Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-IL

Did an Illinois judge have to report, disclose, or recuse after cutting off a lawyer’s attempted case discussion?

Short answer No. On the stated facts, the Committee found the judge’s prompt stop sufficient and said no ARDC report, disclosure, recusal, or reassignment was required.
Bar
JUDICIAL-IL
Issued
September 21, 1993

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1993. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

At a picnic, a lawyer began telling a judge about a matter expected before the judge the next day. The judge asked if it concerned a case and immediately ended the discussion when told it did. The judge later sought to switch court calls.

The Committee said former Rule 63B(3)’s duty to take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures did not require an ARDC report in this situation. The immediate response to the lawyer was sufficient so long as nothing more occurred.

It also found no required disclosure, disqualification, or call switch based on the stopped attempt. The opinion noted the judge’s responsibility to handle an appropriate share of the judicial workload.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994 under the 1993 Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct. The Committee’s archive says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code.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: Was an ARDC report required?

A: No. The Committee found the immediate stop sufficient on these facts.

Q: Did the judge need to disclose the attempted contact?

A: No. The opinion said disclosure might be welcome but was not strictly required.

Q: Did the judge need to leave the case or switch calls?

A: No. The Committee found the stopped attempt did not require recusal or reassignment.

Background and rules framework

The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63B(3) and the Code’s definition of knowledge to a lawyer’s stopped attempt at ex parte contact.

Citations and references

  • Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63B(3).

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1993. 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