PREFACE
This Report is published by the State of Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board, the sole disciplinary entity to inquire into allegations of misconduct or physical or mental incapacity of Illinois judicial officers.

After investigation and upon determination by the Judicial Inquiry Board that there is a reasonable basis to charge a judge with misconduct or incapacity, the Judicial Inquiry Board will file and prosecute a formal complaint before the State of Illinois Courts Commission.

This report explains briefly the authority, duties and procedures of the Judicial Inquiry Board, provides a compilation of complaints received during *Fiscal Years 1996, 1997 and 1998, and provides a capsular view of formal complaints filed against judges with the Illinois Courts Commission through June 30, 1998.

* The State of Illinois' Fiscal Year is July 1st through June 30th.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
Beginning in 1960 with California and concluding in 1981 with Washington, every state in the United States and the District of Columbia has established formal procedures to address questions of judicial misconduct and physical or mental incapacity. The majority of states created judicial disciplinary systems by constitutional provision and a minority have done so by legislation. The present Illinois system was established by Article VI of the Illinois Constitution adopted in 1970 to take effect July 1, 1971. There is no enabling legislation in Illinois affecting this constitutional scheme.

The applicable provisions of Article VI, Section 15, are as follows:

(b) A Judicial Inquiry Board is created. The Supreme Court shall select two Circuit Judges as members and the Governor shall appoint four persons who are not lawyers and three lawyers as members of the Board. No more than two of the lawyers and two of the non-lawyers appointed by the Governor shall be members of the same political party. The terms of Board members shall be four years. A vacancy on the Board shall be filled for a full term in the manner the original appointment was made. No member may serve on the Board more than eight years.

(c) The Board shall be convened permanently, with authority to conduct investigations, receive or initiate complaints concerning a Judge or Associate Judge, and file complaints with the Courts Commission. The Board shall not file a complaint unless five members believe that a reasonable basis exists (1) to charge the Judge or Associate Judge with willful misconduct in office, persistent failure to perform his duties, or other conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or that brings the judicial office into disrepute, or (2) to charge that the Judge or Associate Judge is physically or mentally unable to perform his duties. All proceedings of the Board shall be confidential except the filing of a complaint with the Courts Commission. The Board shall prosecute the complaint.

(d) The Board shall adopt rules governing its procedures. It shall have subpoena power and authority to appoint and direct its staff. Members of the Board who are not Judges shall receive per diem compensation and necessary expenses; members who are Judges shall receive necessary expenses only. The General Assembly by law shall appropriate funds for the operation of the Board.

(e) A Courts Commission is created consisting of one Supreme Court Judge selected by that Court, who shall be its Chairman, two Appellate Court Judges selected by that Court, and two Circuit Judges selected by the Supreme Court. The Commission shall be convened permanently to hear complaints filed by the Judicial Inquiry Board. The Commission shall have authority after notice and public hearing, (1) to remove from office, suspend without pay, censure or reprimand a Judge or Associate Judge for willful misconduct in office, persistent failure to perform his duties, or other conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or that brings the judicial office into disrepute, or (2) to suspend, with or without pay, or retire a Judge or Associate Judge who is physically or mentally unable to perform his duties.

(f) The concurrence of three members of the Commission shall be necessary for a decision. The decision of the Commission shall be final.

(g) The Commission shall adopt rules governing its procedures and shall have power to issue subpoenas. The General Assembly shall provide by law for the expenses of the Commission.

PROCEDURES
When an allegation of misconduct or incapacity is made against a judge, the Board acknowledges receipt of the allegation in writing. The Executive Director may authorize a preliminary inquiry. The nine-member Board will review the allegation at its monthly meeting to determine whether an investigation or further Board action is warranted.

The Board has only limited authority to correct perceived shortcomings in the administration of justice. It cannot intervene in ongoing litigation, have a judge removed from a case, review judicial decisions, take action against judges for being "too hard" or "too soft" in sentencing or for setting bond "too high" or "too low". The Board has no jurisdiction over lawyers, police, court personnel or anyone other than judges of the State of Illinois.

Like most other states, the initial investigation by the Board is conducted on a confidential basis. The matter remains confidential until a determination is made to publicly charge a judge with misconduct. Should someone other than a Board or staff member make public the existence of a Board inquiry or investigation, such disclosure is not within the authority of the Board to address. This constitutional requirement of confidentiality protects the judiciary from unjust criticism and protects those who furnish information to the Board. The confidentiality requirement also means, however, that the Board cannot discuss its investigations with third parties and will not engage in debate over why it did or did not publicly charge a judge in a particular situation.

In those cases where the Board does file a formal complaint with the Courts Commission, the Board serves as prosecutor in the proceedings before the Commission. If the Commission sustains the complaint, it has the sole authority to impose a penalty of reprimand, censure, suspension without pay or removal from office.

The many grievances to the Board that do not result in charges being filed with the Courts Commission are nonetheless helpful in the improvement of the judicial system. Sometimes, the judge under investigation will retire prior to a Complaint being filed with the Illinois Courts Commission. Also, a complaint of a single instance of alleged judicial impropriety, standing alone, may not be sufficient to publicly charge a judge before the Courts Commission, but subsequent complaints against the same judge may ultimately call for Board action. The availability of such a mechanism to the public for the expression of grievances is a very real, though intangible, benefit.

The Board has adopted Rules of Procedure pursuant to its Constitutional authority, which are set forth in this Report. The Rules of Procedure of the Courts Commission and the Code of Judicial Conduct are also set forth in this Report.

MEMBERSHIP
The current nine members of the Board are serving staggered terms with vacancies filled in the same manner the original appointment was made. Biographies of current members and a listing of past members are found in Appendices A and B. The current Chair is Sandra R. Otaka, Esq. She was preceded by William F. Conlon, Esq. 1992-1997, Tyrone C. Fahner 1988-1992, Robert P. Cummins 1979-1987, C. George Niebank 1975-1979, and Richard T. Dunn 1971-1975.

Monthly meetings are usually held in the Board's Chicago office.

The Board employs a full-time staff of an Executive Director/General Counsel, an Administrative Assistant, two Investigators and an Executive Secretary. It retains outside counsel to prosecute formal complaints before the Courts Commission and to represent Board members and staff in any litigation arising out of the performance of their official duties. Its present outside counsel is Jeffrey E. Stone of McDermott, Will & Emery.

INVESTIGATIONS
During Fiscal Years 1996, 1997 and 1998 the Board received a combined total of 1,202 requests for an investigation of a judge or associate judge. Seventy-five percent of the files opened were closed upon initial review by the Board because the conduct complained of did not constitute judicial misconduct under the law and standards of judicial conduct in Illinois. Most often these files concerned a losing litigant's subjective perception that justice was not obtained in his or her cause. By declining to investigate, the Board does not pass judgment on the validity of these grievances which is the sole responsibility of the Appellate Courts, but observes the limits on the scope of the Board's authority.

Investigations were conducted into the remaining twenty-five percent of the complaints. Investigations can entail writing a letter to the judge to request his or her explanation of the matter, review of court and non-court documents, interviewing the complainant as well as other potential witnesses, monitoring of courtrooms, etc. Investigations are continued until the Board has sufficient information upon which to base a final determination. Statistical information regarding complaints is found in Appendix C.

If the Board, in its final analysis of the investigated complaints determines that there is insufficient cause to continue, the matter is closed. Complaints that warrant further action may require the judge under investigation to appear before the Board and respond to questioning regarding possible formal charges. Since 1971, the Board has filed 63 formal Complaints against judges with the Illinois Courts Commission. A summary of all complaints filed with the Illinois Courts Commission and dispositions are found in Appendix D.

IMPAIRMENT
Alcohol or drug abuse by a judicial officer may suggest a possible impairment in the performance of judicial duties. In the absence of associated judicial misconduct, the Board initially pursues such matters with a view towards medical intervention. If it appears that instances of misconduct resulted from alcohol or drug abuse, the Board will emphasize medical treatment while mindful of its public responsibility to charge and prosecute aberrant conduct.

INCAPACITY
A sensitive and difficult problem confronting the Board is the physically and mentally incapacitated judge. This issue can arise concerning a judge who has given many years of able service to the State. Most judges who become physically or mentally disabled retire without any action on the part of the Board. In other cases, the fact that an investigation was initiated may lead to a voluntary decision by the judge to retire.

RULES OF PROCEDURE OF

THE JUDICIAL INQUIRY BOARD

(Established Pursuant to Article VI, Section 15 (b), (c) & (d), Illinois State Constitution, 1970)

RULE 1 - DEFINITIONS
When used in these Rules:

(a) "Constitution" means the 1970 Constitution of the State of Illinois.

(b) "Board" means the Judicial Inquiry Board created by the Constitution, Article VI, Section 15(b), (c) and (d).

(c) "Commission" means the Courts Commission created by the Constitution, Article VI, Section 15(e), (f) and (g).

(d) "Judge" means a judge or associate judge of the Supreme Court, the Appellate Court or any Circuit Court of the State of Illinois.

(e) The term "misconduct" when used in reference to a judge or associate judge means and includes judicial misconduct (as distinguished from physical or mental disability) for which a judge is subject to discipline under the law and Constitution of Illinois and the rules adopted by the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 13(a) of Article VI of the Constitution.

(f) The term "disability" when used in reference to a judge means a physical or mental disability to perform his duties.

RULE 2 - BOARD PERSONNEL

(a) The Board shall, with the concurrence of at least five members, designate a Chair and a Vice-Chair, each to serve for a term of one year and until the designation, in like manner, of his or her respective successor.

(b) The Chair shall be the chief executive officer of the Board, shall preside at all meetings of the Board, and shall perform such other duties and have such other authority as the Board may delegate.

(c) The Vice-Chair shall, in the absence or disability of the Chair, perform the duties and exercise the authorities of the Chair.

(d) The Board may hire a staff, including an Executive Director.

RULE 3 - MEETINGS

(a) Meetings shall be held from time to time pursuant to the call of the Chair or three members of the Board.

(b) Written notice stating the time and place of meetings shall be given to members of the Board at least two days prior to each meeting.

(c) Five members of the Board shall constitute a quorum of the Board. The act of a majority of the members present at any meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the act of the Board unless the act of a greater number is required by the Constitution or by these Rules of Procedure.

(d) Any action, except a determination to file a complaint, required to be taken by the Board or at any meeting of the Board shall be deemed the action of the Board if all members of the Board execute, either before or after the action is taken, a written consent thereto and the consent is filed with the records of the Board.

RULE 4 - EXERCISE OF THE POWERS OF THE BOARD

(a) The Board (1) on its own motion, or (2) in response to information received by it tending to suggest that a judge is guilty of misconduct or is suffering from a disability, and which is not, on preliminary examination or inquiry, determined to be patently frivolous or unfounded, may initiate and conduct an investigation to determine whether a reasonable basis exists for the filing of a complaint with the Commission. During an investigation, the Board may request a judge voluntarily to appear and discuss issues relating to conduct under investigation.

(b) Following an investigation, the Board may determine that a reasonable basis exists to charge a judge with misconduct or disability in a complaint filed with the Commission. Such determination shall require the concurrence of not less than five members of the Board.

