollovers” and other potentially unfair or deceptive practices that may encourage debt dependence. Regulation B prohibits lenders from discriminating against credit applicants, establishes guidelines for gathering and evaluating credit information, and requires written notification when credit is denied.Regulation Z requires uniform methods for disclosing credit terms and costs.
- Collections, Accounts in Default, and Consumer Reporting: Compliance with existing Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and use of ”deceptive means” to collect debts.
- Third-Party Relationships: Adherence to Gramm-Leach-Bliley privacy safeguards in place with both affiliate and third-party vendor agreements.
The Illinois Asset Building Group is currently developing a small dollar loan toolkit. The toolkit will offer guidelines as well as a profitability model, enabling mainstream financial institutions to add small dollar loans to their portfolios.
Learn more about the Illinois Asset Building Group, of which Chicago Appleseed is a partner.
Serving the Needs of Both Immigration Courts and the People Appearing in Them
Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice has signed on to a letter to Congress (.pdf) supporting expansion of the Legal Orientation Program established by the Executive Office for Immigration at the Department of Justice in 2002. The LOP provides funding to state and local organizations that work with detainees, helping them understand their rights and responsibilities with regard to immigration court and removal proceedings. Over 65 institutions and individuals concerned with immigrant rights, human rights and access to legal representation also signed the letter, including National Appleseed and Texas Appleseed. The letter was drafted by Human Rights First and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.
80% of immigration detainees do not have legal representation and there are more than 100 detainees for every one full-time non-government attorney providing legal services to detainees. As a consequence, immigration proceedings are highly inefficient—and therefore, costly—because the courts must take responsibility for informing unrepresented detainees of their basic rights, the general rules of the removal process, and complex immigration laws. Because the LOP offers the same instruction to detainees in advance of their hearings, the LOP significantly shortens immigration proceedings, improves the quality of the proceedings, and relieves immigration judges and Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys of additional burdens in hearings.
Chicago Appleseed is committed to improving the removal process and working for reforms that protect the legal rights and basic human rights or persons in immigration detention. Programs like the LOP improve the quality of our immigration courts and safeguard the help safeguard the people subject to their proceedings. Expansion of the Legal Orientation Program serves the public good.
Illinois & Cook County Primary Judicial Election Results
As of today, our Voteforjudges.org website received 518,000 hits since the beginning of this judicial evaluation season with about 17,000 unique visitors. This is exciting evidence of a concerned electorate!
Below is a table showing election results for Illinois Supreme Court, Illinois Appellate Court, Cook County, and Cook County Subcircuit races. Alongside the winner is the rating given to the candidate by our affiliate public interest bar association, the Chicago Council of Lawyers.
The key for ratings is: NQ = Not Qualified, Q = Qualified, WQ = Well Qualified, NR = Not Rated because the candidate refused to participate in the evaluation.
An asterisk* denotes that the candidate ran uncontested.
All in all, just TWO “Not Qualified” candidates running in a contested race won their primary.
(Click for larger/clearer image.)
Cook County Subcircuit Court Election -- Winners and Chicago Council of Lawyers Ratings
Illinois Supreme & Appellate Court, Cook County Circuit Court Elections -- Winners & Chicago Council of Lawyers Ratings
You CAN Take It With You: Judicial Candidate Evaluations into Illinois Voting Booths
45 of the candidates running in Tuesday’s Cook County Illinois primary were deemed “not recommended” or “not qualified” by at least one reviewing organization, and the SunTimes wants to know how voters are supposed to discern the best candidates when they’re faced with numerous options in the booth.
Here’s one way: Take the evaluations with you.
Using www.voteforjudges.org, a Chicago Appleseed project since 2006, you’ll find a collection of Cook County judicial candidate evaluation of candidates.
Chicago Council of Lawyers Evaluation -- Illinois Primary Election 2012, Supreme Court
And the best part is: you can take these evaluations with you into the ballot box!
The judges you elect on Tuesday may decide cases involving business licensing, divorce, civil rights, crimes, contracts and more. All of our lives are affected every day by their ability to manage a courtroom, apply the law, and address parties with thoughtfulness and integrity. Help strengthen the judiciary and take the evaluations with you.
Volunteer Court-Watching
Our next training session for volunteer court-watchers, assisting the Judicial Performance Commission of Cook County, is May 26 at our office at 11:00 am. The training lasts a little over an hour and explains both the mechanics of our court-watching program, as well as the goals and procedures of the JPC.
Volunteers need no particular experience with court proceedings. Volunteers must commit to a minimum of four court-watching sessions in a six-month period, but will conduct their observations on their own schedules. We will be observing judges who are standing for retention in November 2012.
Judges to be observed sit in courtrooms at the Daley Center, the Criminal Courthouse and some branch courts in Cook County. An individual court-watching session runs the length of the court session (typically 9:00 to noon in the morning and 1:30 to 4:30 in the afternoon). Court-watchers record their impressions on a standard form. The civil court-watching form includes a rating matrix over nine elements of the judge’s demeanor and the criminal court-watching form rates eleven elements of behavior of the judge. Both forms provide ample space for additional comments.
