Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Jonas Brothers added to Illinois State Fair 2024 lineup
Next Post: Bernie Sanders jumps into state Senate primary; Latino group backs Spyropoulos against Martinez
Posted in:
* Background is here if you need it. From yesterday…
Today, Illinois Appellate Court Justice Jesse Reyes made the following statement about the Illinois Supreme Court’s inability to decide on the suspension of convicted Edward Burke’s law license.
“The Illinois Supreme Court’s inability to render a decision on the suspension of convicted felon Edward Burke’s law license exposes long-standing conflicts in our judiciary. For years, Ed Burke, in his own words on FBI tape, admitted that he controlled the judicial appointment process, and my opponent was the beneficiary of this insider appointment process.
“In this instance, a recusal by a Supreme Court Justice is effectively a vote in favor of Ed Burke keeping his law license, after he was convicted of public corruption by a federal jury.
“My opponent is now asking the voters to elect her for the next ten years. She needs to let the voters know where she stands, whether or not she has recused herself, and the reasons why.
“Convicted felons should not be practicing law in the state of Illinois, period. If the Supreme Court cannot make a decision because of conflicts of interest, the Court should appoint elected Appellate Justices to fill-in so that a decision can be made, without delay. It’s a travesty of justice that a convicted felon can keep his law license, just because half the court is conflicted.”
* I tried asking appointed Supreme Court Justice Joy Cunningham’s campaign how she voted on Burke, but got nothing. Same goes for Dave McKinney…
“My opponent is now asking the voters to elect her for the next 10 years,” Reyes said. “She needs to let the voters know where she stands, whether or not she has recused herself, and the reasons why.”
Multiple times Monday, WBEZ asked Cunningham’s campaign whether she had done just that, what her view was on the court’s paralysis involving Burke’s license and whether there were any remedies to the situation.
A campaign spokesman declined to answer those questions, directing them instead to a spokesman with the Illinois Supreme Court, who also has declined multiple times to identify which justices chose not to act on suspending Burke’s law license and their reasons why.
A Supreme Court rule allows state judges publicly to disclose conflicts that may require their disqualification from a case.
I assume Justice Cunningham recused herself because she was basically brought to the high court by Burke’s spouse, former Chief Justice Anne Burke. Even so, she needs to be transparent.
* OK, now let’s go back to the original WBEZ/Sun-Times story…
Court spokesman Christopher Bonjean did not respond to a WBEZ request to identify any of the recused justices or the reasonings behind their recusals but in brief emailed remarks, he noted the court’s hands were tied.
“I believe some state constitutions allow for substitution of other judges (say from the appellate court) in certain instances,” he told WBEZ, “but the Illinois Constitution does not have a provision for that.”
So, I asked Justice Reyes how he reconciled that statement from the court’s spokesperson to his demand that elected appellate justices be brought up to vote on Burke’s law license…
Because the Illinois Constitution and statutes are silent on matters of attorney discipline, the procedures to be followed are entirely within the discretion of the Supreme Court. Under these circumstances, where there are conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety, due process and substantial justice mandate that the Court exercise its administrative powers and appoint substitutes for those Justices that have conflicts. The Court should order the replacement of conflicted Justices with alternates selected from the elected Appellate Judges.
Has that ever happened before?…
To my knowledge, no. I am unaware of any Supreme Court in our history that has been unable or unwilling to convene a quorum in an attorney disciplinary proceeding.
This is a unique circumstance involving discipline of a powerful attorney who was convicted by a federal jury of official misconduct. He controlled judicial slate-making for decades, admitted in FBI tapes that he could even influence the decision of the father of a judge that he “got elected,” and has a spouse who was a Supreme Court Justice, the colleague of many who are still on the Supreme Court.
There is simply no precedent for this situation. But even without precedent, the Supreme Court needs to preserve the integrity of our court system and must dive into uncomfortable and uncharted waters to ensure that convicted felons are never permitted to practice law in the State of Illinois, even if he was responsible for appointment of those judges.
The Illinois Constitution provides guidance in matters involving Supreme Court conflicts of interest. Specifically, in disciplinary proceedings involving a Supreme Court Justice, the Constitution mandates that an Appellate Justice must replace a sitting Supreme Court Justice. See, Illinois Constitution, Article VI, Section 15(h), mandating that if there is a misconduct proceeding against a Supreme Court Justice, then there shall be no Supreme Court Judge permitted to hear the matter and “[i]nstead, an alternate Appellate Court Judge not from the same Judicial District as the subject Supreme Court Judge shall replace the subject Supreme Court Judge.
Your thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 10:38 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Jonas Brothers added to Illinois State Fair 2024 lineup
Next Post: Bernie Sanders jumps into state Senate primary; Latino group backs Spyropoulos against Martinez
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
She should answer this, but I won’t hold my breath. Feels like her colleagues have circled the wagons on the issue and Reyes won’t be able to capitalize on this with so little time left.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 10:53 am
I cannot say what I really think about the matter because I would get banned. Burke is powerless. Yet, people still kowtow to him. Incredible.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 11:13 am
The Illinois Constitution is not silent on who serves on the Illinois Supreme Court.
Reyes suggestion that justices can declare a conflict and then pick a substitute judge to come in is found nowhere in the Constitution.
This isn’t like a pick-up basketball game, where you can just sub in your Buddy from the sidelines when you wanna breather.
Comment by Juvenal Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 11:18 am
“she was basically brought to the high court by Burke’s spouse, former Chief Justice Anne Burke”
Whoa whoa whoa.
Are we sure this should be put in writing? Feels anti-feminist to imply that Anne Burke wasn’t on the IL Supreme Court purely of her own merit. I mean I assume that’s why everyone spent so much energy over so many years pretending it wasn’t laughably corrupt.