(c) In determining whether a reasonable basis exists to charge a judge with misconduct or disability, the Board will consider the rules of conduct for judges and associate judges adopted by the Supreme Court of Illinois, the provisions of Sections 15(c) and 15(e) of Article VI of the 1970 Illinois Constitution and Section 13(b) of Article VI of the 1970 Illinois Constitution.

(d) The Board shall, before proceeding to a determination that a reasonable basis exists to charge the judge before the Courts Commission, give the judge written notice of the substance of the proposed charge. This written notice will set forth a date, place and time at which the judge shall be required to appear before the Board, accompanied by counsel if the judge so elects.

(e) During this required appearance before the Board, the judge shall be questioned by the Board concerning the proposed charge, and the judge will be given the opportunity to make such statement in respect to the proposed charge as he/she may desire. In addition, the judge will be given the opportunity to present to the Board such information, oral or written (including the names of any witness he/she may wish to have heard by the Board) in respect to the proposed charge as he/she may desire. Such written information and names of witnesses shall be forwarded to the Board not less than 5 days prior to the judge's appearance. A judge may, upon concurrence of the Board, in his/her own person or through counsel, in writing waive his/her required appearance before the Board to respond to charges. (Amended effective April 10, 1998.)

(f) No hearing of or appearance before the Board shall be continued except upon written motion supported by good cause. No hearing of or appearance before the Board shall be continued more than once except under extraordinary circumstances.

(g) The Board shall not disclose the identity of any informant or complainant or any witness unless the Board shall determine that such disclosure is required by the circumstances of the case.

(h) The Board shall not be bound by formal rules of evidence.

(i) Nothing contained in these Rules shall be construed as granting any judge the right to examine or cross-examine witnesses who may be heard by the Board or to have subpoenas issued by the Board on his behalf, provided, however, that the Board, in its discretion, may permit such action.

(j) Upon a finding by the Board that a reasonable basis exists for the filing of a complaint against a judge before the Commission, the Board shall designate one or more licensed attorneys-at-law who are not members of the Board to conduct the prosecution of the complaint before the Commission.

(k) Where the Board determines that a judge's conduct does not warrant initiation of formal proceedings at that time, the Board may issue a letter to the judge, calling the judge's attention to conduct which should be avoided in the future. (April 10, 1998)

RULE 5 - CONFIDENTIALITY

(a) The proceedings of the Board and all information and materials, written or oral, received or developed by the Board in the course of its work, insofar as such proceedings and information or materials relate to the question of whether a judge is guilty of misconduct or suffers from disability, shall be confidential and privileged as a matter of law.

(b) When the Board has conducted an investigation but determined not to propose any charges to the judge in question, the Board shall by letter notify the judge and the person, if any, who had brought the matter to the attention of the Board, that such a determination has been made; provided, however, that no such information need be furnished to the judge unless it appears to the Board that he knows, or has reason to know, that a communication was made about him or her to the Board or that the Board conducted an investigation which involved the judge.

(c) When the Board has conducted an investigation and proposed charges to a judge, and subsequently determined that a reasonable basis does not exist for the filing of a complaint with the Commission, the Board shall by letter notify the judge and the person, if any, who had brought the matter to the attention of the Board, that such a determination has been made. The issuance of such letters does not mean that the repetition of such charged conduct, or other conduct violations coupled with the charged conduct or repetitions thereof, could not give rise to a future determination that a reasonable basis exists for the filing of a complaint with the Commission.

(d) In matters of contempt or perjury in Board proceedings, the Board may initiate appropriate action, including court proceedings, in order to protect the integrity of Board proceedings. When the Board takes such action, the Board may make such disclosures as are necessary to prosecute the action. (Amended effective April 10, 1998.)

(e) After any disposition of a matter, the Board, if it believes that fairness and the public interest require it, may issue a public announcement of the Board's determination.

(f) When the Board is in the process of conducting an investigation based upon factors or complaints submitted by the subject judge's chief or factors already disclosed to the public by some other manner, and where that chief judge, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 56, has temporarily assigned the judge to restricted duties or duties other than judicial duties, the Board may advise the chief judge when, and if, it is of the opinion that the judge subject to investigation may be returned to his or her regular assignment. Such disclosure may be made only upon the concurrence of the judge subject to investigation. In such circumstances, the chief judge shall be bound by the same rule of confidentiality and privilege as the Board itself. (Adopted effective, April 10, 1998.)

RULE 6 - SUBPOENA POWER

(a) Pursuant to the subpoena power granted to the Board by the Constitution, subpoena and subpoena duces tecum may be issued in the name and upon the authority of the Board by any member of the Board. Every subpoena shall command each person to whom it is directed to attend and give testimony before the Board at a time and place therein specified. A subpoena duces tecum may also command the person to whom it is directed to produce the books, papers, documents or tangible things designated therein.

(b) The testimony or deposition of any witness, whether or not compelled by subpoena, may be taken, and any witness (and any books, records, papers or other documents) may be examined, on behalf of the Board, by or before:

(c) In the performance of any of its responsibilities as set forth in paragraph 6(b) above, any Board member, the Executive Director, staff investigator or person delegated by the Chair, may administer oaths or affirmations.

(d) The fees of witnesses for attendance and travel shall be the same as the fees to witnesses before the Circuit Courts of Illinois. A subpoena or subpoena duces tecum shall be served in the same manner as a subpoena issued out of a Circuit Court of Illinois.

RULE 7 - SERVICE OF NOTICES
Any notice permitted or required to be given by the Board may be served by personal delivery, certified mail or registered mail.

RULE 8 -AMENDMENT OF RULES
These Rules may be altered, amended or repealed and new Rules may be adopted at any meeting of the Board by an affirmative vote of not less than five members present at any such meeting; provided however, that notice of a proposed new Rule, as the case may be, shall have been given to all members of the Board at least ten days prior to the meeting at which such action is to be taken.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY
Any member of the Judicial Inquiry Board shall disqualify himself or herself from participating in any action of the Board where there exists a conflict of interest or an appearance thereof; as a guide in this area, the members of the Board will consider the standards of conduct applicable to Illinois judges.

RULES OF PROCEDURE OF
THE ILLINOIS COURTS COMMISSION

Established pursuant to Article VI, Section 15(e), (f) and (g), Illinois State Constitution (1970).

PREAMBLE
These Rules shall govern the proceedings of the Illinois Courts Commission.

RULE 1
Definitions when used in these Rules:

(a) "Constitution" means the 1970 Constitution of the State of Illinois.

(b) "Commission" means the Courts Commission created by the Constitution.

(c) "Board" means the Judicial Inquiry Board created by the Constitution.

(d) "Alternate" means a Supreme Court Judge selected by the Supreme Court; or a Circuit Court judge selected by the Supreme Court; or an Appellate Court judge selected by the Appellate Court; to act in place of a specific member of the Commission who is unable for any reason to act.

(e) "Judge" means a judge of the Supreme, Appellate, or Circuit Court or associate judge of the Circuit Court.

(f) "Chairman" means the Supreme Court Judge selected by the Supreme Court as a member of the Commission, or his alternate in the event of his inability to act.

(g) The terms "Service" and "Notice" shall include service or notice by personal delivery, certified mail, or registered mail.

(h) "Complaint" means a formal written charge filed by the Judicial Inquiry Board.

(i) "Secretary" means the person designated by the Commission to perform that function.

RULE 2
The Administrative Director of the Illinois Courts is designated as Secretary in all proceedings before the Commission. He is empowered to perform those duties ordinarily performed by a clerk of a court of record in this state, and such other duties as the Commission may delegate to him. He shall be the custodian of the records of the Commission, which shall be preserved by him.

RULE 3
Formal proceedings respecting any judge shall be commenced by the filing of a complaint in the Office of the Secretary in Springfield. The complaint shall specify in plain and concise language the charges against the judge and the allegations of fact upon which such charges are based and, in addition, shall advise the judge of his right to file responsive pleadings to the charges not less than twenty-one (21) days after service of notice upon him. No other process or summons shall be necessary to institute said proceedings.

RULE 4
Service of notice of filing of a complaint shall be made by the Secretary by certified mail or registered mail, with a copy of the complaint to be sent to the judge at his chambers, or at his last known residence address or, in the alternative, service may be made in a manner consistent with rules for service of process in civil cases in Illinois.

RULE 5
It is the duty of the judge to file responsive pleadings and he shall file them in the Office of the Secretary in Springfield not more than twenty-one (21) days following the service of the notice and the copy of the complaint upon him. For good cause shown, the Commission may extend the time for filing such pleadings. They shall be in ordinary, plain and concise language designed to fairly respond to the charges brought against him.

RULE 6
In the absence or inability to participate in a given proceeding by any member of the Commission, his alternate shall act as a member of the Commission.

RULE 7
No member of the Commission, or any alternate, may participate in any proceedings before the Commission involving his own conduct.

RULE 8
Dilatory motions will be treated with disfavor. Any action which in the opinion of the Commission, or any Commissioner acting in its behalf, would interfere with the prompt disposition of the proceedings pending before the Commission shall be discouraged, and may be avoided by proper order of the Commission.

RULE 9
The Commission shall fix a date for hearing upon the complaint as expeditiously as possible. Notice of the date, time and place of the hearing shall be served upon the judge and any counsel designated by him not less than twenty-one (21) days prior to the date upon which the hearing is set.

RULE 10
Hearings on the complaint shall be public before five members of the Commission, except that the Commission may delegate to any Commissioner such matters for preliminary determination as it may deem desirable or necessary to expedite the proceedings.

RULE 11
The process and procedure before the Commission shall be as simple and summary as reasonably may be. Except where inappropriate, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Evidence used in civil cases in Illinois shall govern proceedings before the Commission, but the allegations of the complaint must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. (Amended. Effective June 30, 1983).

RULE 12
Notwithstanding the failure of any judge to file responsive pleadings or to appear, the Commission may proceed with the hearing, provided however that all evidence in support of the complaint shall be heard by the Commission in public hearing.

RULE 13
Whenever it appears to the Commission to be necessary or advisable, the Commission may appoint counsel to represent any person who may be materially affected by the proceedings.

RULE 14
The Commission may permit, upon written request, any person who may be materially affected by the hearing to be designated as an interested party who shall be entitled to be represented by personal counsel to attend all hearings, to cross examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence, if the Commission deems same to be pertinent.

RULE 15
Any witness at any hearing of the Commission shall, upon leave of the Commission, have the right to be represented by counsel, but such counsel shall not participate in the hearing, or cross-examine witnesses, except by permission of the Commission. The examination of all witnesses shall be conducted by counsel for the parties, and may also be conducted by any of the Commissioners.

RULE 16
It shall be the obligation of all judges and attorneys licensed to practice law in this state, when called upon to assist in any hearing, or to testify concerning any matter as to which he or they do not properly claim privilege as an attorney, to so assist, to testify and aid the Commission in their duties.

RULE 17
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission shall enter an appropriate order, exercising the authority vested in it by sub-paragraph (e) of Section 15 of Article VI of the Constitution, or shall dismiss the complaint. The concurrence of at least three members of the Commission shall be necessary for a decision. The decision of the Commission shall be final.