Volunteering as a court-watcher gives everyone a chance to view our court system in action and gives Chicago Appleseed critical insight to the daily workings of our courts and their efficacy. Court-watching connects members of the community to the courts in a manner most people never experience. With a diverse volunteer base, Chicago Appleseed broadens the perspective of our research, and engages more of the community in thinking critically about the courts. If you have any questions about the program, or are interested in serving as a court-watcher, please contact Elizabeth at Chicago Appleseed.
How Court-Watching Supports Our Work
To support its mission of research-based advocacy, Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice operates several court-watching programs. Court-watching serves Appleseed’s dual purposes of research and advocacy particularly well and is a central component of all our research into how the courts are functioning. Because Chicago Appleseed advocates for change through research and analysis, the influence of our work is dependent upon the strength of our research and court-watching provides critical insight to the daily workings of our courts and their efficacy. Court-watching, which employs a primarily volunteer workforce, also connects members of the community to the courts in a manner most people never experience. This helps expand the reach of our advocacy by involving the community directly in our work.
Over the years we have placed court-watchers in the Bond Court, in the Criminal Court, in the Federal Immigration courtrooms, in the child support courtrooms and recently in specific judge’s courtrooms across Cook County. Among others, we have worked with universities—such as Chicago-Kent Law School’s Immigration Clinic and the Steans Center at DePaul University—and law firms—such as Latham & Watkins LLC, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, and DLA Piper—and community groups such as the League of Women Voters of Illinois. Additionally, dozens of volunteers unaffiliated with any particular organization contribute hours to our court-watching programs.
At present, three on-going projects have an extensive court-watching component: the Judicial Performance Commission of Cook County; the Immigration Court Reform Project; and the Criminal Justice System Reform in Cook County. For the Judicial Performance Commission, our court-watchers have begun to observe the courtrooms of judges standing for retention in 2012 and of judges identified by the 2010 Judicial Performance Commission as having courtroom issues. JPC court-watchers report on whether the courtrooms of retention candidates appear to run smoothly. They note the judge’s demeanor and general tenor of proceedings in the courtroom. Their observations are included in the reports which the JPC reviews as it assesses the performance of retention candidates. Court-watchers in the Immigration Courts also pay attention to the demeanor of judges in the courtroom, but they also track statistics of the cases and report on the professional behavior of attorneys involved in the cases. Their observations form some of the data used to generate recommendations for improvement in the Immigration Court. Court-watchers in the criminal courtrooms make the same observations, but also report on the physical conditions of the courtroom and the professional behavior of staff and sheriffs in the courtroom.
In the past we have court-watched in support of reforms in the Child Support Enforcement Division and in the Bond Court. As we move forward with our advocacy in those projects, we hope to include court-watching in the data collection necessary for those projects.
Court-watchers provide us with a unique and valuable perspective on the functioning of our courts. They are able to view the proceedings with fresh eyes, unlike many attorneys who—after years of practicing in front of the same judges—have come to take some routines for granted or no longer notice procedures that detract from fairness or efficiency in the courtroom. Court-watchers also help us view our courts from the perspective of the community which the courts serve and remind us that the courts serve the public and should be accountable to them.
The court-watching program at Chicago Appleseed serves our mission not only by strengthening our research, but also by allowing us to inform and involve more of the community in our advocacy. Court-watching programs bring nonlawyers into the courtrooms, which helps to dispel the notion that the process of justice is only relevant to litigants. An extensive court-watching programs expands our research capabilities and broadens the reach of our advocacy. To become involved in our court-watching program, please contact me, Elizabeth Monkus, at Chicago Appleseed.
Questioning Civil Law Suits Used in the War on Crime
In a Chicago Tribune story, Elgin police credited their city’s civil lawsuit against some 70 reputed Latin Kings gang members with an apparent dip in crime during the winter months and suggest that civil suits should be used more liberally as a weapon in the war on crime. But shortly after the suit was filed last fall, I paid a visit to the Kane County courthouse in Geneva. What I saw told me that this “tool” ought to be examined a lot more closely before our cities and counties wield it any more often.
The idea is a simple one: In a community experiencing gang crime, the city identifies a group of residents with gang-related criminal backgrounds and associations, and sues them for a civil court order that they not associate with other reputed gang members, on penalty of arrest, search, or other law enforcement attention. An attorney for Elgin suggested in the Tribune last September that many of the defendants would not show up for court, and that they then could be subjected to various consequences including criminal contempt or even jail.
During my day in Geneva, I saw that the city’s attorney was right about one thing. Not everyone showed up for the court date. Certainly not the young man whose mother arrived with documentation showing that he currently is serving his country as a U.S. Marine in Afghanistan. Another parent asked me if he could sue the city for defaming his son by calling him an active gang member. It became apparent that while some or even many of the defendants probably were gang members, the city’s factual investigation had been imperfect. That ought to suggest to us that cities and counties should exercise more care than did Elgin before it roped in large numbers of people and branded them “gang members.”
