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.
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.
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.
Letter to the Governor
Chicago Council of Lawyers
Chicago’s Public Interest Bar Association
750 North Lake Shore Drive, Fourth Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Telephone: (312) 988-6565 Fax (312) 397-1338
E-mail: ccl@chicagocouncil.org Website: www.chicagocouncil.org
January 19, 2011
Governor Pat Quinn
Office of the Governor
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph, 16-100
Chicago, IL 60601
Dear Governor Quinn:
With the Illinois General Assembly’s passage of a bill that would abolish the death penalty, our state appears poised to take the necessary step of eliminating capital punishment. We ask that you do the right thing and sign the bill now. Capital punishment in our state not only remains a broken system, but as is becoming increasingly clear, it is a system we can no longer afford.
In 1997, the Chicago Council of Lawyers, a public interest bar association, called on all three branches of Illinois government to impose a moratorium on the death penalty after it became known that our state had imposed death sentences on several people who were actually innocent. Then-Governor George Ryan imposed a moratorium in 2000 and established a Commission on Capital Punishment, which made 85 recommendations for reform. Also in 2000, the Chicago Council of Lawyers issued a 56-page report entitled Due Process and the Death Penalty in Illinois, which made additional recommendations aimed at improving the trial and post-conviction procedures in capital cases. In 2007, we issued a statement calling for the death penalty to be abolished if all of the recommendations of the Governor’s Commission and the Council were not adopted. They were not adopted in full, and in December 2008, the Council called for the immediate abolition of capital punishment amid the lack of genuine reform.
Two more years passed with no real action toward reform. In October 2010, the Illinois Capital Punishment Reform Study Committee issued its final report and concluded that many of the issues identified in 2002 by the Governor’s Commission had yet to be addressed. The bipartisan Committee, which the General Assembly created to evaluate the impact and sufficiency of a partial set of capital punishment reforms enacted in 2003, also concluded after six years of study that “there is a tremendous additional cost entailed when the death penalty is sought,” and the Committee identified “what appears to be a trend by prosecutors to ask for the death penalty in order to shift costs from the local counties to the State, and to increase their bargaining power in negotiations for pleas of guilty.”
Aside from the issue that the General Assembly has not acted comprehensively to institute adequate reforms, its vote this month to abolish appears to acknowledge that the state simply cannot afford the “tremendous additional cost” associated with the death penalty. We agree, and both of these factors are compelling arguments in favor of signing the bill into law.
In addition, we noted that during the debate on the House and Senate floors this month, death penalty proponents argued that abolition would take away the ability of law enforcement officers to threaten suspects or witnesses with the death penalty in order to secure their cooperation. Needless to say, our state ought not to retain the death penalty so that it may be used as a cudgel by law enforcement during interrogations.
We also heard arguments that death penalty abolition ought not to be abolished in this legislative session because somehow policymakers need more time to consider it. Yet the Illinois Capital Punishment Reform Study Committee has looked at the efficacy of death penalty reforms for the past six years, and the deeply rooted problems with our system of capital punishment are well-known to anyone familiar with the capital punishment debate in Illinois in the past 14 years since the Council first called for a moratorium. The time to act is now.
In short, we did not hear any persuasive argument as to why the death penalty should remain law in the face of the overwhelming evidence that Illinois has not been able to administer it fairly and justly, and in the face of our state’s growing concern that it can no longer afford to maintain this broken system of capital punishment.
For all of these reasons, abolition of the death penalty is good public policy. It is the right thing to do. We urge you to sign the bill.
Sincerely,
Gabriel A. Fuentes
President, Chicago Council of Lawyers
Presidents’ Circle