RULE 18
The Commission may punish breaches of order and unprofessional conduct on the part of counsel, or any other person, by censure, exclusion from the hearing, if appropriate, or by punishment for contempt as in civil proceedings. The Commission may designate a person, or persons, to act as bailiff to be in attendance at all of its hearings.

RULE 19
The Commission shall have the right to take judicial notice of such matters of which courts of record of this state may take judicial notice.

RULE 20
The Commission shall conduct the hearings at such place or places in the state as it shall determine will best serve the public interest.

RULE 21
All orders of the Commission shall be in writing, and shall be preserved by the Secretary in the permanent records of the Commission.

RULE 22
A verbatim transcript of the proceedings before the Commission shall be kept, and the original thereof transcribed and filed in the Office of the Secretary in Springfield as a part of the record of the proceedings. The transcript shall be prepared by a reporter designated by the Commission.

RULE 23
The Secretary shall prepare and have available for issuance at the request of any party, subpoenas returnable before the Illinois Courts Commission. All witnesses shall be entitled to such witness fees and expenses as in any civil proceedings in this state.

RULE 24
Prior to the hearings, all interested parties that appear of record at the time of the commencement of the proceedings, and any interested party who may subsequently become a part of such proceedings, shall be entitled to receive copies of these Rules of Procedure, and shall be governed thereby.

RULE 25
Expert medical testimony in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 215 may be required by the Commission.

RULE 26
The effective date of these Rules shall be the 17th day of July 1972.

CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Preamble
Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us. The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of justice and the rule of law. Intrinsic to all provisions of this code are precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system. The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes and a highly visible symbol of government under the rule of law.

The Code of Judicial Conduct is intended to establish standards for ethical conduct of judges. It consists of broad statements called canons, specific rules set forth in lettered subsections under each canon, and Committee Commentary. The text of the canons and the rules is authoritative. The Committee Commentary, by explanation, and example, provides guidance with respect to the purpose and meaning of the canons and rules. The Commentary is not intended as a statement of additional rules.

The canons and rules are rules of reason. They should be applied consistent with constitutional requirements, statutes, other court rules and decisional law and in the context of all relevant circumstances. The Code is to be construed so as not to impinge on the essential independence of judges in making judicial decisions.

The Code is designed to provide guidance to judges and candidates for judicial office and to provide a structure for regulating conduct through disciplinary agencies. It is not designed or intended as a basis for civil liability or criminal prosecution. Furthermore, the purpose of the Code would be subverted if the Code were invoked by lawyers for mere tactical advantage in a proceeding.

The canons are not standards of discipline in themselves, but express the policy consideration underlying the rules contained within the canons. The text of the rules is intended to govern conduct of judges and to be binding upon them. It is not intended, however, that every transgression will result in disciplinary action. Whether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the degree of discipline to be imposed, should be determined through a reasonable and reasoned application of the text of the rules and should depend on such factors as the seriousness of the transgression, whether there is a pattern of improper activity and the effect of the improper activity on others or on the judicial system.

The Code of Judicial Conduct is not intended as an exhaustive guide for the conduct of judges. They should also be governed in their judicial and personal conduct by general ethical standards. The Code is intended, however, to state basic standards which should govern the conduct of all judges and to provide guidance to assist judges in establishing and maintaining high standards of judicial and personal conduct.

Adopted eff. Aug. 6, 1993.

Terminology

"Candidate." A candidate is a person seeking public election for or public retention in judicial office. A person becomes a candidate for judicial office as soon as he or she makes a public announcement of candidacy, declares or files as a candidate with the election authority, or authorizes solicitation or acceptance of contributions or support.

"Court personnel" does not include the lawyers in a proceeding before a judge.

"De minimis" denotes an insignificant interest that could not raise reasonable question as to a judge's impartiality.

"Economic interest" denotes ownership of a more than de minimis legal or equitable interest, or a relationship as officer, director, advisor or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:

"Fiduciary" includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian.

"He." Whenever this pronoun is used it includes the feminine as well as the masculine form.

"Judge" includes circuit and associate judges and judges of the appellate and supreme court.

"Knowingly," "knowledge," "known" or "knows" denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person's knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.

"Law" denotes court rules as well as statutes, constitutional provisions and decisional law.

"Member of a candidate's/judge's family" denotes a spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent or other relative or person with whom the candidate maintains a close familial relationship.

"Member of the judge's family residing in the judge's household" denotes any relative of a judge by blood or marriage, or a person treated by a judge as a member of the judge's family, who resides in the judge's household.

"Political organization" denotes a political party or other group, the principal purpose of which is to further the election or appointment of candidates to political office.

"Public election." This term includes primary and general elections; it includes partisan elections, non-partisan elections and retention elections.

"Require." The rules prescribing that a judge "require" certain conduct of others are, like all of the rules in this Code, rules of reason. The use of the term "require" in that context means a judge is to exercise reasonable direction and control over the conduct of those persons subject to the judge's direction and control.

"Third degree of relationship." The following persons are relatives within the third degree or relationship: great-grandparent, grandparent, parent, uncle, aunt, brother, sister, child, grandchild, great-grandchild, nephew or niece.

Adopted eff. Aug. 6, 1993.

RULE 61 - CANON 1

A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity
and Independence of the Judiciary

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should personally observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

Adopted Dec. 2, 1986, eff. Jan. 1, 1987. Amended eff. Aug. 6, 1993; Oct. 15, 1993.

RULE 62 - CANON 2
A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and
the Appearance of Impropriety in All of the Judge's Activities

A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself or herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

B. A judge should not allow the judge's family, social or other relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of others; nor should a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

Adopted Dec. 2, 1986, eff. Jan. 1, 1987. Amended eff. Oct. 15, 1993.

RULE 63 - CANON 3
A Judge Should Perform the Duties of Judicial Office
Impartially and Diligently

The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge's other activities. The judge's judicial duties include all the duties of the judge's office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply:

A. Adjudicative Responsibilities.

(1) A judge should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge should be unswayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.

(2) A judge should maintain order and decorum in proceedings before the judge.

(3) A judge should be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and should require similar conduct of lawyers, and of staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control.

(4) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding except that:

(5) A judge shall devote full time to his or her judicial duties; and should dispose promptly of the business of the court.

(6) A judge should abstain from public comment about a pending, or impending proceeding in any court, and should require similar abstention on the part of court personnel subject to the judge's direction and control. This paragraph does not prohibit judges from making public statements in the course of their official duties or from explaining for public information the procedures of the court.

(7) Proceedings in court should be conducted with fitting dignity, decorum, and without distraction. The taking of photographs in the courtroom during sessions of the court, or recesses between proceedings, and the broadcasting or televising of court proceedings is permitted only to the extent authorized by order of the Supreme Court.

(8) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, or national origin, and shall not permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so.

(9) Proceedings before a judge shall be conducted without any manifestation, by words or conduct, of prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, or national origin, by parties, jurors, witnesses, counsel, or others. This section does not preclude legitimate advocacy when these or similar factors are issues in the proceedings.

B. Administrative Responsibilities.

(1) A judge should diligently discharge the judge's administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and facilitate the performance of the administrative responsibilities of other judges and court officials.

(2) A judge should require staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge.

(3) A judge having knowledge of a violation of these canons on the part of a judge or a violation of Rule 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct on the part of a lawyer shall take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures.

(4) A judge should not make unnecessary appointments. A judge should exercise the power of appointment on the basis of merit, avoiding nepotism and favoritism. A judge should not approve compensation of appointees beyond the fair value of services rendered.

(5) A judge should refrain from casting a vote for the appointment or reappointment to the office of associate judge, of the judge's spouse or of any person known by the judge to be within the third degree of relationship to the judge or the judge's spouse (or the spouse of such a person.)

C. Disqualification.

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:

(2) A judge shall keep informed about the judge's personal and fiduciary economic interests, and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal economic interests of the judge's spouse and minor children residing in the judge's household.

D. Remittal of Disqualification.
A judge disqualified by the terms of Section 3C may disclose on the record the basis of the judge's disqualification and may ask the parties and their lawyers to consider, out of the presence of the judge, whether to waive disqualification. If following disclosure of any basis for disqualification other than personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, the parties and lawyers, without participation by the judge, all agree that the judge should not be disqualified, and the judge is then willing to participate, the judge may participate in the proceeding. This agreement shall be incorporated in the record of the proceeding.

Adopted Dec. 2, 1986, eff. Jan. 1, 1987. Amended June 12, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; amended eff. Nov. 25, 1987; Aug. 6, 1993; Oct. 15, 1993.

RULE 64 - CANON 4
A Judge May Engage in Activities to Improve the Law,
the Legal System and the Administration of Justice

A judge, subject to the proper performance of his or her judicial duties, may engage in the following law-related activities, if in doing so the judge does not cast doubt on his or her capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before him or her.

A. A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice. However, a judge may not regularly engage in instructing or teaching a course of instruction on a business day unless:

CERTIFICATION FOR TEACHING ACTIVITIES

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 64, Judge _________________________ has made known to me that he/she intends to teach or instruct a course in ____________________________ during the __________________ of 199__, and that the course is __________ [ ] semester [ ] quarter hours. As his/her supervising judge, I hereby certify that the teaching or instructing as described to me will not interfere with the proper performance of the judge's judicial duties.

This certification expires at the completion of the above mentioned course.

Supervising Judge

For purposes of this subsection A, "course of instruction" is a series of lessons or classes which are coordinated, arranged or presented to provide coverage of any subject; "business day" is any calendar day, except a Saturday or Sunday; and "supervising judge" is the chief circuit judge where the judge obtaining the certification is a circuit judge or an associate judge, the presiding judge where the judge obtaining the certification is an appellate court judge, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court where the judge obtaining the certification is a presiding judge or chief circuit judge or judge of the Supreme Court.

B. A judge may appear at a public hearing before an executive or legislative body or official on matters concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, and he or she may otherwise consult with an executive or legislative body or official, but only on matters concerning the administration of justice.

C. A judge may serve as a member, officer, or director of an organization or governmental agency devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. He or she may assist such an organization in raising funds and may participate in their management and investment, but should not personally participate in public fundraising activities. He or she may make recommendations to public and private fund-granting agencies on projects and programs concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.

Adopted Dec. 2, 1986, eff. Jan. 1, 1987; Amended June 4, 1991, eff. Aug. 1, 1991.

RULE 65 - CANON 5
A Judge Should Regulate His or Her Extrajudicial
Activities to Minimize the Risk of Conflict
With the Judge's Judicial Duties

A. Avocational Activities.
A judge may write, lecture, teach, and speak on nonlegal subjects, and engage in the arts, sports, and other social and recreational activities, if such avocational activities do not detract from the dignity of the judge's office or interfere with the performance of the judge's judicial duties.

B. Civic and Charitable Activities.
A judge may participate in civic and charitable activities that do not reflect adversely upon the judge's impartiality or interfere with the performance of the judge's judicial duties. A judge may serve as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization not conducted for the economic or political advantage of its members, subject to the following limitations:

C. Financial Activities.

D. Fiduciary Activities.
A judge should not serve as the executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary, except for the estate, trust, or person of a member of the judge's family, and then only if such service will not interfere with the proper performance of the judge's judicial duties. As a family fiduciary a judge is subject to the following restrictions.

