Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-IL

Could an Illinois judge explain a ruling in a pending case to a reporter?

Short answer The Committee limited any response to court administrative procedures or public-record material, such as the transcript or written ruling without added explanation. It rejected off-record discussion of the judge’s reasons.
Bar
JUDICIAL-IL
Issued
March 6, 1996

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1996. 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 Not binding precedent.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

A reporter sought an explanation after a judge increased a child-support defendant’s job-search reporting requirements. The judge had declined to discuss the pending case, and a newspaper story then offered its own account.

The Committee applied former Rule 63A(6)’s limit on public comment about pending or impending cases. It allowed explanations of court procedures and verbatim public-record material, including reasons already in the transcript or written order, without elaboration.

It rejected an off-record explanation of the ruling’s merits because that could add information outside the proceeding’s record and call impartiality into question. The opinion identified ways to direct a reporter to the rule, transcript procedure, or lawyers instead.

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 The Committee’s page says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code.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: Could the judge explain the ruling beyond the record?

A: No. The Committee rejected additional off-record reasons about a pending case.

Q: Could the judge identify court procedures or the record?

A: Yes. It allowed procedural explanations and recitation of public-record material without elaboration.

Q: Could the judge direct the reporter to a transcript?

A: Yes. The Committee expressly identified the transcript-access procedure as permissible information.

Background and rules framework

The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63A(6) and its commentary on comment about pending cases. It favored the approach in Matter of Sheffield over a broader understanding of procedural explanation in Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Souers.

Citations and references

  • Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63A(6) and Committee Comments.
  • Matter of Sheffield, 465 So. 2d 350 (Ala. 1984).
  • Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Souers, 66 Ohio St. 3d 199, 611 N.E.2d 305 (1993).

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1996. 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