Friday, May 24, 2019

Red Grange makes the Bears Top 100 List in more ways than one

In conjunction with their 100th anniversary, the Chicago Bears have released a list of the top 100 Bears players of all time.

I've appended the list to this post (Hall of Fame members are indicated with "*"). For heated arguments concerning who was overvalued, or undervalued, or wrongly included, or wrongly excluded, turn to the sports radio station of your choice. I am not qualified to contribute meaningfully to that discussion. Still, from an historical perspective, I am surprised that Red Grange is only No. 36 on the list.

College football was far and away the dominant branch of the sport in the early 1920s and Red Grange was at that time the biggest star in the college game.

Pro football may be the biggest sport in America today, but it was then at most a regional sport, and rather disreputable. Players wishing to continue their football careers after college often played under assumed names, so as not to embarrass their families or themselves. Hardly anyone made a living solely from football in those days.

The Chicago Bears may now be one of the most valuable franchises in any sport, but in 1925 the Bears weren't even the dominant pro football team in Chicago. The Chicago Cardinals were the NFL champions that year.

In his history of the Chicago Cardinals, When Football Was Football (Triumph Books, 1999), Joe Ziemba spends a lot of time detailing Grange's decision to turn pro -- recounting how Papa Bear George Halas negotiated with C.C. Pyle, who would become Grange's manager, for Grange to join the Bears immediately after his last college game, play the remaining games on the league schedule, and go off with the team on a nationwide barnstorming tour. Grange would get 30% of the gate receipts, giving him earnings of perhaps $100,000 at a time when most pros did not get $100 a game.

And -- while the contracts weren't actually signed until after his last college game -- these negotiations apparently took place while Grange was still paying football for the University of Illinois. How about that?

Anyway, the tour was a great success, but it was grueling -- there were four games played in one five day stretch toward the end of it -- and Grange was increasingly limited by injury. Ziemba recounts how Pro Football Hall of Famer Jimmy Conzelman, later the coach of the Chicago Cardinals, but then the owner of the Detroit Panthers, had to refund 10,000 tickets after he told the press that Grange would be unavailable for the game with his team. Ziemba quotes from Conzelman's book, Pro Football's Rag Days:
A few hours before the game was about to start, I looked out the window and saw a long line at the box office. I remembered thinking to myself, "What a great sports town. Grange isn't going to play but they're still lining up to buy tickets." Then I got the news from the ticket man. They were lining up to get refunds.
Despite the injuries, the Bears' tour with Grange is widely recognized as putting pro football on the map as a legitimate sport, launching it on the road to the dominance it enjoys today. Grange's signing also tipped the pro football balance of power in the City of Chicago, starting the Cardinals on a long decline and eventual moves to St. Louis and, more recently, Arizona.

(Of course, even the road to fame and fortune has twists and turns: One stop on the barnstorming tour was Washington, D.C. Illinois Senator William B. McKinley took Grange and Halas to the White House to meet President Calvin Coolidge. According to Halas, McKinley said, "Mr. President, this is George Halas and Red Grange of the Chicago Bears." "Glad to meet you fellows," said the President. "I always did like animal acts.")

Although Grange left the Bears to found his own league, he returned when that league folded, playing for the Bears from 1929-1934.

ESPN ranked Grange No. 28 in its list of the Top 50 athletes of the 20th Century. In an online profile preserved as part of this Sports Century Series, Larry Schwartz writes that George Halas said that no player has had a greater impact on the game of football, college or professional, than Red Grange.

The ESPN profile also contains this anecdote from Chris Berman:
I was interviewing George Halas and I asked him who is the greatest running back you ever saw. And he said, "That would be Red Grange." And I asked him if Grange was playing today, how many yards do you think he'd gain. And he said, "About 750, maybe 800 yards." And I said, "Well, 800 yards is just okay." He sat up in his chair and he said, "Son, you must remember one thing. Red Grange is 75 years old."
It in no way diminishes the greatness of the other players on the Bears' Top 100 List to suggest that, without Red Grange, there probably is no list.

The Top 100 Bears of All Time
  1. Walter Payton*
  2. Dick Butkus*
  3. Bronko Nagurski*
  4. Sid Luckman*
  5. Gale Sayers*
  6. Mike Ditka*
  7. Bill George*
  8. Bulldog Turner*
  9. Doug Atkins*
  10. Danny Fortmann*
  11. Dan Hampton*
  12. Richard Dent*
  13. Jimbo Covert
  14. Brian Urlacher*
  15. Mike Singletary*
  16. Bill Hewitt*
  17. Stan Jones*
  18. Jay Hilgenberg
  19. Steve McMichael
  20. Devin Hester
  21. Joe Stydahar*
  22. George Connor*
  23. George McAfee*
  24. Joe Fortunato
  25. Ed Sprinkle
  26. Ed Healey*
  27. Olin Kreutz
  28. Lance Briggs
  29. Rick Casares
  30. Gary Fencik
  31. Charles Tillman
  32. Paddy Driscoll*
  33. George Trafton*
  34. Matt Forte
  35. George Musso*
  36. Red Grange*
  37. George Halas*
  38. Link Lyman*
  39. Harlon Hill
  40. Ken Kavanaugh
  41. Neal Anderson
  42. Richie Petitbon
  43. Wilber Marshall
  44. Johnny Morris
  45. Otis Wilson
  46. Doug Buffone
  47. Dave Duerson
  48. Fred Williams
  49. Ray Bray
  50. Mark Bortz
  51. Keith Van Horne
  52. Joe Kopcha
  53. Jim McMahon
  54. Ed Brown
  55. Johnny Lujack
  56. Roosevelt Taylor
  57. Jim Osborne
  58. Wally Chambers
  59. Julius Peppers
  60. Khalil Mack
  61. Willie Galimore
  62. Robbie Gould
  63. Mike Brown
  64. James Williams
  65. Dick Gordon
  66. Mike Hartenstine
  67. Ed O’Bradovich
  68. Dick Barwegen
  69. Bill Wade
  70. Matt Suhey
  71. Kevin Butler
  72. Mark Carrier
  73. Tommie Harris
  74. Kyle Long
  75. Akiem Hicks
  76. J.C. Caroline
  77. Bennie McRae
  78. Donnell Woolford
  79. Dennis McKinnon
  80. Alshon Jeffery
  81. Brandon Marshall
  82. George Blanda*
  83. Willie Gault
  84. Tom Thayer
  85. Jay Cutler
  86. Allan Ellis
  87. Luke Johnsos
  88. Joey Sternaman
  89. Mike Pyle
  90. Beattie Feathers
  91. Bob Wetoska
  92. Bill Osmanski
  93. Herman Lee
  94. Jim Dooley
  95. Larry Morris
  96. Eddie Jackson
  97. Bobby Joe Green
  98. Trace Armstrong
  99. Doug Plank
  100. Patrick Mannelly