E. Arbitration.
A judge should not act as an arbitrator or mediator.

F. Practice of Law.
A judge should not practice law.

G. Extrajudicial Appointments.
A judge should not accept appointment to a governmental committee, commission or other position that is concerned with issues of fact or policy on matters other than the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. A judge, however, may represent his or her country, State, or locality on ceremonial occasions or in connection with historical, educational and cultural activities. Adopted Dec. 2, 1986, eff. Jan. 1, 1987. Amended eff. Oct. 15, 1993.

RULE 66 - CANON 6
Nonjudicial Compensation and Annual
Statement of Economic Interests

A judge may not receive compensation for the law-related and extrajudicial activities permitted by this Code; however, he or she may receive an honorarium and reimbursement of expenses if the source of such payments does not give the appearance of influencing the judge in his or her judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety. For purposes of this canon, "compensation" is a sum of money or other thing of value paid by a person or entity to a judge for services provided or performed. Compensation shall not be construed to include investment or interest income or other income that is unrelated to the work or services provided or performed by the judge; nor shall compensation be construed to include a sum of money or other thing of value paid for writings.

A. Honorarium.
An honorarium should not exceed a reasonable amount nor should it exceed what a person who is not a judge would receive for the same activity. The total honoraria received by a judge within a six-month period shall not exceed $5,000.

B. Expense Reimbursement.
Expense reimbursement shall be limited to the actual cost of travel, food and lodging reasonably incurred by the judge and, where appropriate to the occasion, by the judge's spouse.

C. Annual Declarations of Economic Interests.
A judge shall file a statement of economic interests as required by Rule 68, as amended effective August 1, 1986, and thereafter.

Adopted Dec. 2, 1986, eff. Jan. 1, 1987. Amended June 4, 1991, eff. Aug. 1, 1991; April 1, 1992, eff. Aug. 1, 1992: amended eff. Oct. 15, 1993; Dec. 13, 1996.

RULE 67 - CANON 7
A Judge or Judicial Candidate Shall Refrain
from Inappropriate Political Activity

A. All Judges and Candidates.

B. Authorized Activities for Judges and Candidates.

C. Incumbent Judges.
A judge shall not engage in any political activity except (i) as authorized under any other provision of this Code, (ii) on behalf of measures to improve the law, the legal system or the administration of justice, or (iii) as expressly authorized by law.

D. Applicability.
Canon 7 generally applies to all incumbent judges and judicial candidates. A successful candidate, whether or not an incumbent, is subject to judicial discipline for his or her campaign conduct; an unsuccessful candidate who is a lawyer is subject to lawyer discipline for his or her campaign conduct. A lawyer who is a candidate for judicial office is subject to Rule 8.2(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Adopted Dec. 2, 1986, eff. Jan. 1, 1987. Amended April 20, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; amended eff. Aug. 6, 1993; March 24, 1994.

RULE 68 - Declaration of Economic Interests
A judge shall file annually with the Clerk of the Illinois Supreme Court (the Clerk) a verified written statement of economic interests and relationships of the judge and members of the judge's immediate family (the statement).

As statements are filed in the Clerk's office, the Clerk shall cause the fact of that filing to be indicated on alphabetical listing of judges who are required to file such statements. Blank statement forms shall be furnished to the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts (the Director).

Any person who files or has filed a statement under this rule shall receive from the Clerk a receipt indicating that the person has filed such a statement and the date of such filing.

All statements filed under this rule shall be available for examination by the public during business hours in the Clerk's office in Springfield or in the satellite office of the Clerk in Chicago. Original copies will be maintained only in Springfield, but requests for examination submitted in Chicago will be satisfied promptly. Each person requesting examination of a statement or portion thereof must first fill out a form prepared by the Director specifying the statement requested, identifying the examiner by name, occupation, address and telephone number, and listing the date of the request and the reason for such request. The Director shall supply such forms to the Clerk and replenish such forms upon request. Copies of statements or portions of statements will be supplied to persons ordering them upon payment of such reasonable fee per page as is required by the Clerk. Payment may be by check or money order in the exact amount due.

The Clerk shall promptly notify each judge required to file a statement under this rule of each instance of an examination of the statement by sending the judge a copy of the identification form filled out by the person examining the statement.

The contents of the statement required by this rule shall be as specified by administrative order of this court. Adopted eff. March 15, 1970; Amended April 1, 1986, eff. Aug. 1, 1986.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

Order entered April 1, 1986:

The verified statements of economic interests and relationships referred to in our Rule 68, as amended effective August 1, 1986, shall be filed by all judges on or before April 30, 1987, and on or before April 30, annually thereafter. Such statements shall also be filed by every person who becomes a judge, within 45 days after assuming office. However, judges who assume office on or after December 1 and who file the statement before the following April 30 shall not be required to file the statement due on April 30. The form of such statements shall be as provided by the Administrative Director of the Illinois Courts, and they shall include all information required by Rule 68 and this order, including:

Prior to the first Monday in March of each year the Director shall inform each judge by letter of the requirements of this amended rule. The Director shall similarly inform by letter each person who becomes a judge of the requirements of the rule within 10 days of such person assuming office. The Director shall include with such letter instructions concerning the required statements, two sets of the statement forms and one mailing envelope preaddressed to the Clerk. The letter, instructions, and statements shall be in substantially the form set forth below:

(Letterhead of Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts)

________________________, 19

TO: MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

RE: Compliance with Supreme Court Rule 68

As a member of the judiciary, you are required to file an annual statement of economic interests pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 68. Enclosed are the necessary forms and envelopes to be used in complying with Rule 68 on or before ___________________, 19__.

In this packet are:

The Supreme Court requests you follow these instructions carefully and asks that you be certain to return the original of your statement in the mailing envelope furnished herewith preaddressed to the Clerk of the Supreme Court.

FORMS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC ACT 77-1806, "ILLINOIS GOVERNMENTAL ETHICS ACT," WILL BE MAILED TO YOU UNDER SEPARATE COVER AND MUST BE FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

Very truly yours,


Director

INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING REQUIRED STATEMENTS FOR MEMBERS OF
THE JUDICIARY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

On or before April 30, 1987, and on or before April 30, annually thereafter, every judge of the Supreme Court, the Appellate Court and every judge and associate judge of the Circuit Court shall file a verified written statement (the statement) of economic interests and relationships which may create conflicts of interest, with the Clerk of the Illinois Supreme Court. Such statements shall be filed by every person who becomes a judge or associate judge within 45 days after assuming office and on or before each April 30 thereafter. However, judges who assume office on or after December 1 and who file the statement before the following April 30 shall not be required to file the statement due on April 30.

The statements required shall include the following information which, except where noted, shall include information as of the date of verification of the statement.


The Statements required herein shall be in substantially the form titled "STATEMENT REQUIRED OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS," which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

(SAMPLE)

EXHIBIT A

STATEMENT REQUIRED OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

1. My current economic interests and the current economic interests of my immediate family (spouse and minor children residing with me) are as follows:

(Here list current economic interests specified in numbered paragraph 1 of the instructions setting forth the date (within 30 days of the date of filing) as of which said interests are being reported.)

2. My former economic interests and the former economic interests of my immediate family (spouse and minor children residing with me) held during the year preceding the date of verification.

(Here list former economic interests specified in numbered paragraph 2 of the instructions.)

3. Creditors to whom amounts in excess of $500 are owed as of the date of verification or were owed during the year preceding the date of verification by me or members of my immediate family (spouse and minor children residing with me), exclusive of revolving charge accounts with an outstanding liability equal to or less than $5,000, the amount of each such obligation outstanding as of the date of verification and the maximum amount of each such obligation during such preceding year within the categories set forth in paragraph numbered 3 of the instructions.

(Here list in accordance with numbered paragraph 3 of the instructions.)

4. The name of any individual personally known by me to be licensed to practice law in Illinois who is a co-owner with me or members of my immediate family (spouse and minor children residing with me) of any of the economic interests disclosed in paragraphs 1 and 2, and the name of any person who has acted as a surety or guarantor of any of the obligations required to be disclosed in paragraph 3.

(Here list in accordance with numbered paragraph 4 of the instructions.)

5. My offices, directorships, and salaried employments and the offices, directorships and salaried employments of my immediate family (spouse and minor children residing with me) are as follows:

(Here list in accordance with numbered paragraph 5 of the instructions.)

6. Pending cases in which I or members of my immediate family (spouse and minor children residing with me) have an interest are as follows:

(Here list pending cases in which you or members of your immediate family are parties in interest, or an economic entity to which you or they have an interest is a party, in accordance with numbered paragraph 6 of the instructions.)

7. My fiduciary positions, including executorships and directorships, and the fiduciary positions of the members of my immediate family (my spouse and minor children residing with me) are as follows:

(Here list fiduciary positions in accordance with numbered paragraph 7 of the instructions.)

8. The name of the donor of gifts received by me or members of my immediate family (spouse and minor children residing with me) during the year preceding the date of verification, are as follows:

(Here list gifts in accordance with numbered paragraph 8 of the instructions.)

9. My economic interests and relationships and those of my immediate family (spouse and minor children residing with me), other than those listed in numbered paragraphs 1 to 8 hereof, which could create conflicts of interest for me in my judicial capacity are as follows:

(Here insert any economic interest or relationship which might or could create a substantial conflict of interest.)

VERIFICATION
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 68, I declare that this statement of economic interest, including any accompanying schedules and statements, as it relates to me and members of my immediate family, has been examined by me and to the best of my knowledge and belief is true, correct and complete.

_____________________
Judge's Signature

_____________________
Date

Order adopted April 1, 1986. Order amended April 20 1987, effective August 1, 1987; order amended December 30, 1993, effective January 1, 1994; order amended December 1, 1995.

RULE 69-70 - Reserved.

RULE 71 - Violation of Rules.
A judge who violates Rules 61 through 68 may be subject to discipline by the Illinois Courts Commission.

Adopted Jan. 30, 1970, eff. March 15, 1970. Amended eff. October 1, 1971; July 15, 1976; amended December 2, 1986, eff. January 1, 1987.

RULES 72 to 75 - Reserved.

RULE 76 - Military Service of Judges.
A judge or associate judge may serve on active duty in the State militia or the armed forces of the United States for a period not to exceed 30 days in each year without loss of pay or vacation privileges and for a period not to exceed six months in any 24-month period without being disqualified from serving as a judge or associate judge.

Adopted June 25, 1971, eff. July 1, 1971.

RULES 77 to 85 - Reserved.

Appendix A
BIOGRAPHIES
PRESENT BOARD MEMBERS

Sandra R. Otaka, Esq., Chair and legal member of the Board, was born in California. She received her B.A. from University of California in 1983 and her Juris Doctorate from UCLA School of Law in 1987. Sandra was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1987. She is the Section Chief of the Office of Regional Counsel, United States Environmental Protection Agency and a former associate with the Law Firm of Sidley & Austin - 1987-1990. She served as a member of the Special Commission for the Administration of Justice ("Solovy Commission") from 1992-1994 and Chair of the Asian American Advisory Committee to Senator Paul Simon from 1991-1994. Currently, Sandra is Vice President of the Japanese American Service Committee, Vice- Chair of the Cook County Human Rights Commission and serves as a member of the Board of Directors for the Asian American Bar Association. She also serves as a member of the Committee on Character and Fitness for the Illinois Board of Admissions to the Bar. She resides in Chicago with her son Jeffrey. Sandra was appointed to the Judicial Inquiry Board in April 1992.

