Did past fee-sharing referrals require an Illinois judge to recuse from cases involving the referring lawyers?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2010. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
While in practice, a judge had received client referrals from many local lawyers and shared fees with them. A referring lawyer had become State's Attorney. The Committee treated a fee-sharing referral within the preceding three years as an association in private practice under former Rule 63C(1)(c), requiring recusal when that lawyer represented a party before the judge, absent remittal.
It did not extend disqualification to every case handled by the State's Attorney's office merely because its elected head had made referrals. The State's Attorney had to participate personally in the matter. The Committee also rejected the rule of necessity: assigning many cases to another judge would be inconvenient, but did not leave the parties without a forum.
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The Committee’s page states that this opinion interprets the 1993 Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct, which was superseded on January 1, 2023.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 required case-specific recusal for a former fee-sharing lawyer’s participation; it did not treat a prosecutor’s nominal office role as sufficient.
Common questions
Q: Did a past referral with shared fees count as an association under the former rule?
A: Yes, when the arrangement fell within the previous three years and the referring lawyer represented a party.
Q: Did the State’s Attorney’s referral disqualify the judge from the entire office’s cases?
A: No. The opinion required the State’s Attorney’s personal participation.
Q: Did the rule of necessity override recusal because many cases would be reassigned?
A: No. The Committee said inconvenience did not satisfy that rule.
Background and rules framework
The Committee interpreted former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63C(1)(c), its no-monetary-interest referral exception and Rule 63D on remittal. It discussed Illinois Professional Conduct Rule 1.5(g) only as the referral arrangement addressed by the opinion.
Citations and references
- Illinois Supreme Court Rules 63C(1)(c), 63D; Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(g).
- IJEC Opinions 98-7 and 95-20.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 2010-02
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2010. 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