Thursday, May 23, 2019

Time heals another wound: White Sox to give away Disco Demolition t-shirts on June 13

Robert Feder reports this morning that the Chicago White Sox will soon give away 10,000 t-shirts commemorating the 40th anniversary of Disco Demolition.

The Sox have been doing a t-shirt giveaway during Thursday home games for some time now, and some of the t-shirts have been pretty nice. You have to have nice promotions when you're rebuilding, as the Sox are.

I wouldn't know personally, but I bet that a certain North Side baseball club had sweet promotions when it was rebuilding a few years back. Now I think fans entering Wrigley might get a commemorative tissue paper, if that certain North Side baseball club bothers to have any promotions at all. And, if it does have a Tissue Paper Night, it's a cinch that the certain North Side baseball club will collect a king's ransom from the sponsor who gets to put its name somewhere on said tissue paper. I look forward to the day, hopefully soon, when the White Sox can also have crumby promotions.

Anyway, that's the t-shirt, pictured above, and one may be yours if you are one of the first 10,000 arriving for the Thursday, June 13 game (first pitch at 7:10 p.m. against the hated New York Yankees) at Guaranteed Rate Field. Steve Dahl is scheduled to throw out the first pitch. All is finally forgiven.

What's to forgive, you ask?

The Detroit Tigers were in town for a doubleheader on Thursday, July 12, 1979.

Between games, Dahl, then the enfant terrible morning jock at WLUP, was to lead his Coho Lips Army onto the field to blow up a cache of disco records. The records were to be supplied by fans, who could get general admission tickets that night for only 98¢ apiece (get it?) if they also brought a disco record.

(I'll pause here while the Baby Boomers and the hipsters in the audience explain what a "record" is to those in the Millennial and Gen-Z cohorts who may not know.)

Old Comiskey had a capacity of about 50,000 in those days; that night there were perhaps 70,000 in the house. Many got in without paying even 98¢.

Although I was a frequent patron at Old Comiskey in the Summer of '79, I was not there that night. I was in law school then, still living with my parents, watching the broadcast on Channel 44. Harry Caray and Jimmy Piersall were doing the Sox games in those days. After the records were blown up (a very big explosion in center field, which by itself probably jeopardized the second game of the twin bill), thousands of drunken kids stormed the field -- and I remember Piersall, who almost sounded like he was crying, shouting, "This is not baseball!"

And it wasn't. Ultimately, though the field was finally cleared, it was unplayable, and the White Sox were obliged to forfeit Game 2.

The whole sorry spectacle, as originally broadcast on Channel 44, was available for some time on YouTube. Sadly, it seems to have been removed. I was, however, able to find this ESPN coverage of the debacle.



Although I wasn't at Disco Demolition, I was at the park three times that same week. Twice before, and once after.

It was a lot more fun before.

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Survey says... just about everything these days

Late last week I attended a breakfast at Elmhurst College. The breakfast was provided as a reward to persons who'd volunteered as mentors, provided internships, interviewed students for actual post-graduation jobs, or otherwise participated in the school's professional development program. (I was invited because I had participated in one panel discussion for pre-law students -- no, it wasn't much of a contribution -- but, then, I took only one small sweet roll and a cup of coffee at the breakfast, so I wasn't dramatically over-compensated.)

Anyway, the college used the breakfast to roll out a portion of a survey it had commissioned from some international research group, trying to find out what Elmhurst students were looking for in a job or career, what they valued in an employer, how they responded to different sorts of interviews, and how Elmhurst students were the same as (and different from) their counterparts in other schools around the country.

I was, as usual, confused by all this. Who cares what employers are most "attractive" to college students? Sophomores in college may imagine themselves able to choose from among a variety of civic-minded corporate citizens for their future career. College seniors are grateful to find a job, any job, even with the Warts-And-All Corporation, particularly if said job pays enough to make the payments on their student loans. After a few months on the couch back home, college graduates may find hitherto unimagined virtues in an offer, any offer, even from Polluters-R-Us.

I don't understand the value of uninformed opinions. After all, we lawyers wait until after jurors have heard the evidence before we ask them what they thought of our case. (Yes, yes, we begin 'educating' prospective jurors about our view of the case in voir dire -- but that merely proves my point: From the beginning of our trials we do our best to create informed jurors, informed as we would have them informed, whose properly informed opinions will, therefore, be favorable to us when we seek those opinions at the end of the case.)

Anyway, I don't understand surveys generally.

I have come to the conclusion that this may be a generational thing.

As a Baby Boomer, reared on the wit and wisdom of Mike Royko, I was taught to never answer a pollster and, if forced to answer, to lie.

My Millennial children, on the other hand, will not make any significant purchase without scouring the on-line reviews.

I have attempted to see what they see in these. But what I've seen, when I've read on-line reviews, are wildly divergent statements, half apparently written by the seller's mother, half written by the seller's competitors.

And one cannot buy so much as a package of shoelaces without being invited to participate in a survey about the quality of the service provided.

I generally decline the invitation. I paid for the shoelaces, didn't I? If I don't return them, my opinion of them must have been favorable, right? If I return to the store, whether for more shoelaces, or for wholly different sundries, doesn't that alone say something about my opinion of the service provided?

I don't understand why we care so much about what people say they think. It seems to me so much more important to look at what people do. I don't care if my client says that I am the greatest lawyer since Darrow -- what really matters to me is whether said client honors my bill upon presentation.

In other words, I understand data-gathering and using that data to predict how people may behave in future. But I see only the most limited value in surveying people about their actions, or their opinions. Because people lie, often to themselves. They may say what they think their questioner may want to hear (or, if they are the contrary sort, what they think the questioner may not want to hear). It has been my observation that people often say one thing, but do another.

This is a topic I earnestly wish to discuss with people who live and die with surveys. Like political consultants. It is a topic I hope to return to at a future date.

Saturday, April 27, 2019

There've been a few small changes made

This is a picture of my new office.

Allow me to explain how I got here.

When, in 2005, for entirely good and sufficient reasons, Greg Friedman and his then-partner, Charlene Holtz, decided not to renew their lease on the top floor of a building at State and Adams, a number of attorneys who'd been subleasing from them had to scramble to find new quarters.

I was among the displaced. I joined a group of three others similarly situated and together we went in search of new accommodations.

We wound up in a generously-sized suite at 205 W. Randolph, four solo practitioners, pooling resources for common office expenses, like the rent on the suite and our leased copier, but keeping letterheads and phone and fax lines and internet access all separate, just like they teach at CLE seminars. The utility closet was an impenetrable tangle of boxes and wires.

None of us counted on one of our number dying, though one of us did die, within six months of our setting up shop. If he wasn't the actual leader of our group, he was at least primus inter pares. Building management helped us find a subtenant to replace our departed colleague -- and Mike stayed with us awhile, until he had a better opportunity. Meanwhile, another of our group decided that he would go to Florida and hang out his shingle.

Florida, you may have heard, is quite happy to welcome silver-haired transplants... but only as retirees. To acquire a Florida law license, our colleague had to not only take and pass the Florida bar exam (that was the easy part), he also had to pass muster with the Florida equivalent of our Character & Fitness Committee.

To begin with, Florida wanted a detailed accounting of every case Bob had handled over a 40 year career. How detailed? Six months or more into the process, Bob got a call from the Florida Supreme Court. They'd discovered that he'd been appointed counsel in a long-forgotten matter in the District Court in 1970-something -- and they wanted to know what else he was hiding from them. (He wasn't hiding anything; they were searching the docket of every court to verify his every action over a period of several decades.)

I had to fill out a remarkably long affidavit in support of Bob's application. It is possible that my recollection that the affidavit had to be signed in blood is merely an embellishment. But I do remember clearly that the affidavit "expired" a year or more after I'd signed the first one, and I was requested and required to do another one.

Eventually, though, about two years after passing the Florida bar, Bob got his Florida license.

Now our little Gang of Four had dwindled to two, and we were straining to keep up the rent.

Building management found us Pam Davis, who ran the Chicago office of Dwight & M.H. Jackson Corporate Records, and who had occupied various spaces in that building for many years -- and through several building owners. She was basically the mayor of the building -- and her consent to office with us elevated the status of me and my remaining partner in the building community.

Still... it was the three of us handling a space intended for four -- and intended for four rent contributions each month. So, in 2012, when our lease came up for renewal, we gave up our large space and moved up three floors (perhaps 35 or 40 feet) to a much smaller office.

Things went well enough for us for some time -- but then Pam's employer decided that it could use the Internet to sell all the corporate record forms it wanted, and a physical presence in Chicago was no longer necessary. Pam was gone, and so was her contribution to the common rent.

My remaining colleague and I soldiered on for a couple of years more, serving out our lease. But we had more overhead than we needed, or wanted, and something had to give. My colleague decided he did not need to keep a full-time downtown office, and I toyed with the notion of renting a desk somewhere. I had a kind offer from some former partners to join them in their new space -- but, after thinking about it, I realized I simply wasn't ready to make any new commitment.

In the impenetrable jargon of modern business, I am more nimble now, more able to pivot (or maybe it's pirouette -- I am a little fuzzy on the vocabulary). Regardless of the current term, I am more readily able now to respond to any opportunities that may arise. Plus, with e-filing, lawyers really can do most of our business anywhere, or we should be able to.

So I am in the virtual world now. This post has provided me with (I hope) sufficient justification to put my new address out into the Internet -- an experiment, really, to see how long it takes the Google 'spiders' to correct the business address that currently shows up online. My new business address is:

Leyhane & Associates, Ltd.
P.O. Box 31262
Chicago, Illinois 60631


---------------------------------------------------------------------
And this seems like an apt place for me to quote from the disclaimer at the bottom of this page (scroll down to read the entire disclaimer): "Nothing in this blog is meant to create, nor should it be construed by you as creating, an attorney-client relationship. Sending an email to this blog [or sending any letter to the physical address shown above] or leaving a comment to a post does not create, nor should it be construed by you as creating, an attorney-client relationship.

Friday, January 4, 2019

I am not the only one concerned about Google's "nudges"

Randall Munroe offers this take in the webcomic XKCD. (Click on the link to view the original cartoon -- and the artist's comment embedded there.)

Wednesday, December 19, 2018

A "glitter bomb" to deter porch package snatchers



I heard about this today on the radio, then saw the video on Facebook -- which means I'm probably the last person in America to see this -- but, if by some chance you also haven't seen this, I believe you will find it well worth the 11 minutes or so that it takes to watch the whole thing.

Cleaning up the Sidebar on Page One

It's time -- past time, really -- to retire the remaining 2018 candidate websites from Page One. As is my custom, I bury the links here on Page Two (these are the websites for candidates in contested judicial elections this past November) -- and some are probably already dead -- but persons looking for ideas for their own campaign websites may find some inspiration in any links that remain.
After all, it will time to start putting up 2020 links soon enough. I am aware of a few domains that have already been reserved....

Monday, November 19, 2018

From Kitty Hawk to Gagarin to today

From the web comic XKCD.

Sometimes it seems like the world is progressing at an ever-more-rapid pace. But there are reminders, like this one, that human progress is, at best, uneven.

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

A stunning admission from any writer

In today's Pearls Before Swine, recovering lawyer Stephan Pastis has something nice to say about editors.

At least, sorta-kinda indirectly.

Thursday, May 17, 2018

Blogger rants about Blogger



I'm not Andy Rooney, but I'm feeling cantankerous and curmudgeonly these days and, like the late Mr. Rooney, I'm not afraid to tell you about it.

The immediate cause of my grumpiness is Blogger. Not a blogger, mind you, not some individual spewing his or her opinions into a largely indifferent Internet, but Blogger the blog publishing service that has been a Google brand since 2003. These guys:


Generally, I like Blogger. From 2006 until this afternoon, I've put up 2,667 posts on Page One of this blog and (since 2008) another 459 (this is post #460) here on Page Two. Blogger is in my price range -- free -- and it has been fairly easy to use. Despite the fact that I'm no 'techie', I've been able to insert photos and graphics and embed videos and customize my text -- it's not WordPerfect, mind you, but it's not bad.

However, lately, Blogger has made my blogging life miserable -- and today provides a perfect illustration.

Over the past 10 years I've covered Cook County judicial elections in some detail. I've got some substantial archives built up. Put it this way, if there is news about Cook County judicial candidate Joan Smith, and I want to do a post, the first place I look for background is my own archives. Until recently, I could put Smith's name into the search box on my "All Posts" page -- something you don't see -- and, presto!, I'd have every post I'd ever done in which her name was mentioned.

Recently, though, Blogger messed this function up. Now, searches only go back four years or so. Well, Smith may have run unsuccessfully for a subcircuit seat in 2010; that datum might be relevant to my current post. She might have been appointed to a seat in 2012; I'd have a biographical sketch in the post about her appointment that I could update for my new post. But Blogger's search was no longer producing these results.

The first time I noticed this, after some time-consuming work-arounds, I dutifully pressed the "send feedback" button (see below) that resides in the lower right hand corner of my screen when I create a post.


I sent my feedback -- hey you've made it impossible for me to properly search my archives! -- and resumed my daily activities. I didn't expect to hear back from anybody at Blogger -- and I didn't -- but I harbored some small hope that my concern might be addressed and my search function restored.

It wasn't.

Today I wanted to pull up information about persons receiving appointments -- I knew I had a lot of background in my archives on at least two of the three appointees -- but all the stuff I wanted predated 2014 and so was left out of the search results. Once again, I figured out how to work around my problem -- but it took a lot of time that I shouldn't have had to waste.

Blogger has no customer service number -- no 800 number for bloggers to call -- and I suppose I understand that no one would be eager to volunteer to field calls from little old ladies who can't figure out how to publish videos of their adorable kittens playing with yarn. Or from 'political theorists' living in their mothers' basements who would just accuse the call-taker of being in on the conspiracy anyway.

But an email address might be nice. So there could be a paper trail. And maybe even an eventual response from an actual human.

I did try and peruse the "Official Blogger Blog" to see if I could puzzle something out. I learned more changes are coming -- but I can't tell if they'll create new problems for me -- I don't think so -- but nothing about why the internal search function was rendered useless.

I could push the send feedback button again, of course. But, as Einstein didn't say, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

I probably won't hear from Blogger now either. But my grousing about this has already made me feel better. And maybe someone from Blogger will see this -- something about 'spiders' searching web pages -- and fix the problem. Which is all I really want anyway.

Wednesday, May 9, 2018

Time to clear out the Page One candidate sidebar

The March primary is pretty much ancient history at this point.

However, as I've done in the past, I'm preserving this list of 2018 candidate websites for archival purposes.

Several of these candidate websites have already been abandoned, even repurposed. But some of the candidate websites will stay up, anticipating 2020. Some may just stay 'live' because the fees have been prepaid.

No matter why they remain, interested persons (i.e., prospective candidates and their likely core supporters) can browse these sites and harvest ideas for their own campaigns to come.

Call it "research," if you like.

Without further prologue, then, here is the list:
Meanwhile, the Page One sidebar will be pruned so that only those few candidates who face contests in November will remain.

Monday, April 9, 2018

Paying for journalism -- and refusing to pay -- and why

I am obviously in favor of writers getting paid for their work.

What writer would be, could be, against that?

But, when it comes to newspapers, I have a problem.

For 30 years I was a loyal subscriber to the Chicago Tribune. I could pick it up off the front porch and read it on the train going to work. Sometimes I had more to read going home.

But, one day, some years back, when finances were unusually tight at home, even for me, I got mad. I stopped paying for my subscription.

I'd just received a bill for my annual renewal. The Tribune wanted $400 I didn't have. (If that's not the actual amount, it's close -- whatever it was, I didn't have it.)

Now anyone who is not a billionaire knows that sometimes, even when one doesn't have the funds, if the object is of sufficient import, priorities will be arranged to find a way to pay. As I was scheming about how I'd come up with the scratch for Mother Tribune.

But then one day my wife came home from school (she's the Spanish teacher at the parish grade school) and told me what her colleague had done to resolve her big renewal bill from the Tribune. Catholic grade school teachers can teach 40 years and never make what a rookie CPS teacher does. So, as pressing a problem as 400 smackers was for me, it was an even greater problem for my wife's colleague. And my wife's colleague did something about it, too. As my wife recounted the story, her friend called the Tribune subscription office and complained about the price -- and, lo and behold, she got it knocked down by more than half.

In hindsight, I've come to realize that my wife was telling me the story so that I, too, might call and complain and knock down the price. But, at that moment, I could only see red. This is how the Tribune treats loyal customers? I'd paid cheerfully and without complaint for all these years, despite the real sacrifice that the subscription cost required, when all I really had to do was beef loud enough and get the price knocked down by more than half? How much money had I wasted over the years?

If the price of a subscription is something that can be bargained for, like a piece of cloth in the bazaar, what was its real value? How could I know that I was not getting swindled at $200? At $150?

So I refused to pay the bill and I refused to call and barter.