Milton H. Gray, Esq., Vice Chair and a legal member of the Board, received his B.A. from Northwestern University in 1931 and his Juris Doctorate from Northwestern University School of Law in 1934. He is the Senior Partner in the Law Firm of Altheimer & Gray, a member of the Order of Coif and since 1968 on the National Executive Board and Advisory Council of the Boy Scouts of America. Throughout his career Milton has served in the following capacities: President, the Chicago Bar Association from1971-1972; Commissioner, Supreme Court of Illinois from 1957-1973; Special Master, U.S. District Court, City Savings Association from 1973-1977 and Milwaukee R.R. Reorganization from 1979-1985; Legal Advisory Committee, Board of Directors, New York Stock Exchange from 1984-1988; Lecturer and author on Corporate finances and Corporate officer and director. Milton was appointed to the Judicial Inquiry Board in April 1992.

Judge Lester D. Foreman is a judicial member of the Board. In 1990, he was elected Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County and currently presides in the Chancery Division; he previously served for 3 years as an Associate Judge. He is the immediate past Chairman of the Illinois Judicial Conference Committee on Discovery, the committee responsible for the development of several Supreme Court Rules effecting discovery revision and improvement. He served as Chairman of the Illinois Supreme Court Special Joint Committee on Discovery Procedure, comprised of members of the Supreme Court's Rules Committee and Judicial Conference Committee. He is a member of the Illinois State Bar Association's Civil Practice Section and a former member of the Tort Law Section; for several years he co-authorized that section's publication "Tort Trends". In addition, Judge Foreman is a member of the Executive Committee of the Chicago Bar Association's Civil Practice Committee and serves on the Association's Circuit Court and Judicial Committees. He was appointed to the Judicial Inquiry Board in May 1997.

Sharon Gist Gilliam, a public member of the Board, was born in Chicago, Illinois. She received her B.A. from Mundelein College in 1965. She is currently a Partner in Unison Consulting Group, Inc. She is the former City of Chicago Budget Director, 1983 - 1987 and Chief Operating Officer, 1988 - 1989. She is a Board member of the Illinois State Board of Education, Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC), Northwestern Memorial Corporation and Chicago Historical Society. Sharon resides in Chicago, Illinois with her husband Russell. She was appointed to the Judicial Inquiry Board in April 1992.

Rodney R. Gholson, a public member of the Board, was born in Illinois on September 9, 1966. He received his Associate of Applied Science in Law Enforcement from Southern Illinois University in 1987 and his B.A. in Political Science in 1989. Rodney began his career in the insurance business after graduating from college. In 1996, he became co-owner of Heartland Financial Services located in Vienna, Illinois. He was appointed Johnson County Treasurer and Collector from 1992-1994. He is currently Chairman of the American Cancer Society for Johnson County. Rodney resides in Vienna, Illinois. He was appointed to the Judicial Inquiry Board in June 1998.

Gloria C. Morningstar, a public member of the Board, spent her formative years in Iowa. She has been a resident of the Chicagoland area since the 1960's. Gloria received her B.S. from Morningside College and is a Graduate of the University of South Dakota. She is President of Capitol Events, Inc., Chair of the Private Industry Council of Cook County SDA 7, Chair of the Multicultural Diversity Board of South Suburban College, Treasurer of the City of Harvey, Member of Governor's State University College of Business and Public Administration Advisory Board, Director of the Abby Foundation, President of the Creative Woman Foundation, Director of the Board of the Convention and Visitors Bureau, Director of the Board of the Chicago Southland Chamber, Charter member of the National Museum of the American Indian and a member of the Archaeological Society of America. Gloria was appointed to the Judicial Inquiry Board in June 1996.

Judge John W. Rapp, Jr., a judicial member of the Board, was born in Oak Park, Illinois on December 12, 1940. He received his A.B. from Loyola University of Chicago in 1962 and his Juris Doctorate in 1965. From 1965 - 1970 Judge Rapp was engaged in the general practice of law with the firm of Eaton, Leemon & Rapp located in Mt. Carroll, Illinois. He currently holds the positions of Resident Circuit Judge of Carroll County - elected in 1970, Chief Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit- elected in 1982 and Chairman of Conference of Chief Judges - elected in 1987. He is also a member of the Education Committee of the Illinois Judicial Conference. Judge Rapp and his wife Mary have 3 sons and 1 grandchild. He was appointed to the Judicial Inquiry Board in March 1997.

William ("Tony") A. Sunderman, Esq., a legal member of the Board, was born in Charleston, Illinois on January 24, 1946. He received his B.S. in Business form Eastern Illinois University in1968 and his Juris Doctorate from the University of Illinois in 1972. Tony is a Graduate of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy. He is currently engaged in the general practice of law with the Brainard Law Offices located in Charleston, Illinois as a senior partner; his practice is limited to litigation matters. He resides in Charleston, Illinois with his wife, Judith and their two children. Tony was appointed to the Judicial Inquiry Board in May 1998.

Vincent J. Trosino, a public member of the Board, was born in Upland, Pennsylvania. He received his B.S. from Villanova University and his M.S. from Illinois State University. Vincent joined State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co, in 1962 and currently serves as Vice Chairman of the Board, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the State Farm Automobile Insurance Company, Bloomington, IL. He is a member of the boards of directors and executive committees of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, State Farm Fire and Casualty, State Farm General Insurance, State Farm Lloyds, Inc. and State Farm Life and Accident Assurance companies. Vincent was past chairman of the Illinois State University Foundation Board of Directors and serves on the Board of the American Judicature Society's Center for Judicial Conduct Organizations. In 1996 he was elected to the Brookings Institution Board of Trustees and as Vice Chairman of the American Institute for Chartered Property Casualty Underwriters. In addition, Vincent is chairman of the advisory board of the Children's Foundation of McLean County, IL. He and his wife, Patricia, have three children and reside in Bloomington, IL. He was appointed to the Judicial Inquiry Board in April 1992.

Kathy D. Twine was appointed by the Judicial Inquiry Board as its Executive Director and General Counsel in January 1998. She received her B.B.A. in Accounting from Loyola University of Chicago in 1985 and her Juris Doctorate from Loyola University of Chicago School of Law in 1991. She was admitted to practice law in the State of Illinois in May 1991, United States District Court, C.D., IL. and United States District Court, N.D., IL. in 1992. Prior to her appointment, she served as the Deputy Director of Elections for the Cook County Clerk's Office from 1993 - 1998. Kathy also worked for the Office of the Illinois Attorney General, General Law Section, as an Assistant Attorney General in 1992-1993 and as an associate attorney in a private law office. She is a member of the National Forum for Black Public Administrators, a Board member of the Proviso West Chapter - NAACP and a member of the Summit Community Task Force.

Appendix B
PAST BOARD MEMBERS

Name Term of Office Replaced by

Judge Walter P. Dahl 07/15/71-07/15/79 Judge Philip A. Fleischman

Judge John T. Reardon 07/15/71-12/06/76 Judge Lloyd A. VanDeusen

Richard T. Dunn, Esq.* 09/21/71-09/21/75 C. George Niebank, Esq.

Frank Greenberg, Esq. 09/21/71-09/23/79 Prof. Jon R. Waltz, Esq.

Dr. Charles Hurst 09/21/71-09/21/75 Ernest T. Collins

Gordon F. Moore, M.D. 09/21/71-09/21/75 Willard C. Scrivner M.D.

Harold B. Steele 09/21/71-09/10/77 Carl L. Sadler

Wayne W. Whalen, Esq. 09/21/71-09/21/75 Prof. Rubin G. Cohn, Esq.

Anne Willer 09/21/71-01/04/75 Renee Hansen

Prof. Rubin G. Cohn, Esq. 09/23/75-09/23/79 Robert P. Cummins, Esq.

Ernest T. Collins 09/23/75-09/23/79 Ronald Williams

C. George Niebank, Jr., Esq.* 09/23/75-09/23/79 Darrell McGowen, Esq.

Willard C. Scrivner, M.D. 09/23/75-09/23/79 Donald M. Carlson

Judge Lloyd A. VanDeusen 01/08/77-07/22/80 Judge Philip B. Benefiel

Carl L. Sadler 02/02/78-06/15/79 William J. Kuhfuss

Judge Philip A. Fleischman 07/15/79-11/26/80 Judge Robert C. Buckley

Donald M. Carlson 12/27/79-01/22/80 Helen S. Harshbarger

Judge Robert C. Buckley 11/26/80-11/24/82 Judge Edward H. Marsalek

Renee Hansen 03/04/75-04/13/83 Mary Sue Hub

Helen S. Harshbarger 04/08/81-04/08/85 Patrick K. Mudron

Ronald Williams 11/09/79-12/11/85 Frances K. Zemans

Robert P. Cummins, Esq.* 11/09/79-12/14/87 William A. O'Connor, Esq.

William J. Kuhfuss 11/09/79-12/14/87 Joel D. Gingiss

Darrell McGowen, Esq. 11/09/79-12/14/87 Tyrone C. Fahner, Esq.

Prof. Jon R. Waltz, Esq. 12/29/79-12/27/87 Joyce E. Moran, Esq.

Judge Philip B. Benefiel 07/22/80-07/22/88 Judge Harold L. Jensen

Judge Edward H. Marsalek 11/26/82-11/24/90 Judge Edward G. Finnegan

Joyce E. Moran, Esq. 12/15/87-12/15/91 Milton H. Gray, Esq.

Mary Sue Hub 02/23/84-02/23/92 Nancy Sage

Frances K. Zemans 01/28/88-01/28/92 Vincent J. Trosino

William A. O'Connor, Esq. 01/22/88-01/22/92 William F. Conlon, Esq.

Joel D. Gingiss 01/22/88-01/22/92 Sharon Gist Gilliam

Tyrone C. Fahner, Esq.* 01/13/88-01/13/92 Sandra R. Otaka, Esq.*

Patrick F. Mudron 07/05/85-07/08/93 Fred Randazzo

Judge Harold Jensen 07/22/88-07/22/96 Judge Fred S. Carr

Judge Edward G. Finnegan 11/00/90-03/14/97 Judge Lester D. Foreman

Judge Fred S. Carr 07/22/96-02/06/97 Judge John W. Rapp, Jr.

William F. Conlon* 04/06/92-06/17/97 William A. Sunderman, Esq.

