Was an Illinois judge disqualified because a former law partner once represented a party in an unrelated case?

Plain-English summary

A judge’s former partner had represented a party in a completed, unrelated matter. The partner had no role in the case before the judge, though old firm letterhead had displayed the judge’s name.

The Committee interpreted former Rule 63C(1)(c)’s seven-year prior-client provision as covering parties the judge personally represented, not all clients of a former partner. It therefore found no automatic disqualification.

The opinion reserved the possibility of recusal under Rule 63C(1)’s general standard if additional facts reasonably called impartiality into question; none were presented here.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997 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 The Committee’s page says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code.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 a former partner’s unrelated representation require recusal?

A: No. The Committee did not impute every former partner client to the judge.

Q: Whose prior representation triggered the seven-year provision?

A: The Committee read it as covering parties the judge personally represented.

Q: Could other facts still require recusal?

A: Yes. The opinion reserved the general reasonable-impartiality standard for additional facts.

Background and rules framework

The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rules 63C(1) and 63C(1)(c), distinguishing personal representation from a former partner’s unrelated client work.

Citations and references

• Illinois Supreme Court Rules 63C(1) and 63C(1)(c).

See also

• IL Judicial Ethics Op. 1995-15: Former partner appointed counsel

Source

• Landing page: Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 1995-06