Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-IL

Did an Illinois judge have to recuse or disclose where counsel belonged to a firm left 33 years earlier and handled two old closings?

Short answer No, on the stated facts. The Committee found no reasonable question about impartiality from a 33-year-old firm association or two routine closings four and nine years earlier.
Bar
JUDICIAL-IL
Issued
November 10, 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 Not binding precedent.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

The judge had left a law firm 33 years earlier. A current partner had handled two routine real estate closings for the judge, four and nine years before the inquiry, and now appeared in a case assigned to the judge.

The Committee found former Rule 63C(1)(c)’s three-year former-firm period long expired. Assuming no unusual facts or special relationship, the completed closings also did not reasonably call impartiality into question.

It found disclosure unnecessary because neither remote relationship supported a reasonable argument for disqualification on these facts.

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 The Committee’s page says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code.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 former-firm tie require recusal after 33 years?

A: No. The former rule’s three-year association period had expired.

Q: Did the old closings require recusal?

A: No, assuming routine closings and no unusual relationship.

Q: Did the judge need to disclose either connection?

A: No, on the stated facts.

Background and rules framework

The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63C(1)(c) and cited IJEC Opinions 93-10, 94-18, and 95-2 on former firms, past representation, and disclosure.

Citations and references

  • Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63C(1)(c).
  • IJEC Opinions 93-10, 94-18, and 95-2.

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