Fred V. Randazzo 03/14/94-03/15/98 Rodney R. Gholson

*Board Chairman

Appendix C
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS
FISCAL YEARS 1996, 1997 AND 1998

STATE FISCAL YEAR: JULY 1ST through JUNE 30TH

TYPE FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998
Administrative Misconduct 0 9 8
Alcohol/Drugs 1 4 2
Bias, Prejudice, Partiality 56 55 23
Bribe 1 3 1
Delay in scheduling or deciding a matter 12 12 10
Demeanor/Injudicious temperament (i.e. impatient, rude, conduct that is intimidating and inappropriate language/commentary 42 53 39
Ex parte-Communication (one-sided) 12 16 10
Failure to recuse/disqualify/conflict of interest 6 14 5
Illegal Activity 3 2 2
Judicial decision/discretion (i.e. dissatisfaction with court procedures or rulings, use or nonuse of evidence, criminal sentences, custody, general outcome of the case) 187 196 130
Mental incapacity 1 1 0
Physical incapacity 0 0 1
Inappropriate political activity (i.e. publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office, personal solicitation of funds, make speeches on behalf of a political organization, misrepresentation of qualifications) 0 0 2
Sex/Racel/National Origin Discrimination 7 8 6
Sexual Misconduct 0 0 1
Inappropriate conduct off the bench (i.e. prohibited charitable, business or personal conduct) 5 14 4
Misconduct while an attorney 1 2 2
Violation of Constitutional rights 8 3 1
Misconduct by a candidate 1 2 0
Prejudgment of a case 3 1 0
Other 12 8 12
Estimated Pending Requests for Investigation (Have not been before the Board for initial review as of 6/30/98) 0 0 182
TOTAL 358 403 441

Appendix D
SUMMARIES OF
COMPLAINTS FILED WITH THE ILLINOIS COURTS COMMISSION

1. 72 CC-1 Filed 12/15/72
Paul R. Durr, Circuit Judge, 8th Circuit, Calhoun County
The Complaint alleged he owned and operated an abstract company; practiced law, filed false statement of economic interest; did not advise litigants or attorneys that opposing counsel was a business partner.

Order of 8/1/73: One-year suspension without pay. Respondent then resigned from office.

2. 73 CC-1 Filed 3/9/73
John J. McDonnell, Associate Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged he: 1) Threatened man and wife with handgun; 2) Struck another man and pushed his wife; 3) Interfered with Board investigation.

Order of 6/29/73: 1) Suspended for four months without pay; 2) Dismissed; 3) Dismissed.

3. 73 CC-2 Filed 3/16/73
Francis T. McCurrie, Circuit Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged mental and physical disability.

Order of 4/10/73: Complaint dismissed upon resignation of judicial office.

4. 73 CC-3 Filed 7/20/73
Franklin I. Kral, Circuit Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged he: 1) Accepted favors from attorney who appeared before him; 2) Made cash transaction in chambers.

Order of 12/18/73: 1) Suspended for two months without pay; 2) This count inherent in first count: dismissed.

5. 73 CC- 4 Filed 10/5/73
Robert J. Sulski, Circuit Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged he found three defendants in two criminal cases guilty before the defense was fully presented.

Order of 2/19/74: Reprimanded.

6. 73 CC-5 Filed 11/19/73 and
7. 74 CC-4 Filed 5/9/74
George Kaye, Circuit Judge, 11th Circuit, Ford County
The Complaints alleged he: 1) Interfered with attorney-client relationship; 2) Refused to sign decrees; 3) Usurped authority of Chief Judge; 4) Abused attorneys and litigants; 5) Received money to convene special jury; 6) Filed false application for judgeship.

Order of 7/12/74: 1) Dismissed; 2) Dismissed; 3) No jurisdiction; 4) Dismissed; 5) Censured; 6) No jurisdiction.

Board Motion to Reconsider re Count 6 denied 9/4/74.

8. 73 CC-6 Filed 11/19/73
Robert D. Law, Circuit Judge, 15th Circuit, Stephenson County
The Complaint alleged three incidents involving driving while intoxicated.

Order of 2/21/74: Censured.

9. 74 CC-1 Filed 1/28/74
Randall S. Quindry, Circuit Judge, 2nd Circuit, Wayne County
The Complaint alleged he attempted altering of absentee ballots; consistently engaged in partisan politics; adjudicated cases in which his nephew was counsel.

Order of 4/11/74: Removed from office.

10. 74 CC-2 Filed 4/17/74
William A. Ginos, Circuit Judge, 4th Circuit, Montgomery County
The Complaint alleged he pressured jail inmates to be his informants; raised bond because inmate would not be informant; released inmate on personal recognizance who then fled; appointed his brother guardian ad litem and acting probation officer.

Order of 7/12/74: Censured.

11. 74 CC-3 Filed 5/3/74
George H. Bunge, Circuit Judge, 18th Circuit, DuPage County
The Complaint alleged he used judicial process for the collection of civil judgments.

Order of 7/24/74: Complaint dismissed.

12. 74 CC-5 Filed 6/18/74
John P. Shonkwiler, Circuit Judge, 6th Circuit, Piatt County
The Complaint alleged he used judicial process for the collection of civil judgments.

Order of 7/24/74: Reprimanded.

13. 74 CC-6 Filed 8/14/74
Keith Sanderson, Associate Judge, 9th Circuit, Henderson County
The Complaint alleged he assessed court costs against defendants after charges were dismissed or findings of not guilty, knowing he was without authority.

Order of 10/15/74: Suspended for one month without pay.

14. 74 CC-7 Filed 9/17/74
Charles J. Durham, Associate Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged he dismissed criminal charges upon defendants giving civil releases to arresting police officers.

Order of 12/11/74: Reprimanded.

15. 75 CC-1 Filed 3/7/75
James L. Oakey, Jr., Associate Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged he assumed an active role in the management of a business and received compensation therefor in 1971 and 1972, and attempted to conceal the receipt of this compensation in his 1972 Federal income tax return.

Order of 7/16/75: Removed from office.

16. 75 CC-2 Filed 7/24/75
Philip F. Locke, Circuit Judge, 18th Circuit, DuPage County
The Complaint alleged he failed to disqualify himself in presiding over litigation where one of the parties was a close friend and with whom he had a business interest.

Order of 10/21/75: Six months suspension.

17. 75 CC-3 Filed 8/21/75
Robert A. Sweeney, Associate Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged he drove while intoxicated, interfered with police investigation, resisted arrest and lawful police processing.

Order of 10/30/75: Reprimanded.

18. 75 CC-4 Filed 9/19/75
James Maher, Jr., Associate Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged he made improper statements to a woman in chambers.

Order of 1/16/76: Complaint dismissed upon resignation of judicial office.

19. 76 CC-1 Filed 3/22/76
William D. Vanderwater, Associate Judge, 16th Circuit, Kane County
The Complaint alleged he detained a former tenant with the aid of a hand gun, had him arrested and charged with theft, procured a guilty plea and jury waiver, conducted a midnight proceeding in the police station and sentenced the tenant to 8 months in jail.

Order of 4/26/76: Removed from office.

20. 76 CC-2 Filed 5/27/76
David Cerda, Circuit Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged he improperly employed the bail system as a means of punishing defendants in prostitution-loitering cases and had a prejudiced attitude towards such defendants and their attorneys, as evidenced by his setting excessive bail, continuing motions to reduce bail until the case was set for trial and excluding a defense attorney from his courtroom.

Order of 9/13/76: Suspended for one month without pay.

21. 76 CC-3 Filed 7/30/76
Samuel G. Harrod, III, Circuit Judge, 11th Circuit, Woodford County
The Complaint alleged he ordered male defendants to have their hair cut short as his and additionally ordered those who were probationers to surrender their driver's license to the court to be issued in lieu thereof a card identifying them as probationers; committed a defendant to jail without bail on a bailable offense; directed defendants charged with alcohol violations to pick up cans and bottles beside the road.

Order of 12/3/76: Sustained as to haircuts and drivers' licenses. Dismissed as to bail and bottles and cans. Suspended for one month without pay.

Suspension vacated by Illinois Supreme Court on appeal 11/30/77. Board Motion to reconsider denied 1/26/78. (See 69 Ill.2d 445; 372 N.E. 2d 53).

22. 76 CC-4 Filed 9/14/76
Angelo F. Pistilli, Circuit Judge, 12th Circuit, Will County
The Complaint alleged he embarrassed and ridiculed a young attorney and misrepresented to the Judicial Inquiry Board that there had been two sidebar conversations with the young attorney prior to the alleged embarrassment and ridicule.

Order of 3/11/77: Complaint dismissed.

23. 77 CC-1 Filed 3/17/77
Paul F. Elward, Circuit Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged he published advertisements for his retention prior to a retention election which advertisements materially misrepresented a bar association recommendation that he not be retained, giving the impression that he had been recommended for retention.

Order of 6/23/77: Complaint dismissed.

Board Motion for Reconsideration denied 8/31/77.

24. 77 CC-2 Filed 6/1/77
James A. Condon, Circuit Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged he caused two traffic tickets that were not assigned to him for adjudication to be nonsuited without compliance with the regular processes of law.

Order of 8/25/78: Reprimanded.

25. 78 CC-1 Filed 3/8/78
Dexter A. Knowlton, Associate Judge, 15th Circuit, Stephenson County
The Complaint alleged he found a spectator in his courtroom guilty of criminal contempt for wearing a T-shirt with the words "Bitch Bitch Bitch," without affording her an effective hearing and without her being represented by counsel or having an adequate opportunity to defend herself, and sentenced her to three days in jail, which she served.

Order of 8/13/79: Complaint dismissed.

26. 78 CC-2 Filed 8/21/78
L. Keith Hubbard, Circuit Judge, 7th Circuit, Greene County
The Complaint alleged that contrary to settled and established law of Illinois he refused to grant motions duly made and timely filed for change of venue or substitution of judge, required the attorneys presenting the motions to appear in person and argue the motions, attempted to inquire into the motives behind the motions and denied the motions but granted a change of venue or substitution of judge on his own motion. By such procedure he prevented effective review of his actions as evidenced by an unsuccessful mandamus action.

Order of 9/17/79: Complaint dismissed.

Board Motion to Reconsider denied 11/17/79

27. 79 CC-1 Filed 3/27/79
Eugene R. Ward, Associate Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged he directed and permitted a court clerk to conduct part or all of the court calls on two days and enter orders disposing of matters on the calls; failed and refused to consider relevant evidence; acknowledged that procedures he followed and substantive legal principles he applied were contrary to determined law; gave judgments for plaintiffs where defendants were not present and where a careful examination would dictate otherwise; gave judgments for plaintiffs who presented no evidence; granted judgment for plaintiff in a case that had been settled; by not explaining a ruling he misled parties.

Order of 7/10/80: Complaint dismissed.

Board Motion to Reconsider denied 8/26/80.

28. 79 CC-2 Filed 9/21/79
Keith E. Campbell, Circuit Judge, 11th Circuit, McLean County
The Complaint alleged he expelled two reporters from his courtroom when one began sketching a witness, when they were not disrupting the proceedings or interfering with the conduct of a trial in progress; was intemperate, sarcastic and rude in so doing; ordered the courtroom doors locked for the remainder of the trial without motion or consent of the defendant, prosecution or any witness; without a hearing excluded all members of the public from the courtroom for the remainder of the trial, refusing to allow even a paralegal assistant of the defendant's attorney to enter the courtroom.

Order of 7/15/80: Complaint dismissed.

29. 80 CC-1 Filed 4/28/80
John W. Nielsen, Associate Judge, 17th Circuit, Winnebago County
The Complaint alleged that three pro se defendants filed written demands for jury trials. When they did not produce written jury instructions, Respondent ordered them to sign jury waiver forms. When they objected to signing because a printed statement on the form stated they were voluntarily waiving a jury, he induced their signatures under threat of a court order and then announced in open court that all present were witnesses that the signatures were voluntary. He later told the Chief Judge that he had talked the defendants into signing the forms. He further said the defendants had not filed jury demands which statement he knew was false when he made it.

