Did an Illinois judge have to recuse whenever a campaign contributor appeared as lawyer or party?
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.
Plain-English summary
A judge learned that a lawyer had requested public records identifying the judge’s campaign contributors and amounts. The judge asked whether access could be blocked and whether a contributor’s later appearance required recusal.
The Committee said election law made the filed contribution reports publicly available, so the judge could not prevent access. It also found no automatic duty to disqualify simply because a lawyer or party had contributed to the campaign.
The opinion still applied former Rule 63C(1)’s standard for circumstances reasonably calling impartiality into question. It noted commentary saying known contributions from appearing persons may be relevant to that assessment, while no Code rule expressly required disclosure in every such case.
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 The Committee’s archive says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code.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: Could the judge stop the lawyer from obtaining campaign reports?
A: No. The Committee said the filed records were open to public inspection and copying.
Q: Did every campaign contribution require recusal?
A: No. The Committee found no automatic disqualification based only on a contribution.
Q: Could a known contribution still matter?
A: Yes. The opinion said it may be relevant to the general impartiality inquiry.
Background and rules framework
The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rules 62, 63C(1), and 67B(2), along with the Election Code provision for public campaign reports. Its discussion treated contributions as a possible fact in a case-specific recusal assessment.
Citations and references
- Illinois Supreme Court Rules 62, 63C(1), and 67B(2); 10 ILCS 6/9-17.
- Gluth Brothers Construction, Inc. v. Union National Bank, 192 Ill.App.3d 649 (1989).
- ISBA Opinion 866 (1984).
See also
Source
- Landing page: Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 1993-11
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