Must an Illinois judge recuse when the judge’s spouse’s uncle or cousin appears as counsel?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2000. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The judge’s spouse’s uncle and cousin were partners in a two-person firm and appeared before the judge. The judge saw them socially once or twice a year.
The Committee said the uncle was within the former Code’s third-degree relationship category, so the judge had to disqualify when the uncle acted as counsel. The cousin was outside that category, and the cousin’s appearance alone did not automatically disqualify the judge.
The uncle’s partnership interest in a cousin-handled case could still require recusal if more than de minimis and substantially affected by the proceeding. The opinion also left room for other grounds to question impartiality and noted remittal under former Rule 63D when personal bias was absent.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2000 under the 1993 Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct. The Committee’s page says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code. Treat this page as historical context and verify the current Code before relying on its analysis.
Common questions
Q: Did the spouse’s uncle’s appearance require recusal?
A: Yes. The former rule counted an uncle within the third degree.
Q: Did the cousin’s appearance alone require recusal?
A: No. The Committee said a cousin was outside that defined degree.
Q: Could the uncle’s fee interest still matter in the cousin’s case?
A: Yes, if it exceeded de minimis significance and could be substantially affected.
Background and rules framework
The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rules 63C(1), 63C(1)(e)(ii) and (iii), and 63D. It discussed IJEC Opinions 94-18 and 96-18 on family and firm interests.
Citations and references
- Illinois Supreme Court Rules 63C(1), 63C(1)(e)(ii), 63C(1)(e)(iii), and 63D.
- IJEC Opinions 94-18 and 96-18.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 00-2
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2000. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace