Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-IL

Could an Illinois judge hear an unrelated case involving a lawyer representing all state judges in a salary class action?

Short answer Yes under the rule of necessity. The Committee assumed, without deciding, that the relationship required recusal, but held that the statewide scope allowed the judge to sit; it advised disclosure without making it mandatory.
Bar
JUDICIAL-IL
Issued
October 23, 2003

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2003. 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 Not binding precedent.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 belonged to a certified class of all Illinois judges suing over salary adjustments. Class counsel also represented a litigant in an unrelated case assigned to that judge.

The Committee assumed, without deciding, that former Rule 63C(1) would disqualify the judge. It held that the rule of necessity allowed the judge to hear the unrelated case because the attorney’s representation of all state judges would otherwise implicate every judge.

The Committee found disclosure of the class relationship advisable to promote public confidence, although the former Code did not require it and the rule of necessity still governed.

Currency note

The Committee’s page states that this opinion interprets the 1993 Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct, which was superseded on January 1, 2023. It does not assess whether the 2023 Code changes the analysis. Verify the current Code before relying on it.

In practice

The opinion’s permission rested on class representation encompassing all Illinois judges. It did not decide whether Rule 63C(1) would otherwise require disqualification.

Common questions

Q: Did the Committee decide whether class counsel caused disqualification?

A: No. It assumed that issue without deciding it.

Q: Why could the judge still hear the unrelated case?

A: The rule of necessity applied because the attorney represented every judge in the statewide class.

Q: Was disclosure mandatory?

A: No. The Committee called it advisable but not required.

Background and rules framework

The Committee applied the rule of necessity against former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63C(1), citing United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980), and IJEC Opinions 94-18 and 96-20 on disclosure.

Citations and references

  • Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63C(1).
  • United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980).
  • IJEC Opinions 94-18 and 96-20.

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2003. 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