Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-IL

Could an Illinois judge hear cases involving a hospital subsidiary of the spouse’s employer?

Short answer Likely yes on the bare facts if the spouse’s interest was de minimis. The Committee made the assessment fact-dependent and discussed remittal if impartiality was reasonably questioned.
Bar
JUDICIAL-IL
Issued
July 9, 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 Not binding precedent.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

The judge’s spouse was vice president of human resources for a parent corporation with several subsidiaries, including a hospital that could appear in small claims or divorce debt matters.

The Committee said the spouse’s financial stake in a subsidiary’s case appeared unlikely to exceed de minimis significance on the bare facts, so disqualification was not required on that showing. It stressed that the actual interest and appearance of impartiality were factual questions.

If the judge concluded impartiality could reasonably be questioned, the opinion described disclosure and possible party-and-counsel 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 The Committee’s page says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code.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 spouse’s title alone require recusal?

A: No. The Committee focused on the spouse’s actual interest in a subsidiary case.

Q: Could the parties waive a disqualification?

A: The opinion described disclosure and remittal under former Rule 63D when applicable.

Background and rules framework

The Committee discussed former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63D and IJEC Opinions 94-18, 96-18, and 96-25 on financial interests and disqualification.

Citations and references

  • Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63D.
  • IJEC Opinions 94-18, 96-18, and 96-25.

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