Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-IL

Did an Illinois judge have to report a lawyer who admitted cocaine use while testifying?

Short answer The Committee treated the lawyer’s in-court admission as knowledge of a Rule 8.4 violation and required a report to the disciplinary commission. It favored waiting until the hearing ended if delay posed no threat of harm.
Bar
JUDICIAL-IL
Issued
June 20, 1995

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.

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 Not binding precedent.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

During a custody hearing, a lawyer appearing as petitioner admitted on cross-examination to using cocaine. The Committee concluded that the admission gave the judge actual knowledge of a criminal act reflecting adversely on fitness under then-applicable Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(a)(3).

Former judicial Rule 63B(3) required appropriate disciplinary measures. The Committee found a report to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission necessary here because courtroom sanctions would not address the past drug use.

Where waiting would not threaten harm to others, the Committee favored reporting after the hearing to avoid an appearance of bias. It suggested sending the relevant transcript; it described those timing and method points as guidance rather than mandatory Code requirements.

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 The Committee’s page says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code.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 the testimony give the judge knowledge of misconduct?

A: The Committee said yes, because the lawyer admitted the conduct firsthand in court.

Q: Was a disciplinary report required?

A: Yes, on these facts. The Committee found no other meaningful disciplinary response.

Q: Did the opinion prescribe an exact reporting deadline?

A: No. It favored waiting until the hearing ended if that created no risk of harm, but said the Code set no mandatory timing method.

Background and rules framework

The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rules 63B(3) and 62A, then-applicable Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 8.3(a) and 8.4, and 720 ILCS 570/402. It cited IJEC Opinions 93-01 and 94-10 in distinguishing other reporting situations.

Citations and references

  • Illinois Supreme Court Rules 62A and 63B(3).
  • Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 8.3(a) and 8.4(a)(3).
  • 720 ILCS 570/402.
  • IJEC Opinions 93-01 and 94-10.

See also

Source

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