Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-IL

Did an Illinois judge have to report a lawyer to disciplinary authorities after finding the lawyer in criminal contempt?

Short answer No further report was required on these facts. The Committee said the contempt order was an appropriate disciplinary measure, although reporting to the ARDC remained within the judge’s discretion.
Bar
JUDICIAL-IL
Issued
May 16, 1994

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1994. 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 Not binding precedent.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

A lawyer refused to try a case unless permitted to question prospective jurors personally. The judge found the lawyer in direct criminal contempt and imposed a short jail sentence.

The Committee said the conduct might implicate former lawyer Rule 8.4 and might trigger the judge’s duty under former judicial Rule 63B(3) to take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures. That rule did not prescribe an ARDC report in every case.

The opinion treated the contempt order as an appropriate disciplinary response here. It said a further report to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission was discretionary, not required.

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 The Committee’s archive says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code.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 mandatory after this contempt order?

A: No. The Committee said the contempt order was an appropriate disciplinary measure on these facts.

Q: Did the Committee find a definite lawyer-rule violation?

A: No. It described possible violations of former Rule 8.4.

Q: Could the judge still report the lawyer?

A: Yes. The opinion left further reporting to the judge’s discretion.

Background and rules framework

Former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63B(3) required a judge with knowledge of specified lawyer misconduct to take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures. The Committee considered lawyer Rules 8.3 and 8.4 and treated a contempt finding as potentially satisfying the judicial duty.

Citations and references

  • Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63B(3); Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 8.3 and 8.4.
  • IJEC Opinion 93-1.
  • People ex rel. Kunce v. Hogan, 37 Ill. App. 3d 673 (1976).

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1994. 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