I made do for awhile, picking up the Incredibly Shrinking Sun-Times at the L station in the morning -- by this time, the Tribune had stopped, or was just about to stop, selling on the street -- but, eventually, even the Sun-Times stopped selling through street vendors. Over time, I've gotten news increasingly from online sources -- the Tribune included -- but the erection of pay walls and monthly article limits has made this an increasingly difficult challenge. Instead of reading a newspaper -- the product of an industry that I am highly motivated to support -- I am ruining my eyesight reading Twitter posts on my phone.

The Tribune is desperately marketing its online product -- but still with fluid pricing. Why the heck should an 'introductory' subscriber get one price, while a returning customer must pay more -- and perhaps considerably more?

Another paper that allegedly covets my online subscription -- the Washington Post (the illustration here is from a recent email I received) -- apparently uses the same seemingly random pricing method.

And I am resisting. Why is it OK for me to pay $80 if the next guy has to pay $100 for the exact same product?

I sometimes fantasize about trying to make a living off my own writing. And I know I'd have to find a way to get paid in that case. As I said at the outset, I'm entirely in favor of writers getting paid for their work. Meanwhile, newspapers, with their subscription by negotiation policies, are vanishing like the dodo. I wonder if, in the years to come, when historians ponder the decline and fall of the newspaper industry, they will agree that arbitrary pricing was a factor in the industry's extinction.

Monday, March 19, 2018

A few words about "judicial temperament"

If you've been browsing through the bar association narrative candidate evaluations in the Organizing the Data posts here and on page one, you've no doubt noticed the term "judicial temperament."

The Chicago Bar Association says that "judicial temperament" is one of the eight criteria it considers when reviewing the merits of a judicial candidate (for the record, the eight categories are "integrity, legal knowledge, legal ability, professional experience, judicial temperament, diligence, punctuality, and health factors").

The Chicago Council of Lawyers likewise considers "judicial temperament" as one of the 12 factors it considers in regards to judicial candidates (the CCL's 12 categories being "fairness, including sensitivity to diversity and bias; legal knowledge and skills (competence); integrity; experience; diligence; impartiality; judicial temperament; respect for the rule of law; independence from political and institutional influences; professional conduct; character; and community service").

But what is judicial temperament and how important is it to determining a person's ability to serve (or continue to serve) as a judge?

For What It's Worth endorses no candidates and makes no recommendations about candidates. But I've been around, practicing in courts around this state for 38 years.

I can tell you that a temperate judge treats all persons in front of the bench with respect and courtesy and that a temperate judge expects and usually receives courtesy and civil behavior from those who appear in his or her court.

Nobody likes being bullied. But, sadly, a judge with a poor temperament is often a bully, pushing people around simply because he or she can, embarrassing lawyers in front of their clients, and in general not treating the people who appear in court with the respect and civility which one might expect.

On the other hand, I've appeared in front of judges who had awful temperament... and were good judges... and I've appeared in front of judges who were the distilled essence of excellent judicial temperament... and were terrible judges.

No, I'm not naming names. But one judge comes to mind -- and this was a long time ago and not in Cook County -- who was grouchy, irascible, sour, and even downright mean to everyone. In that county, at that time, some judges treated Cook County lawyers with disdain, openly favoring the members of the local bar. Not this judge. This judge didn't seem to like anyone, no matter where they maintained an office.

Now, don't get me wrong: I didn't exactly enjoy my visits to this courtroom. But, temperament aside, I thought this was a pretty good judge: From what I could observe, the judge's rulings were based on the law, sound, and understandable -- even when they went against me. I could live with that.

It beat the heck out of the alternative.

Again, years ago, there was a judge who was good temperament personified. I appeared on a regular basis in front of this judge and was always treated civilly and with respect. But I often left that courtroom coming thisclose to losing my temper. (There were a number of incidents in this courtroom where other lawyers actually did lose their tempers.) The problem was that, while this judge was a decent, nice, caring person, this judge was also indecisive, inconsistent and unpredictable.

No, the law is not an exact science. One can never predict with absolute certainty that this motion will be granted or that another motion will be denied. This is one of the many reasons why lawyers can not ethically guarantee results in any case. But many things in most cases are pretty predictable -- or should be. Judges are guided by statutes and the common law, as set out in the reported cases. In many instances, therefore, when judges follow the law, the results should be fairly predictable.

Clients hire lawyers because of the lawyer's perceived expertise and skill. A lawyer who tells a client she has a great case -- and then loses -- will likely not get more business from that client. But how do we know what is a 'good case' or a 'close case" or a 'great case' or a 'tough case'? We know the law (or we've looked it up) and we evaluate how a court or jury should respond to the facts and the governing law. I've done a lot of insurance coverage work in my time. Much of my career has been spent evaluating how a court should rule in particular circumstances and recommending client actions based on those evaluations. When I think my client has a close case, I say so, and the client decides how, or whether, to proceed. But when I evaluate a case as a strong one, one in which the statutes and cases predict victory, I expect to win.

From my perspective, therefore, if a judge doesn't follow the law and rules unpredictably, especially when I believe (in the best exercise of my professional judgment) that I have a strong case, I don't care how nice the judge may be, or how good his or her temperament is: Legal knowledge, ability, skills and respect for the law and precedent trumps temperament, in my opinion, every time.

Given my druthers, of course, I'd take both.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
What 2018 Cook County judicial race are you interested in?

Saturday, March 10, 2018

Organizing the Data: 13th Subcircuit - Lawrence Vacancy

Updated March 14, 2018
Two candidates filed in the Republican primary for this vacancy; only one candidate filed in the Democratic primary. The Republican candidates are listed first.

