Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-IL

Could immunized grand jury testimony support Illinois judicial discipline for acts before a judge took office?

Short answer The Committee said immunized testimony could be used in judicial discipline, but under the then-controlling Courts Commission decision, conduct before taking the bench could not itself support judicial discipline.
Bar
JUDICIAL-IL
Issued
January 13, 1997

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1997. 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 Not binding precedent.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 judge gave grand jury testimony under immunity and admitted conduct that predated judicial office. The Committee separated use of the testimony from the disciplinary authority over earlier acts.

Citing federal and Illinois immunity decisions, it concluded that grand jury testimony under immunity could be used in a later judicial disciplinary proceeding. The opinion distinguished the protection against use in a criminal prosecution.

For the pre-bench conduct, the Committee applied In re Kaye, an Illinois Courts Commission decision then limiting the Commission’s jurisdiction to conduct during judicial office. It noted that the Illinois Supreme Court had not resolved the issue and that other states differed. Under the law described in this 1997 opinion, pre-bench misconduct itself could not support judicial discipline.

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 The Committee’s page says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code.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 immunized testimony be used in judicial discipline?

A: Yes. The Committee said the immunity and Fifth Amendment protections it reviewed did not bar that use.

Q: Could the admitted pre-bench acts themselves support judicial discipline?

A: Under In re Kaye, no. The Committee said that decision was controlling in Illinois at the time.

Q: Did the opinion decide the current reach of discipline?

A: No. It described the law as it stood in 1997 and noted the Illinois Supreme Court had not addressed the pre-bench issue.

Background and rules framework

The Committee analyzed the Fifth Amendment, federal and Illinois immunity laws, and the Illinois Constitution’s Courts Commission provisions. It relied on Napolitano v. Ward and In re Kaye for the two distinct questions.

Citations and references

  • U.S. Constitution, Amendment V; 18 U.S.C. §§ 6001–6003; 725 ILCS 5/106-1.
  • Illinois Constitution, Article VI, §§ 11, 15(c), 15(e), and Article XIII, § 1.
  • Napolitano v. Ward, 457 F.2d 279 (7th Cir. 1972).
  • In re Kaye, 1 Ill. Cts. Com. 36 (1974).
  • IJEC Opinion 97-1.

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1997. 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