Order of 12/29/80: Complaint dismissed.

Board Motion for Reconsideration denied 2/13/81.

Board Mandamus Petition to Illinois Supreme Court to direct Courts Commission to act, denied 4/16/82. (See 91 Ill.2d 130; 435 N.E. 2d 486.)

Board Motion to Reconsider denied 5/27/82.

30. 80 CC-2 Filed 6/10/80
Samuel G. Harrod, III, Circuit Judge, 11th Circuit, Woodford County
The Complaint alleged he used the U.S. mails and other means to cause unauthorized, sham and bogus subscriptions to periodicals, reports and other publications, to be sent to Judicial Inquiry Board members and counsel and a Courts Commission member who had taken action against him in 76 CC-3, and to the state's attorney who in 76 CC-3 had advised him against issuing haircut orders and who had refused to file a brief in support thereof. Sent anonymous letters to the attorney for the wife of this same state's attorney in a divorce action, suggesting ways to discover the state's attorney's assets and informing him of a newly enacted divorce law. Mailed an anonymous letter to a candidate for state's attorney, charging him with corruption and threatening to cause an investigation unless he withdrew his candidacy. Engaged in the practice of law on behalf of his father, an attorney. Mailed will forms, admonishments on the selection of attorney, memoranda, newsclips, press releases, sympathy cards, etc., to persons unknown to him and who were unreceptive to receipt of such items, using the County postage machine for franking. Had printed at public expense the sympathy cards and admonishments on the selection of attorneys. Made regular press releases on his activities, one of which concerned a minor he had sentenced and which matter by statute was confidential. Employed press releases, public commentary and "wooden nickels" to convey the impression of a "law and order" judge without regard to a reasonable standard of individualized punishment. Attempted to intervene with prosecutors on behalf of certain defendants. Was not prompt in attending to judicial duties but fined and jailed attorneys who were late in matters before him, irrespective of the justification they offered. By all of this conduct he demonstrated an incapacity and mental inability to perform his duties.

Order of 6/23/80: Complaint dismissed upon resignation of judicial office.

Board Motion to modify Order Re: Mootness, denied 8/26/80.

31. 80 CC-3 Filed 7/11/80
Charles A. Alfano, Associate Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged that on September 5, 1977, in the presence of a group of third party witnesses, who knew that Respondent was a judicial officer, he sought to and did interfere with the performance and fulfillment of a police officer's duties and responsibilities. Having unsuccessfully sought to dissuade the officer from performing certain duties involving the issuance of traffic citations to two youths (one youth being his son), he became angry and thereafter verbally abused and physically assaulted the officer in the presence of such third party witnesses. Following these occurrences all relevant parties assembled at a police facility. At that location and based on apologies, assertions of professional embarrassment and indications of the likelihood of sanctions being imposed on him should criminal charges be filed against him for his misconduct, he sought to compromise the filing of such charges. Despite such efforts, he was criminally charged and later acquitted of such charges.

(During criminal proceedings, Illinois Supreme Court affirmed confidentiality of Board records 7/14/78. See 72 Ill.2d 225; 380 N.E. 2nd 801.)

Order of 7/16/81: Complaint dismissed.

Board Motion for Reconsideration denied 6/8/82.

32. 80 CC-4 Filed 7/11/80
John M. Karns, Jr., Appellate Judge, 5th Appellate District
The Complaint alleged that on the night of September 21, 1978, he was stopped and arrested by an officer of the Caseyville, Illinois police department for driving under the influence of alcohol and weaving from lane to lane. At the time of his arrest and during his subsequent processing, Respondent, after advising the arresting officer that he was a judicial officer, cursed and orally abused the arresting police officer and other police personnel and refused to cooperate with police personnel who were processing him. He further made threats to fight and challenged one or more of the police personnel to engage in such fighting. The following day he aided and abetted violations of Illinois law and participated in the circumvention, frustration and obstruction of the appropriate legal and judicial process whereby the charges would otherwise have been legally and properly adjudicated. As but one aspect of such misconduct, he and his counsel took custody of all pertinent records of his arrest; such records are no longer available and he has never been prosecuted for the charges placed against him on the night of September 21, 1978.

Order of 12/17/82: Reprimanded.

Respondent Petition for Rehearing denied 2/25/83.

33. 82 CC-1 Filed 2/1/82
Thomas M. Daley, Associate Judge, 20th Circuit, St. Clair County
The Complaint alleged that from 11/13/79 to 12/11/79 he failed to devote full time to his judicial duties and received nonjudicial compensation while employed as a watchman. He falsified judicial duty reports to the Administrative Office of the Courts showing he was performing judicial duties during the time of his employment as a watchman. His verified Statement of Economic Interests filed with the State for 1979 falsely failed to show this employment and income.

Order of 8/3/83: Suspended for two months without pay.

34. 82 CC-2 Filed 3/10/82
John J. Teschner, Circuit Judge, 18th Circuit, DuPage County
The Complaint alleged that from December, 1975 to March, 1981 in the course of his judicial duties he regularly used intemperate and injudicious remarks, addressing defendants in vile, obscene, insulting and demeaning language.

Order of 8/3/83: Complaint Dismissed.

35. 84 CC-1 Filed 4/27/84
Francis P. Butler, Associate Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged that he conducted a hearing while intoxicated and made intemperate and injudicious sexual remarks which were insulting and demeaning to a 17-year-old girl and her parents.

Order of 1/29/85: Suspended for one month without pay.

36. 84 CC-2 Filed 8/20/84
Bruce R. Fawell, Circuit Judge, 18th Circuit, DuPage County
The Complaint alleged that he retained fees for solemnizing marriages outside of the regular session of the court's marriage division.

Order of 4/12/85: Complaint dismissed upon respondent's termination of office.



37. 84CC-3 Filed 8/20/84
Lewis V. Morgan, Jr., Associate Judge, 18th Circuit, DuPage County
The Complaint alleged that he retained fees for solemnizing marriages outside of the regular session of the court's marriage division.

Order of 6/25/85: Reprimanded.

38. 84 CC-4 Filed 8/20/84
Duane G. Walter, Associate Judge, 18th Circuit, DuPage County
The Complaint alleged that he retained fees for solemnizing marriages outside of the regular session of the court's marriage division.

Order of 6/25/85: Reprimanded.

39. 84 CC-5 Filed 10/19/84
John G. Laurie, Associate Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged that he failed to report offers of bribes he received from attorneys and engaged in ex parte discussions with attorneys concerning the merits of cases pending before him.

Order of 5/15/85: Suspended for one month without pay.

40. 86 CC-1 Filed 6/30/87
Robert J. Dempsey, Circuit Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged that he maintained a fee-splitting arrangement with an attorney, presided in court cases involving property in which he had a financial interest, purchased property with four attorneys from whose cases he did not recuse himself when they appeared before him (nor did he disclose the relationship), and failed to report income from his real estate investments to the IRS or state revenue department or make full disclosure on his financial disclosure statements. (Respondent submitted his resignation during the investigation. The Board petitioned the Supreme Court that it not accept the resignation. The Court ruled that the resignation was effectuated upon submission.)

Order of 1/28/87: Complaint dismissed because respondent resigned his office. Charges stand admitted by respondent by his failure to deny. They are not moot because he could be reassigned as a retired judge and can perform marriages. The Courts Commission strongly suggests to the Supreme Court that respondent not be recalled or reassigned to judicial duties.

Board Mandamus Petition to Illinois Supreme Court to direct Courts Commission to assume jurisdiction, denied 3/26/87. (Supreme Court #64945).

41. 87 CC-1 Filed 1/21/87
Duane G. Walter, Associate Judge, 18th Circuit, DuPage County
The Complaint alleged that he made racially disparaging remarks to a black youth and his parents during a juvenile proceeding, and made rude and injudicious comments to a pregnant woman and her mother during a judicial proceeding.

Order of 8/10/87: Complaint dismissed after respondent lost his retention election and was no longer in office.

42. 87 CC-2 Filed 1/21/87
Arthur J. Cieslik, Circuit Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged intemperate, rude and sexist remarks to women attorneys during official proceedings

Order of 7/30/87: Stipulation of the parties on the facts accepted and respondent reprimanded.

43. 87 CC-3 Filed 11/6/87
Keith E. Campbell, Circuit Judge, 11th Circuit, McLean County
The Complaint alleged 1) that he maintained a long-standing personal, romantic and sexual relationship with his judicial secretary and terminated her employment when she discontinued that relationship, 2) that he impaneled a jury in the absence of the parties and counsel for the parties and 3) that he failed to cooperate during the investigation into these allegations.

Order of 8/17/88: Sustained all three charges. Suspended without pay for six months.

44. 87 CC-4 Filed 11/24/87
Robert L. Sklodowski, Circuit Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged that to obtain a mortgage loan in Florida he executed and caused to be delivered to a bank certain documents which falsely claimed the existence of a $15,000 down payment, and to which offense he pled guilty to a criminal information in Florida and was convicted, sentenced and required to pay investigative costs.

Order of 4/15/88: Respondent reprimanded.

45. 88 CC-1 Filed 3/8/88
R. Eugene Pincham, Appellate Judge, 1st Appellate District, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged that he engaged in political activity when he was not himself a candidate for judicial retention or election in violation of Supreme Court Rules 67(A)(2).

The Respondent brought a civil rights action in the Federal courts to enjoin the disciplinary proceedings brought against him. The Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board then brought a motion to dismiss with leave to reinstate its Complaint and the Respondent brought his motion to dismiss for want of prosecution.

The Courts Commission made no decision as to the merits of any aspect of the controversy because the Respondent resigned from judicial service.

Order of 1/28/92: Complaint dismissed upon resignation of judicial office.

46. 89 CC-1 Filed 6/22/89
James E. Murphy, Circuit Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged that Respondent received free use of cars from an attorney's car rental client while attorney's law firm was appearing before the Respondent in pending litigation.

Order of 2/9/90: Respondent suspended for two months without pay.

47. 89 CC-2 Filed 6/22/89
Glynn J. Elliott, Jr., Circuit Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged that while high school students were observing courtroom proceedings as part of a tour, Respondent singled out and called one of the students before the bench. The student was castigated for creating a disturbance even though no disturbance had occurred. The student was ordered into custody and held in Respondent's chambers by handcuffing to a chair. When the student was brought a second time before the bench, the student was castigated again for the manner in which he approached the bench. The student was again ordered into custody and handcuffed to a chair in chambers. The student was required to apologize in open court before being released.

Order of 12/7/89: Respondent censured.

48. 90 CC-1 Filed 8/16/90
George H. Ray, Associate Judge, 7th Circuit, Sangamon County
The Complaint alleged that the judge was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and refusing to cooperate with the deputy sheriff. The Respondent stipulated to the facts; as a result, the Courts Commission found Respondent had engaged in conduct bringing the judicial office into disrepute.

Order of 10/30/91: Respondent reprimanded.

49. 90 CC-2 Filed 9/25/90
John P. Tully, Circuit Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged that the Respondent, while a candidate for the nomination to the office of Appellate Court judge in the 1990 primary election, authorized and approved improper campaign advertisements and failed to properly oversee his campaign finances.

