Did an Illinois judge have to report a lawyer’s misdemeanor battery conviction to the disciplinary commission?
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 judge presided over a jury trial in which a lawyer was convicted of misdemeanor battery. The question was whether to report that lawyer to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.
The Committee said conviction alone did not always establish the lawyer misconduct relevant to former Rule 63B(3). The specific facts had to show that the crime reflected adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice under Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(a)(3).
If that effect was clear, the judge had to report; if clearly absent, reporting was not required. When the judge was uncertain, the Committee described reporting as the prudent course because the Commission could assess the offense.
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 The Committee’s page says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code.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: Was every misdemeanor battery conviction reportable?
A: No. The Committee required attention to the facts and their effect on fitness to practice.
Q: When was reporting mandatory?
A: When the judge was certain the offense reflected adversely on the lawyer’s fitness.
Q: What if the judge was uncertain?
A: The Committee described reporting to the disciplinary commission as prudent.
Background and rules framework
The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63B(3) and Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(a)(3). It cited Hallinan v. Committee of Bar Examiners on the fact-specific significance of a battery conviction.
Citations and references
- Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63B(3).
- Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(a)(3).
- Hallinan v. Committee of Bar Examiners, 65 Cal. 2d 447, 421 P.2d 76 (1966).
See also
Source
- Landing page: Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 1995-17
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