Did an Illinois judge have to report another judge based only on allegations in a substitution petition?

Plain-English summary

A party’s petition to substitute judges alleged that another judge had used judicial status in a store dispute. The chief judge granted substitution, spoke with the accused judge, and believed the denial.

The Committee said former Rule 63B(3)’s duty to initiate appropriate disciplinary measures depended on actual knowledge of a Code violation. The petition’s allegations did not themselves provide that knowledge to the receiving judge.

The chief judge also had no reporting duty on these facts after concluding the misconduct had not occurred. The opinion reserved further analysis if the chief judge had disbelieved the denial.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995 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 The Committee’s page says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code.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 petition alone require reporting?

A: No. The Committee said allegations did not amount to actual knowledge.

Q: Did the chief judge have to report after hearing the denial?

A: No, on the stated finding that the chief judge believed no misconduct occurred.

Q: When did former Rule 63B(3) require action?

A: When a judge had actual knowledge of another judge’s Code violation.

Background and rules framework

The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63B(3) and the Code’s definition of knowledge. It identified Rules 61, 62A, and 62B as provisions that the alleged conduct might have implicated if proved.

Citations and references

• Illinois Supreme Court Rules 61, 62A, 62B, and 63B(3).

See also

• IL Judicial Ethics Op. 1996-23: Chief judge DUI response

Source

• Landing page: Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 1995-01