Republican Candidates

Daniel Patrick Fitzgerald - #153



Campaign Website

Tribune Questionnaire

ICJL Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:
Daniel Patrick Fitzgerald is “Not Recommended” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Fitzgerald was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1991 and is currently senior in-house counsel for a large corporation. Mr. Fitzgerald has worked as an in-house counsel for twelve (12) years and represents the company in a variety of civil litigation matters. Mr. Fitzgerald’s prior legal experience includes: serving as a law clerk to a Cook County Chancery Court Judge (2 years); Chicago’s Office of Inspector General (3 years); General Counsel, Illinois Racing Board (3 years); and Assistant Illinois Attorney General (6 years). While Mr. Fitzgerald has had a broad range of experience, his court and trial experience is limited. He does not possess the depth and breadth of legal knowledge and practice to effectively serve as a Circuit Court Judge.
The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:
Daniel P. Fitzgerald was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1991. Since 2005, he has worked as a litigation attorney for the Walgreen Company, where he currently serves as Senior Counsel. He focuses on health care litigation but has also handled employment law and environmental law cases. Previously, he was Chief Legal Counsel and Chief of the Bureau of Administrative Litigation of the Office of the Inspector General, Illinois Department of Health Care and Family Services (2002-2005); General Counsel to the Illinois Racing Board (1999-2002); Assistant State’s Attorney in the Illinois Attorney General’s Office (1993-1999); and Judicial Law Clerk in the Cook County Circuit Court, Chancery Division (1991-1993).

Mr. Fitzgerald is considered to have good legal ability with a wide range of litigation and other legal experience. He has handled complex litigation on his own and as a supervisor of outside counsel. His is reported to possess a good temperament. The Council finds him Qualified for the Circuit Court.
The Illinois State Bar Association says:
Daniel Patrick Fitzgerald was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1991. He is currently a litigation attorney for the Walgreen's Corporation, focusing on health care litigation from case evaluation to settlement. Prior to that position, he was on the staff of the Office of inspector General, Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services; General Counsel for the Illinois Racing Board; and an assistant attorney general. Attorneys reported that he has a thorough understanding of the entire legal process, and is very good at analyzing legal issues, with high integrity. He has been active with the Northwest Suburban Bar association and active with civic affairs in Barrington Township. Mr. Daniel Patrick Fitzgerald is found to be Qualified for election to the Circuit Court of Cook County.
Other Bar Association Evaluations:
Asian American Bar Association of the
Greater Chicago Area
Qualified
Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater ChicagoNot Evaluated
Cook County Bar AssociationRecommended
Decalogue Society of LawyersRecommended
Hellenic Bar AssociationRecommended
Hispanic Lawyers Association of IllinoisQualified
Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of ChicagoRecommended
Puerto Rican Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended
Women’s Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended

Endorsements
Cook County Republican Party, 13th Subcircuit Committeemen
Highly Recommended - Illinois Civil Justice League

------------------------------------------------------

Michael Perry Gerber - #154



Campaign Website

Tribune Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:
Judge Michael P. Gerber is “Highly Qualified” for the office Circuit Court Judge. Judge Gerber was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1980 and served as a Cook County Assistant Public Defender for four years and as a Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney for 32 years before his appointment to the Circuit Court in 2016. Judge Gerber is highly regarded for his knowledge of the law, judicial ability, commitment to fairness, and excellent temperament.
The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:
Hon. Michael P. Gerber was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1980. He was appointed to the bench as a Circuit Judge by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2016. He presides over criminal misdemeanors, felony preliminary hearings, and traffic matters. Previously, he worked as an Assistant State’s Attorney in Cook County, where he prosecuted criminal matters (1984-2016); an Assistant Public Defender in Cook County (1981-1984), where he handled motions and trials and, during his last 18 months there, felony preliminary hearings; and as an associate for Martin S. Gerber (1980-1981), where he handled civil municipal and misdemeanor cases in the Circuit Court of Cook County.

As a lawyer, Judge Gerber was considered to be an outstanding practitioner with very good legal ability and temperament. He was respected for his litigation skills and he had substantial litigation experience in more complex matters. He is reported to be exceptionally knowledgeable. As a judge he is reported to be handling a high volume call with efficiency and fairness. On the basis of this 2017 evaluation the Council would have found Judge Gerber to be Well Qualified.

However, subsequent to the evaluation the Council conducted in 2017, the Council notes that a post conviction judge vacated a murder case conviction that then Mr. Gerber had prosecuted many years earlier. In vacating the conviction, the judge stated in regard to Mr. Gerber, as the prosecutor, that he had made “factually false arguments to the jury” about a key piece of evidence. The judge further stated,

"This Court cannot say the prosecutor's improper remarks did not contribute to petitioner's conviction; a jury could have reached a contrary verdict had the improper remarks not been made. * * * Indeed, such statements amounted to a purposeful due process violation that led to petitioner's conviction. As such, petitioner was prejudiced by appellate counsel's failure to raise this claim."
The defendant was exonerated. The Council considers these findings to be exceptionally serious. However, the Council also must consider the totality of Judge Gerber’s well-respected career. In a close call, the Council finds Judge Gerber to be Qualified for the Circuit Court.
The Illinois State Bar Association says:
Michael Perry Gerber was admitted in 1980. He was appointed to the Circuit Court in 2016, and is currently assigned to the Second District (Skokie) as a Municipal Department judge. Prior to his appointment, he spent over thirty years as an assistant state's attorney after a short stint in private practice and as an assistant public defender. As a prosecutor, he had extensive criminal jury trial experience; he was cited, however, several times for improper closing arguments. As a judge, attorneys report that he makes thoughtful rulings, is very knowledgeable, researches the law and runs his courtroom efficiently. Judge Gerber is found to be Highly Qualified for election to the Circuit Court of Cook County.
Other Bar Association Evaluations:
Asian American Bar Association of the
Greater Chicago Area
Qualified
Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater ChicagoRecommended
Cook County Bar AssociationRecommended
Decalogue Society of LawyersHighly Recommended
Hellenic Bar AssociationRecommended
Hispanic Lawyers Association of IllinoisQualified
Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of ChicagoNot Evaluated
Puerto Rican Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended
Women’s Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended

Endorsements
Chicago Tribune
The Advocates Society (recommended)
------------------------------------------------------

Democratic Candidate

Shannon P. O'Malley - #152

No Campaign Website or Campaign Facebook Page known. (According to ARDC, Mr. O'Malley, who has been licensed in Illinois since 1992, was originally licensed as Phillip Spiwak.)