Order of 10/25/91: Respondent reprimanded.

50. 91 CC-1 Filed 4/18/91
Robert C. Buckley, Justice, Appellate Court, 1st Judicial District
The Complaint alleged that Respondent approved and used campaign literature during his campaign for election to the Supreme Court which cast doubt upon his capacity to impartially decide issues that may come before him.

Order of 10/25/91: Dismissed, but rule violation established.

51. 92 CC-1 Filed 10/13/92
Roger M. Scrivner, Circuit Judge, 20th Clair County
The Complaint alleged that Respondent directed his court clerk to give jurors credit for days they did not perform jury service and to issue work affidavits for employers certifying that jurors were on jury service when they were not.

Order of 7/29/93: Dismissed.

52. 92 CC-2 Filed 10/16/92
Arthur Rosenblum, Associate Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged that Respondent embarked on a course of conduct which exploited his judicial position, improperly used the prestige of his judicial office to advance his private interests and improperly assumed an active role in the management of one of his investments.

Order of 7/29/93: Dismissed.

53. 93 CC-1 Filed 6/10/93
John R. Keith, Associate Judge, 7th Circuit, Sangamon County
The Complaint alleged that Respondent sent some defendants to jail without due process, improperly jailed others for contempt and failed to treat litigants and others in his courtroom with patience, dignity and courtesy.

Order of 1/14/94: Removed from office.

54. 93 CC-2 Filed 6/10/93
Michael C. Close, Circuit Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged that Respondent made derogatory and demeaning ethnic and nationality-based statements about defendants and witnesses who appeared before him.

Order of 1/31/94: Dismissed.

55. 95 CC-1 Filed 4/14/95
Michael O'Brien, Circuit Judge, 16th Circuit, Kane County
The Complaint alleged that Respondent created and allowed others to maintain the false impression that he is a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor. Order of 7/24/95: Censured.

56. 96 CC-1 Filed 9/11/96
Steven Vecchio, Associate Judge, 17th Circuit, Winnebago County
The Complaint alleged that respondent engaged in a pattern of conduct whereby he intervened in a number of matters involving police action on behalf of his personal friends and acquaintances, using his position or status as judge to affect or influence police conduct in matters not before him

Order of 2/19/98: Dismissed.

57. 96 CC-2 Filed 10/17/96
Frank D. Edwards, Associate Judge, Cook County Circuit
The Complaint alleged that Respondent engaged in conduct where he possessed a controlled drug, namely, 4.9 grams of marijuana, while travelling through Phillip Golden International Airport, Ladyville, Belize. In addition, the Complaint alleged that Respondent refused to appear before the Board in response to its request for his testimony under Rule 4 (d) of the Board's Rules of Procedures.

Order of 1/17/97: Complaint dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (Respondent withdrew from election and resigned from office).

58. 97 CC-1 Filed 1/23/97
James D. Heiple, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Illinois
The Complaint alleged that Respondent failed to cooperate with and disobeyed law enforcement officials who were investigating him for violations of local traffic laws. In addition, Respondent volunteered information that he was a member of the judiciary after being detained by police officers who suspected that he had violated traffic laws. The Complaint alleged in doing so, Respondent knew or should have known that communicating such information was likely to influence the officers who were investigating him and would be perceived by them as an effort to use his judicial office to keep from being charged with a traffic violation.

Order of 4/30/97: Censured.

59 & 60. 97 CC-2 Filed 9/12/97
Judges Harry R. Buoscio and Paul Sheridan, Associate Judges, Circuit Court of Cook County
The Complaint alleged that Judge Buoscio approached Judge Sheridan and discussed with him an overweight truck citation that had been issued to an individual for driving an overweight truck; Judge Buoscio showed Judge Sheridan a copy of the citation and provided Judge Sheridan with written information about the citation. It is also alleged that Judge Sheridan acknowledged to Judge Buoscio that the overweight truck citation was scheduled to be heard in his courtroom. Prior to the court proceeding and dismissal of the citation, it is alleged that Judge Sheridan had ex parte conversation with the Assistant State's Attorney ("ASA") assigned to prosecute the case. It is alleged that during that ex parte conversation, Judge Sheridan provided the ASA with the written information about the case that had been provided to him by Judge Buoscio, asked the ASA to dispose of and dismiss the case, and told the ASA that he was making the request based upon a request that he had received from another judge.

Pending.

61. 97 CC-3 Filed 12/2/97
Judge James M. Radcliffe, Associate Judge, 20th Circuit, St. Clair County
The Complaint alleged that Respondent presided over a hearing for a preliminary injunction in which a Special Agent for the Illinois Liquor Control Commission was forced to reveal publicly that the FBI was investigating the attorney's client who sought the injunction. It is alleged that the Special Agent learned of the hearing only 15 minutes prior to the hearing, was not served with process or any other notice of the nature of the proceedings before being called as a party-witness, and was not allowed the opportunity to present any defense whatsoever. In addition, it is alleged that Respondent denied the Special Agent's requests for time to obtain a lawyer or to make a telephone call. The Complaint further alleged that Respondent issued the preliminary injunction with no expiration date, without bond and without setting forth any specific findings of fact.

Pending.

62. 98 CC-1 Filed 5/12/98
Jdge Oliver Spurlock, Associate Judge, Circuit Court of Cook County
The Complaint alleged that Respondent engaged in a pattern of sexually intimidating and inappropriate conduct, made a variety of sexually intimidating and inappropriate comments, and engaged in sexually intimidating and inappropriate physical conduct toward female attorneys who appeared before him in his capacity as an Associate Judge. In addition, it is alleged that the Respondent failed to recuse himself from cases handled by a victim's assistance coordinator with whom he had a romantic relationship, he improperly used his judicial chambers to engage in sexual acts with a court reporter, and that he refused to answer any questions by the Judicial Inquiry Board concerning the proposed charges.

Pending.

63. 98 CC-2 Filed 6/22/98
Judge John R. Goshgarian, Circuit Judge, 19th Circuit, Lake County
The Complaint alleged that Respondent berated in a loud voice a juror for the jury's verdict in a criminal matter calling the jury "stupid" and "gutless" for its verdict of "not guilty" on one of the offenses, and stated that the verdict was the "worst" verdict Respondent had seen in years. In addition, it is alleged that Respondent raised his voice and said to an Assistant State's Attorney from the bench in open court, "_ _ _ _ you and your office." Respondent is also alleged to have refused to sign a court reporters voucher for payment of services in retaliation against her for signing a petition against Respondent concerning his disregard for following the ordinary selection process in selecting his permanent courtroom court reporter. It is alleged that when respondent eventually signed the voucher and returned it to the court reporter it stated, "Maybe you better think before signing petitions." The Complaint also alleged that on at least five occasions, Respondent referred to a female judge in a derogatory manner in or around his chambers or courthouse with various Assistant State's Attorneys whose cases were pending before him. Pending.

Appendix E

State of Illinois
Judicial Inquiry Board

REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
OF A JUDGE OR ASSOCIATE JUDGE

Your Name:
(Please print in ink or type)

Address:

Telephone: Daytime: ( )

Evening: ( )

I have information of possible willful misconduct in office, persistent failure to perform his or her duties, or other conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or that brings the judicial office into disrepute on the part of ________________________ of the Court in

(First & Last Name of Judge) (City), (County), Illinois, or to charge that Judge or Associate Judge is physically or mentally unable to perform his or her duties.

STATEMENT OF FACT

1. When and where did this happen?

2. If your information arises out of a court case, please answer these questions:

3. List documents that help support your information that the Judge has engaged in misconduct or has a disability, noting which ones you have attached:

4. Identify, if you can, any other witnesses to the conduct of the Judge:

5. Specify below the details of what the Judge did that you think constitutes misconduct or indicates disability:

(Please type or print legibly - attach additional paper if necessary).

* * *

Your Signature:

Date:

Appendix F

1. I believe a judge of the State of Illinois has committed misconduct, where do I send a request for an investigation?

You may register a written request with the

JUDICIAL INQUIRY BOARD

100 W. Randolph Street

Suite 14-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

2. What is the JUDICIAL INQUIRY BOARD?
It is a Constitutional agency created in 1971 to investigate and prosecute allegations of judicial misconduct or incapacity.

It is composed of four public members, three lawyers and two judges who review all requests and determine what investigation is appropriate and which matters will be prosecuted before the Courts Commission.

3. How do I file a request?
You may write to the above address or call (312) 814-5554 to request that a form be sent to you. Answer the questions on the form and return to the above address

or

You may write a letter concisely stating the name of the Illinois State judge, the misconduct and the facts supporting your belief that misconduct occurred.

4.What is judicial misconduct?
Judicial misconduct is any violation of the prevailing standards of judicial conduct which includes impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

5. Do all requests result in an investigation?
All requests that allege judicial misconduct are investigated. Requests that seek intervention in ongoing litigation or the review of judicial decisions are beyond the authority of the Board to investigate.

6. Is my request confidential?
Your request remains confidential until the Board, after an extensive investigation, publicly charges the judge with misconduct. In that event, all documents filed with the Courts Commission become public as would your testimony if you were to be a witness at the public hearing.

The rule of confidentiality also prohibits the Board from giving you status reports and the specifics of any investigation. Also, it should be noted that judges are not routinely informed when a request has been filed.

Judges are not contacted about an investigation unless and until it becomes necessary to the investigation.

7. What role do I play in the investigation and prosecution?
Once you make a request for an investigation and the Board determines it has jurisdiction to do so, you may be contacted for further information.

In the event formal charges are brought against the judge, you may be called as one of the witnesses during the prosecution phase.

Formal charges are brought against a judge in the name of the Board and not in your name. You will only act as a witness.

8. If the Board does not take action on my request, what happens to it?
Your written request is retained in the files of the Board for future reference should other persons make subsequent allegations of the same nature against the same judge. Your investigation file might then be reopened to determine if a pattern of misconduct is developing.

9. Who decides whether or not a judge has committed misconduct?
The Illinois Courts Commission hears the evidence at a public hearing and decides whether charges against a judge have been proven, and if so, whether the sanction should be reprimand, censure, suspension without pay or removal from office.

The Courts Commission is not part of the JUDICIAL INQUIRY BOARD, but is a separate Constitutionally created body consisting of five judges.

10. Have any Illinois judges been disciplined?
The four types of punishment noted in Paragraph 9 have been repeatedly imposed in Illinois. Additionally, judges have resigned from office during investigations and before any public hearings.

11. How long does it take to resolve an investigation of judicial misconduct?
It may take many months for ultimate disposition of a case depending upon the complexity of the matter.

12. Can I get a judge off my case if I file a request for an investigation?
No. There are statutory provisions for litigants to seek a substitution of judge or a change of venue. The judicial misconduct investigation system is not a substitute for those provisions.

13. Should I delay my appeal until the investigation of judicial misconduct is disposed of?
No. You must proceed with whatever remedy is available to you within the court system to correct any judicial errors you believe were committed in your case.

The investigation of judicial misconduct is a matter totally independent of your litigation and is not a substitute for the appellate process.

State of Illinois
Judicial Inquiry Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 14-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601