Did an Illinois judge have to recuse when the lawyer handling the judge’s divorce appeared as counsel?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1995. 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 lawyer handling a judge’s matrimonial matter appeared before the judge for another party. The Committee held that the ongoing lawyer-client relationship reasonably called the judge’s impartiality into question under former Rule 63C(1).
The opinion did not impose a fixed recusal period after representation ended. It distinguished a minor concluded matter from a more substantial divorce representation and called for a context-specific assessment.
Former Rule 63D allowed remittal only after disclosure on the record and an independent written agreement by the parties and lawyers that the relationship was immaterial. The judge could not participate in their decision on waiver.
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 The Committee’s page says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code.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: Was recusal required while the judge’s lawyer appeared?
A: Yes. The Committee found the active attorney-client relationship disqualifying.
Q: Was there a fixed period after the lawyer’s work ended?
A: No. The opinion assessed the length and seriousness of the representation.
Q: Could parties waive the disqualification?
A: Former Rule 63D permitted written remittal after disclosure and agreement made independently of the judge.
Background and rules framework
The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63C(1)’s general impartiality standard rather than a specific listed ground, and Rule 63D’s procedure for remitting disqualification.
Citations and references
- Illinois Supreme Court Rules 63C(1), 63C(1)(c), and 63D.
- IJEC Opinions 93-10 and 94-18.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 1995-02
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1995. 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