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:
Shannon P. O’Malley declined to participate in the Judicial Evaluation Committee (JEC) screening process and, therefore, according to The Chicago Bar Association’s governing resolution for the JEC, is automatically found NOT RECOMMENDED.
The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:
Shannon P. O’Malley did not participate in the evaluation process. The Council finds her Not Recommended for the Circuit Court.
The Illinois State Bar Association says:
Shannon P. O’Malley declined to participate in the judicial evaluation process. Pursuant to ISBA guidelines, Mr. Shannon P. O’Malley is found to be Not Recommended for election to the Circuit Court of Cook County.
Other Bar Association Evaluations:
Asian American Bar Association of the
Greater Chicago Area
Not Recommended
Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater ChicagoNot Recommended
Cook County Bar AssociationNot Recommended
Decalogue Society of LawyersNot Recommended
Hellenic Bar AssociationNot Recommended
Hispanic Lawyers Association of IllinoisNot Qualified
Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of ChicagoNot Recommended
Puerto Rican Bar Association of IllinoisNot Recommended
Women’s Bar Association of IllinoisNot Recommended

------------------------------------------------------
Back to "Start here for the most complete information about every 2018 Cook County judicial race"

Organizing the Data: 6th Subcircuit - Lopez Cepero Vacancy

Updated March 19, 2018
Candidates are listed in the order that they appear on the ballot in the Democratic primary; no Republican filed for this vacancy.

Linda Perez - #157



Campaign Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Tribune Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:
Linda Perez is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. Perez was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 2001 and has served as a Cook County Assistant Public Defender since her admission to the bar. Ms. Perez has had varied assignments in the Public Defender’s Office including probation, juvenile justice, traffic and specialty courts. Ms. Perez is well regarded for her excellent demeanor and possesses the requisite depth and breadth of legal knowledge and experience to serve as a Circuit Court Judge.
The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:
Linda Perez was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 2001.Since 2002, she has worked at the Cook County Public Defender’s Office, where her current title is Assistant Public Defender III. She has held positions in the Felony Trial Division (2013-2018), the Juvenile Justice Division (2012-2013, 2004), the Misdemeanor Division (2005-2012), and the Civil Child Protection Division (2002-2004).

Ms. Perez is considered to have good legal ability and has a professional demeanor. She has had a variety of experiences as an Assistant Public Defender and has defended more complex matters as part of her assignment to the Felony Trial Division for the past five years. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.
The Illinois State Bar Association says:
Linda Perez has been licensed since 2001. She is a career assistant public defender who is currently assigned to Felony Trial. She is considered to be a hard-working zealous advocate. Concerns were raised, however about her lack of recent litigation and the lack of complex litigation, as well as the depth and breadth of her total experience. Ms. Linda Perez is found to be Not Qualified for election to the Circuit Court of Cook County.
Other Bar Association Evaluations:
Asian American Bar Association of the
Greater Chicago Area
Qualified
Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater ChicagoRecommended
Cook County Bar AssociationHighly Recommended
Decalogue Society of LawyersRecommended
Hellenic Bar AssociationRecommended
Hispanic Lawyers Association of IllinoisQualified
Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of ChicagoNot Recommended
Puerto Rican Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended
Women’s Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended

Endorsements
Chicago Federation of Labor
------------------------------------------------------

Stephanie K. Miller - #158



Campaign Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Tribune Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:
Stephanie Miller is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. Miller was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1999 and is serving as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney, First Chair, in the Felony Trial Division at the Leighton Criminal Court. Ms. Miller has extensive trial and court experience and is well regarded for her knowledge of law and legal ability. Ms. Miller is dedicated to public service and is actively engaged in community and bar association work.
The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:
Hon. Stephanie K. Miller was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1999. In January 2017 the Illinois Supreme Court appointed her a Circuit Court Judge to fill the Lopez-Cepero vacancy in the 6th Judicial Subcircuit. She currently presides in Central Bond Court, and served previous assignments in traffic court, as well as misdemeanor and felony preliminary hearings courtrooms. From 2001 to 2017, she was an Assistant State’s Attorney in the Cook County State’s Attorney Office, where she worked in Juvenile Court, Preliminary Hearings, Felony Review, the Felony Trial Division, and the Sex Crimes Division. From 1999 to 2001 she was an Assistant Public Guardian in the Cook County Public Guardian’s Office.

As a lawyer, Judge Miller was considered to have good legal ability and temperament. She had a well-respected career as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office with substantial litigation experience in complex matters. She has earned praise for her work as a judge. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.
The Illinois State Bar Association says:
Stephanie K. Miller was admitted in 1999. She was appointed to the Circuit Court in 2017, and is currently assigned to Pretrial matters at the Leighton Criminal Court building. Prior to her appointment, Judge Miller spent 16 years as an assistant state's attorney prosecuting juvenile, felony and sex crimes. She has extensive criminal jury and bench trial experience, and is known for her solid legal knowledge and ability. She is considered to be professional with a good judicial temperament. She has been involved with bar association and community activities. Judge Stephanie K. Miller is found to be Qualified for election to the Circuit Court of Cook County.
Other Bar Association Evaluations:
Asian American Bar Association of the
Greater Chicago Area
Qualified
Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater ChicagoRecommended
Cook County Bar AssociationRecommended
Decalogue Society of LawyersRecommended
Hellenic Bar AssociationRecommended
Hispanic Lawyers Association of IllinoisQualified
Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of ChicagoHighly Recommended
Puerto Rican Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended
Women’s Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended

Endorsements
Chicago Tribune
IVI-IPO
Chicago NOW
Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7
Polish American Police Association

------------------------------------------------------
Back to "Start here for the most complete information about every 2018 Cook County judicial race"

Organizing the Data: 10th Subcircuit - O'Neill Burke Vacancy

Updated March 19, 2018
Updated March 14, 2018
Candidates are listed in the order that they appear on the ballot in the Democratic primary; no Republican filed for this vacancy.