As it happened, few of the accused who showed up for court brought a lawyer. Some told the court they wanted time to get one. Others may not have been able to afford one, and the court reminded each of them that unlike in a criminal case, no publicly funded lawyer would be available. Meanwhile, the attorney representing the city spoke to some of the unrepresented, offering a “settlement,” the details of which I was unable to learn. I was concerned, though, that some of these unrepresented people might be considering giving up substantial rights, such as the First Amendment right of association, or the right to challenge whether the city’s complaint stated a proper claim under Illinois law, without being counseled by a lawyer of their own.
And that was where I ran into trouble that day with the city of Elgin, whose lawyer accused me of “soliciting business” in the hallway, in violation of the ethics rules which prohibit lawyers from making in-person solicitations “for gain.” The key part of that prohibition, of course, is the “for gain” part. Under well-established law in the U.S. Supreme Court and elsewhere, there is no ethical prohibition on a lawyer talking to a potential client if the legal services will not be for gain, but will be free of charge and “pro bono publico,” a Latin term meaning “for the good of the public.” The city’s lawyer seemed not to understand, and threatened to report me to the state disciplinary authorities.
Not surprisingly, after that, several of the people summoned to the courthouse no longer wanted to talk to me, and when I asked them why, I got another earful from the city’s attorney about how I was now ethically obligated to leave them alone.
Why didn’t the city of Elgin want these defendants and their families talking to volunteer lawyers? I cannot answer for the city, but its actions that day are troubling, at the very least. Perhaps we as public citizens should ask our elected or appointed officials a few questions when they tell us they want to invoke the power of the court – in our name – to drag people into court and get them to give up their rights so that public officials may run to the local newspapers for publicity about how tough they are on crime. Or perhaps we are fine with all this because the people on the receiving end are all gang members.
Aren’t they?
Gabriel A. Fuentes is a former Chicago federal prosecutor and the current president of the Chicago Council of Lawyers.
Who Ruled that Rahm Couldn’t Run?
Whenever big political decisions come before little known judges, all eyes are on the bench. Since 1970, the Chicago Council for Lawyers (Chicago Appleseed’s partner organization), has been reviewing the performance of judges serving on Cook County Circuit Courts, as well as 1st District Candidates for the Illinois Appellate Court and Illinois Supreme Court. The purpose is offer an unbiased opinion to Illinois voters as to a the qualification of those judges seeking retention on the court. Here is the complete 2009 Directory of State Judges (pdf) , which includes all Chicago Council evaluations. The directory, along with additional materials, can also be found at the Chicago Council of Lawyers’ website.
On Monday, January 25, an Illinois Appellate Court, comprised of Judges Bertina Lampkin, Shelvin Hall, and Thomas Hoffman, ruled that Rahm Emmanuel did not meet the residency requirements of a Chicago mayoral candidate, and thus was ineligible to run in the upcoming election. Who are these judges? Various publications have addressed that question. Additional answers may be found in the following excerpts from each judge’s Chicago Council of Lawyers evaluation.
Bertina Lampkin
Hon. Bertina Lampkin was elected to the Circuit Court in 1992. Judges Lampkin is considered to have good legal ability and is reported to be an exceptionally hard-working jurist. Prior to joining the Appellate court, her written materials included approximately 100 opinions from cases she heard at the courthouse at 26th Street and California, including findings on post-conviction petitions and motions to quash and suppress. Additionally, she has been on the Supreme Court criminal pattern jury instructions committee for fifteen years, the last five as chair of the committee. She has taught in the area of death penalty litigation, as well as the new judge classes and she has written practice guides for new judges. Judge Lampkin has demonstrated that she meets the higher standards that the Council uses in evaluating candidates for the Appellate Court. The Council finds Judge Lampkin Qualified for the Appellate Court.
Shelvin Hall
Judge Shelvin Hall was appointed to the Appellate Court in 1999, and presently sits in the First District, First Division. She was appointed as a Circuit Court Judge in 1991 and served in the Domestic Relations and Law Divisions of the Circuit Court. Prior to her election to the bench, Justice Hall was an attorney and General Counsel with the Illinois Department of Human Rights.
Judge Shelvin Hall is considered to be a diligent, hard-working Appellate Court judge with a very good temperament. She is exceptionally active in community affairs. Most lawyers say that she is active in oral argument and that her written decisions are well-reasoned. There are some lawyers who question the clarity and consistency of her rulings. On balance the Council finds her Qualified for the Appellate Court.
Thomas E. Hoffman
Thomas E. Hoffman was appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court in January 1993 to sit on the Illinois Appellate Court. He first took the bench as an Associate Judge in 1984 and was assigned to the Law Division in 1985, where he presided until becoming an Appellate Court Justice.
Judge Hoffman distinguished himself as a judge and administrator in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Through his administrative abilities, he greatly reduced the case backlog in the Law Division. He was instrumental in implementing an experimental program in the Law Division in which selected judges are given individual calendars. As a Circuit Judge, he was considered to be among the hardest working judges and his legal ability was considered to be excellent.
As an Appellate Court Justice, he is considered to be fair, intelligent, and hard working. He is said to be always prepared. The Council finds him Well Qualified for the Appellate Court.