Comment by Larry Bowa Jr. Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 11:19 am
===Feels anti-feminist to imply ===
If Ed Burke was married to a man, it would be the same thing. This creates a conflict, so I can see why they would recuse themselves.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 11:20 am
So the Two Eddies…Burke and Vrdolyak are both convicted felons. Yet, Eddie Burke keeps his law license. What.
Wonder what is hiding under Eddie Burke’s fedora after all these years?
Comment by Rudy’s teeth Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 11:24 am
===Wonder what is hiding under Eddie Burke’s fedora===
It’s actually pretty simple. A majority of the court served with his spouse, and one member replaced his spouse. Gives them an easy out.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 11:32 am
Same as before. No win situation for the Court.
The court should simply note there is a conflict of interest for most or all the sitting Justices, and proceed with a vote anyway.
But that means they are going to catch even more heat than they are about the political aspects of it.
By recusing themselves, they are taking the least politically damaging path and just ducking the question.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 11:37 am
=== I am unaware of any Supreme Court in our history that has been unable or unwilling to convene a quorum in an attorney disciplinary proceeding. ===
So I guess DeVore still has reason to believe he can “not lose.”
Comment by H-W Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 11:39 am
I agree with RNUG. The justices should have said that several would normally recuse themselves, but because that would leave the Court without a quorum they had a duty to sit to protect the public.
They seem to have been more concerned with protecting themselves than the public.
Comment by Keyrock Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 11:42 am
Mr. Bowa, Jr.: the Court’s standard practice is to allow retiring justices to choose their replacements.
Comment by Keyrock Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 11:45 am
Considering how vast and deep the connections are in the Chicago/Springfield political ecosystem, of course there is a conflict of interest and you need to recuse yourself. Reminds me of how being associated with Burke hurt Mendoza. Of course she was connected to him. It was pretty much impossible to not be. I guess the justice could just come out a say what the conflict is if that would help. But I’m sure Reyes has some connects he wouldn’t want brought to light right now either.
Comment by levivotedforjudy Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 11:57 am
The IL Supremes should recuse themselves, appoint the alternates, and allow the process to conclude instanter.
Comment by thisjustinagain Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 11:59 am
i remember when Justice Thomas and he may have been Chief Justice at the time sued a newspaper for liable. i believe it was en to trial and i was anxious to see if it would be appealed and go to Supreme Court. Unfortunately it was settled but it would have been interesting. the Court should make contingency plans for such conflicts
Comment by DuPage Saint Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 12:05 pm
==effectively a vote in favor of Ed Burke keeping his law license==
The interesting thing is that the earlier ST article said at the end that Burke contacted the ARDC seeking to retire from the practice of law and permanently surrender his license but was not allowed to do so. So maybe by trying to make an example of him it thwarted its own goal.
Comment by Big Dipper Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 12:13 pm
There’s no point to recuse. It’s the doctrine of necessity. The same doctrine as the pension vote. Each was conflicted…because of money no less. Yet, unanimous decision. At bar is a decision to revoke not reinstate. They need better law clerks.
Comment by Nope. Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 12:39 pm
If Reyes has any money he might be able to get some traction out of a real issue. Being associated in any way shape or form with Burke has shown to be a campaign killer. The commercials write themselves. He has my vote good luck sir.
Comment by Regular democrat Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 12:46 pm
Seems like the only crime Burke is truly guilty of is having good friends (and also the four counts of extortion he was also found guilty of)
Comment by Drury's Missing Clock Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 1:52 pm
**Of course [Mendoza] was connected to [Burke]. It was pretty much impossible to not be.**
LOL - Mendoza was FAR more connected to Burke than most.
Comment by JoeMaddon Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 3:15 pm
And had Ann Burke picked Jesse Reyes to replace her, he would have done the same thing. Reyes is no different than the rest of the esteemed cook county judiciary . . . which ain’t saying much because they are all hypocrites who only do what’s in their best interest.
Comment by Pritzker's Donut Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 3:38 pm
“Specifically, in disciplinary proceedings involving a Supreme Court Justice…”
Right, but Ed Burke isn’t a Supreme Court Justice and there’s no law allowing the IL Supreme Court to appoint Appellate Justices for attorney disciplinary proceedings. I don’t like the result but that is the law.
Comment by Anon E Moose Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 3:41 pm
“uncharted waters to ensure that convicted felons are never permitted to practice law in the State of Illinois”
Justice Reyes is also wrong about that. From the Illinois Board of Admissions to the Bar FAQ:
Yes, an applicant previously convicted of a felony or currently charged with a felony may apply for admission. However, any such applicant will not be permitted to take the bar examination unless and until s/he has received certification of good moral character and general fitness to practice law by the Committee on Character and fitness.
https://www.ilbaradmissions.org/faq.action#261
Comment by Anon E Moose Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 3:51 pm
I don’t think people should read too much into the justices’ actions here. Most if not all have a legit reason to recuse themselves.
The authors of the state constitution presumably didn’t imagine a circumstance where enough justices were recused that the court could take no action.
I don’t think Burke will be practicing law from inside federal prison, so as far as I can see the case is moot.
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 5:12 pm
There are a lot of really great comments here, none of which I could offer any insight that would provide more knowledge/perspective than already has been shared. So I’ll just say that “Illinois is going to Illinois” and leave it at that.
Comment by Just a guy Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 5:22 pm
“They need better law clerks.”
Uhh yeah judicial law clerks have no say as to whether their judges should recuse because of a conflict of interest.
Comment by anon Wednesday, Mar 13, 24 @ 1:59 am