Could an Illinois judge hear a retrial after a former private-practice partner served as appointed counsel in the case?
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
Before appointment to the bench, the judge had been a private-practice partner of a lawyer appointed to defend a capital case. That case returned for retrial after appeal; the former partner had since become a full-time public defender.
The Committee treated the partner’s court-appointed work during private partnership as an association in practice for former Rule 63C(1)(b). The judge had to recuse from the same matter despite taking no personal part in the earlier trial or appeal.
The former partner’s participation in the retrial did not change the result. The opinion allowed the possibility of remittal under former Rule 63D.
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 The Committee’s page says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code.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 judge’s lack of personal work on the case avoid recusal?
A: No. The former partner’s work in the same matter during the partnership triggered the rule.
Q: Did the former partner have to remain counsel?
A: No. The Committee said the prior same-matter work sufficed.
Q: Could the disqualification be remitted?
A: The opinion identified remittal under former Rule 63D as the exception.
Background and rules framework
The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63C(1)(b) to private-practice association in the same matter, distinguished government-lawyer association, and noted remittal under Rule 63D.
Citations and references
- Illinois Supreme Court Rules 63C(1)(b), 63C(1)(c), and 63D.
- IJEC Opinions 93-1, 93-10, 93-11, 94-18, 95-2, 95-5, 95-6, and 95-9.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 1995-15
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