Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-IL

Which former-firm cases required an Illinois judge’s disqualification?

Short answer The Committee required recusal from matters pending at the firm during the judge’s association, firm cases within three years, and cases involving former clients the judge represented within seven years, under the former Code.
Bar
JUDICIAL-IL
Issued
May 1, 2001

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2001. 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 Not binding precedent.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’s former firm owed the judge a share of fees from several matters on which the judge had worked. The Committee identified three distinct former-firm disqualification grounds in the 1993 Code.

Former Rule 63C(1)(b) barred the judge from cases that were pending at the firm while the judge practiced there, whether the judge or a colleague had worked on them. Former Rule 63C(1)(c) also barred matters involving the firm for three years after departure, even if the firm acquired the matter later.

The same former rule imposed a seven-year period for matters involving a client whom the judge had represented while in private practice, even if the present matter was different.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001 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 The Committee’s page says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code.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 judge have to recuse from matters handled by colleagues while at the firm?

A: Yes, if those matters were pending during the judge’s association.

Q: Did the three-year period cover new firm cases?

A: Yes. The Committee said it applied regardless of when the firm took the case.

Q: Did the seven-year period require the same case?

A: No. It addressed a party the judge had represented, even in a different matter.

Background and rules framework

The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rules 63C(1)(b) and (c), citing IJEC Opinions 93-10 and 95-15 concerning former-firm matters.

Citations and references

  • Illinois Supreme Court Rules 63C(1)(b) and 63C(1)(c).
  • IJEC Opinions 93-10 and 95-15.

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2001. 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