Stephanie Saltouros - #151

Campaign Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Tribune Website

ILCJ Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:
Stephanie Saltouros is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. Saltouros was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1996 and served as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney for 12 years before entering private practice. Ms. Saltouros has substantial felony and misdemeanor trial experience. Ms. Saltouros is well regarded for her knowledge of the law, integrity, fine temperament, diligence, work ethic, good communication skills and punctuality.
The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:
Hon. Stephanie D. Saltouros was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1996. In September 2016 the Illinois Supreme Court appointed her as a Circuit Judge. She is currently a assigned to the First Municipal District in Cook County Circuit Court. Previously, she was a solo practitioner with a practice focused on criminal defense (2008-2016), and an Assistant Attorney in the Cook County State’s Attorney Office (1996-2008), where she prosecuted criminal and traffic cases. She is a member of the Pensions and Benefits Committee of the Illinois Judges Association.

Judge Saltouros is considered to have good legal ability. Respondents praised her as a prosecutor, a criminal defense practitioner, and as a judge. She is reported to have a professional demeanor. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.
The Illinois State Bar Association says:
Stephanie Saltouros has been licensed since 1996. She was appointed to the circuit court in September 2016 and is currently assigned to Domestic Violence. She was in private practice since 2008 until her appointment, after twelve years as an assistant state’s attorney. Her practice focused on criminal, domestic and traffic defense, and some civil work. She is considered to be very smart and quick to grasp legal issues, practical and even-tempered. Judge Stephanie Saltouros is found to be Qualified for election to the Circuit Court of Cook County.
Other Bar Association Evaluations:
Asian American Bar Association of the
Greater Chicago Area
Recommended
Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater ChicagoRecommended
Cook County Bar AssociationRecommended
Decalogue Society of LawyersRecommended
Hellenic Bar AssociationRecommended
Hispanic Lawyers Association of IllinoisHighly Qualified
Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of ChicagoHighly Recommended
Puerto Rican Bar Association of IllinoisHighly Recommended
Women’s Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended

Endorsements
Cook County Democratic Party 10th Subcircuit Committeemen
Chicago Tribune
Chicago Federation of Labor
Chicago NOW
Personal PAC
The Advocates Society (recommended)
Polish American Police Association
United Hellenic Voters of America
Recommended - Illinois Civil Justice League
------------------------------------------------------

Gwyn E. Ward Brown - #152


Campaign Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Tribune Questionnaire

ICJL Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:
Gwynn E. Ward Brown is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. Brown was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1991 and has served as a Cook County Assistant Public Defender for 26 years. Ms. Brown has extensive experience in post-convictions and appeals and possesses the requisite legal knowledge and experience to serve as a Circuit Court Judge.
The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:
Gwyn E. Ward-Brown was admitted to the Wisconsin Bar in 1989 and to the Illinois Bar in 1991. She is an Assistant Public Defender in the Cook County Public Defender’s Office.

Ms. Brown is considered to have good legal ability who is knowledgeable about her area of law. She is reported to be a mentor in her office of other lawyers. She has substantial litigation experience, although she has been handling post conviction and appellate matters for the past five years. She is praised for her temperament. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.
The Illinois State Bar Association says:
Gwyndolette E. Ward-Brown has been licensed in Illinois since 1991, in Wisconsin since 1989. She had a solo practice in Wisconsin before moving to Illinois and becoming an assistant public defender. She has been assigned for a number of years to the Legal Resources Division, handling appeals and post-conviction matters. While she is considered to be diligent and knowledgeable in her area, she has very limited jury trial experience, all dating from approximately twenty years ago. Ms. Gwyn E. Ward-Brown is found to be Not Qualified for election to the Circuit Court of Cook County.
Other Bar Association Evaluations:
Asian American Bar Association of the
Greater Chicago Area
Qualified
Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater ChicagoRecommended
Cook County Bar AssociationRecommended
Decalogue Society of LawyersNot Recommended
Hellenic Bar AssociationRecommended
Hispanic Lawyers Association of IllinoisNot Recommended
Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of ChicagoNot Recommended
Puerto Rican Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended
Women’s Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended

------------------------------------------------------

Lorraine Murphy - #153



Campaign Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Tribune Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:
Lorraine Murphy is “Not Recommended” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. Murphy was admitted to practice law in 2003 and is serving as a Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney in the Felony Trial Division at the George N. Leighton Criminal Court. Ms. Murphy was serving as a member of the Judicial Evaluation Committee when the committee began its investigative work for candidates running in the March 2018 primary. Ms. Murphy’s “Not Recommended” finding is based on Rule 17.5 of the Judicial Evaluation Committee’s governing resolution, which reads in pertinent part “…a candidate’s participation in the evaluation shall be deemed to have occurred if the candidate is still a member of the committee on the date investigation files are first distributed to investigation teams for other judicial candidates in the same primary or general election.”
The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:
Lorraine Lynnot Murphy was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 2003. She is an Assistant State’s Attorney at the Cook County State’s Attorney Office, where she currently is First Chair in a felony courtroom at the George Leighton Criminal Courthouse. She is a member of several bar associations, including the Chicago Bar Association, where she served on the Judicial Evaluation Committee.

Ms. Murphy is considered to have good legal ability. She is reported to have a good temperament and is praised for her trial skills. She has substantial experience in complex litigation matters and is currently a lead prosecutor in a felony trial courtroom. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.
The Illinois State Bar Association says:
Lorraine Murphy has been licensed since 2003. She is an assistant state’s attorney assigned to Felony Trial at the Leighton Criminal Court building. She is considered to be very accomplished attorney with substantial jury and bench trial experience and to treat all with respect. Ms. Lorraine Murphy is found to be Qualified for election to the Circuit Court of Cook County.
Other Bar Association Evaluations:
Asian American Bar Association of the
Greater Chicago Area
Qualified
Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater ChicagoNot Evaluated
Cook County Bar AssociationRecommended
Decalogue Society of LawyersRecommended
Hellenic Bar AssociationRecommended
Hispanic Lawyers Association of IllinoisQualified
Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of ChicagoHighly Recommended
Puerto Rican Bar Association of IllinoisHighly Recommended
Women’s Bar Association of IllinoisRecommended

Endorsements
Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7
IVI-IPO
------------------------------------------------------
Back to "Start here for the most complete information about every 2018 Cook County judicial race"