Must an Illinois judge recuse from a firm’s matters during preliminary discussions about future employment?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2007. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A judge nearing retirement planned preliminary inquiries with law firms that had matters pending before the judge, while postponing serious negotiations until after judicial service.
The Committee concluded that even initial employment talks with an appearing firm could cause impartiality reasonably to be questioned under former Rule 63C(1). It cited decisions treating tentative or indirect contacts initiated by the judge or an agent as grounds for disqualification.
The Committee drew a boundary for unsolicited contacts. A firm’s independent approach did not require disqualification if the judge immediately and unequivocally ended the discussion without soliciting, encouraging, or participating in it.
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The Committee’s page states that this opinion interprets the 1993 Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct, which was superseded on January 1, 2023.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 holding turned on whether the judge or an agent initiated or joined employment discussions, even at a preliminary stage.
Common questions
Q: Would postponing serious negotiations avoid disqualification?
A: No. The Committee treated preliminary discussions with an appearing firm as sufficient.
Q: What if the firm contacted the judge first?
A: An unsolicited approach immediately and unequivocally declined did not require disqualification.
Q: Does an agent’s contact count?
A: Yes. The conclusion expressly includes contact solicited or invited by the judge’s agent.
Background and rules framework
The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63C(1). Its references also included Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 1.12(b), ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3E(1), and Pepsico v. McMillen, 764 F.2d 458 (7th Cir. 1985).
Citations and references
- Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63C(1); Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 1.12(b); 1990 ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3E(1).
- Pepsico v. McMillen, 764 F.2d 458 (7th Cir. 1985).
See also
Source
- Landing page: Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 2007-01
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2007. 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