Could an Illinois judge’s spouse be named as a contact for a school fundraiser?

Plain-English summary

A judge's spouse served on a private school's board and was named on a fundraiser flyer as the contact for reservations and payments. The spouse and judge shared a surname, but the flyer did not mention the judge's office.

The Committee concluded that the spouse's independent conduct was not governed by the judicial code and did not make the judge responsible under the former Code. It distinguished action taken at a judge's request or activity trading on judicial prestige, and left open whether a judge could be responsible for knowingly allowing relatives to exploit the office in other circumstances.

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The Committee’s page states that this opinion interprets the 1993 Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct, which was superseded on January 1, 2023.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 found no misuse of judicial office in the spouse’s independent school fundraising role as described.

Common questions

Q: Did the shared surname make the spouse’s flyer improper?

A: No. The Committee said the flyer identified the spouse without mentioning the judge.

Q: Would the answer necessarily be the same if the spouse acted for the judge?

A: No. The opinion limited its conclusion to the spouse’s independent activity that did not trade on judicial position.

Background and rules framework

The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rules 62B and 65B(2), and discussed IJEC Opinion 06-02 on a spouse’s independent campaign activity.

Citations and references

• Illinois Supreme Court Rules 62B and 65B(2).
• IJEC Opinion 06-02.

See also

• IL Judicial Ethics Op. 2016-01

Source

• Landing page: Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 2013-01