Was an Illinois judge disqualified when a purchaser of the judge’s father’s law practice handled a case that could generate a fee for the father?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2012. 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's father planned to sell his practice and receive a percentage of fees earned by the buyers on former client matters for six years. The Committee concluded that, after the sale, the judge was disqualified from a buyer's case when the judge knew the father or his estate could receive a fee from it.
The opinion distinguished knowledge of an actual fee interest from a mere possibility that any given buyer's case might involve a former client. Although the former Code expressly required reasonable efforts to track a spouse's and minor child’s interests, the Committee did not find a comparable stated duty for a parent's interests. It nevertheless recommended asking the buyers about the father's fee interest in each case in which they appeared.
The Committee said parties could remit the disqualification through former Rule 63D’s procedure.
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The Committee’s page states that this opinion interprets the 1993 Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct, which was superseded on January 1, 2023.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 disqualification when the judge knew of the father’s case-specific fee interest and identified a recommended inquiry to establish whether that interest existed.
Common questions
Q: Was every case handled by the practice’s buyers disqualifying?
A: No. The Committee tied disqualification to the judge’s knowledge of the father’s or estate’s fee interest in a particular case.
Q: Did the Code expressly require the judge to investigate a parent’s finances?
A: The Committee found no express duty comparable to the rule concerning spouses and minor children, but recommended asking the buyers about the father’s interest.
Q: Could parties remit the disqualification?
A: Yes. The opinion cited the procedure in former Rule 63D.
Background and rules framework
The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rules 63C(1)(d), 63C(1)(e)(iii), 63C(2) and 63D, and cited IJEC Opinion 01-2.
Citations and references
- Illinois Supreme Court Rules 63C(1)(d), 63C(1)(e)(iii), 63C(2), 63D.
- IJEC Opinion 01-2.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 2012-01
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2012. 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