Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-IL

Did an Illinois judge have to recuse or disclose because a frequently appearing firm employed the judge’s sister-in-law as a secretary?

Short answer No, on the stated facts. The Committee found no significant case interest for the salaried relative or reasonable basis to question impartiality merely because the firm often appeared.
Bar
JUDICIAL-IL
Issued
September 9, 1998

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1998. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A law firm that often appeared before a judge employed the judge’s sister-in-law as a secretary. The judge reported no indication that their relationship would influence case decisions.

The Committee found no recusal requirement under former Rule 63C(1)(e)(iii). On the assumed facts the relative was salaried, lacked a more than de minimis interest in outcomes, and did not discuss cases with the judge; frequent firm appearances alone were insufficient.

It also found no disclosure duty on these facts, while reiterating earlier guidance favoring disclosure when facts could reasonably support a disqualification argument.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998 under the 1993 Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct. The Committee’s page says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code. Treat this page as historical context and verify the current Code before relying on its analysis.

Common questions

Q: Did the sister-in-law’s employment alone require recusal?

A: No. The Committee found no substantial case interest or other basis on the stated facts.

Q: Did frequent firm appearances alone change the result?

A: No. The opinion said that factor was insufficient by itself.

Q: Was disclosure required?

A: No, according to the digest and the facts analyzed.

Background and rules framework

The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rules 62A, 62B, and 63C(1)(e)(iii), citing IJEC Opinions 94-18 and 95-9 on relatives’ interests and disclosure.

Citations and references

  • Illinois Supreme Court Rules 62A, 62B, 63C(1), and 63C(1)(e)(iii).
  • IJEC Opinions 94-18 and 95-9.

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1998. 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