Could an Illinois judge hear cases involving a former firm that pays the judge an unfunded pension?
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
The judge received 120 equal, unsecured pension installments from the former firm’s current revenues. Its lawyers appeared in matters assigned to the judge.
The Committee found that dependence on the firm’s continuing operation created a financial interest exceeding de minimis value and made impartiality reasonably questionable throughout the payments. It required recusal when the firm appeared.
After complete disclosure of the financial arrangement, the parties and lawyers could remit disqualification under former Rule 63D. The Committee distinguished benefits solely under the judge’s control, with no further firm contributions or administrative payments; those would require neither disclosure nor disqualification.
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The Committee’s page states that this opinion interprets the 1993 Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct, which was superseded on January 1, 2023.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 also raised concern that repeated nonremitted recusals could burden colleagues and impair the judge’s duty to hear cases. Where a lump-sum payment was unavailable, it discussed an assignment that would minimize appearances by the firm.
Common questions
Q: Would passage of the former-association period alone end this conflict?
A: No. The Committee said the ongoing unfunded pension was a continuing financial interest, separate from the former-association period.
Q: Could the parties remit the disqualification?
A: Yes, after complete disclosure through the former Rule 63D procedure.
Q: Would a pension controlled solely by the judge require recusal?
A: The conclusion says no, if the firm makes no further financial or administrative contribution.
Background and rules framework
The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rules 63C(1), 63D, and 65C(1) to the continued financial connection with the former firm. The opinion cited In re Bias Affidavit, 947 P.2d 1152 (Utah 1997), and judicial advisory opinions from Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, New York, and Virginia.
Citations and references
- Illinois Supreme Court Rules 63C(1), 63C(1)(c), 63C(1)(d), 63D, and 65C(1).
- In re Bias Affidavit, 947 P.2d 1152 (Utah 1997).
See also
Source
- Landing page: Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 2007-02
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