Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-IL

What did an Illinois chief judge have to do after a supervised judge’s DUI arrest and known alcohol problem?

Short answer The Committee said the arrest alone did not require a report to the Judicial Inquiry Board, but the arrest plus known alcohol abuse required appropriate disciplinary action; the chief judge was to determine its form.
Bar
JUDICIAL-IL
Issued
September 16, 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 Not binding precedent.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 chief judge learned that a supervised judge had been arrested for driving under the influence and knew that judge had an alcohol abuse problem. The chief judge asked whether to report the matter or take other action.

The Committee said an arrest did not establish guilt, so the arrest alone did not require reporting to the Judicial Inquiry Board. The additional knowledge of an alcohol problem did, however, require the chief judge to initiate appropriate disciplinary action under former Rule 63B(3).

The Committee left the form of action to the chief judge. It identified participation in an alcohol program and possible reporting to the Board as examples depending on the circumstances.

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 The Committee’s page says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code.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 arrest alone require a Board report?

A: No. The Committee said an arrest did not prove the offense.

Q: Did the known alcohol problem change the duty?

A: Yes. Combined with the arrest, it required some appropriate disciplinary action.

Q: Was one response mandated?

A: No. The Committee left the form of action to the chief judge, identifying treatment and possible reporting as examples.

Background and rules framework

The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63B(3) on action after knowledge of a Code violation, together with Rules 61 and 62A on judicial conduct and public confidence. It cited IJEC Opinion 95-1.

Citations and references

  • Illinois Supreme Court Rules 61, 62A, 62B, and 63B(3).
  • IJEC Opinion 95-1.

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