Organizing the Data: 8th Subcircuit - Liu Vacancy

Updated March 19, 2018
Updated March 17, 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.

Lindsay Hugé - #157

Campaign Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Tribune Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Lindsay Huge is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Huge was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1989 and has served as an Assistant Cook County Public Defender his entire career. Mr. Huge is currently assigned to the Appellate Post Conviction Unit and has written more than 137 appellate briefs and personally argued 13 cases in the Illinois Appellate Court. Mr. Huge has had bench and jury trial experience in a wide variety of criminal cases. Mr. Huge possesses a fine demeanor and temperament and is well regarded for his knowledge of the law and legal ability.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Lindsay Christopher Hugé was admitted to practice in 1989. He is a career public defender with the Cook County Public Defender’s Office. He currently serves in the Appeals, Post-Convictions, and Legal Resources section, but has served as a trial attorney, defending complex criminal actions.

Mr. Hugé is considered to have good legal ability and is praised for his knowledge of the law. He is reported to be both a good trial and appellate attorney. The Council finds him Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Lindsay Huge has been licensed since 1989. He is a career assistant public defender, currently handling appeals and post-conviction matters after spending nine years in the Felony Trial division. He has substantial criminal jury and bench trial experience, including in complex matters. He is considered to be an excellent attorney and litigator, with a deep respect for the humanity of his clients. He is thorough and mild-mannered. He participates in community activities, is a member of some bar associations, and has lectured on legal issues. Mr. Lindsay Huge 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 Chicago

Recommended

Cook County Bar Association

Not Evaluated

Decalogue Society of Lawyers

Highly Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association

Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois

Qualified

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago

Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois

Recommended

Women’s Bar Association of Illinois

Recommended

Endorsement

IVI-IPO

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

Michael A. Forti - #158

Campaign Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Tribune Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Michael A. Forti is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Forti was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1980 and has experience in both the private sector and government. Mr. Forti is an experienced lawyer well regarded for his judgment, fine demeanor, and temperament.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Hon. Michael A. Forti was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1980. In 2016, he was appointed a Circuit Judge by the Illinois Supreme Court, and is currently assigned to the Domestic Relations Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Previously he was chief counsel and ethics officer at the Illinois Department of Transportation (2012-2015); deputy corporation counsel (1999-2012) and chief assistant corporation counsel (1994-1998) for the City of Chicago Department of Law; and associate (1980-1988) and equity and income partner (1988-1994) at Bell Boyd & Lloyd (now K&L Gates), where he handled commercial litigation and antitrust counseling.

Judge Forti was considered to be a good attorney with good legal ability and temperament. As a judge, he continues to receive very positive marks. He has demonstrated his ability to handle a high volume call and is praised for his handling of pro se litigants – respectful and informative without going beyond the role of judge. The Council finds him Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Michael A. Forti has been licensed since 1980. He was appointed to the Circuit Court in 2016. Prior to his appointment, from 2012-2015, he was the chief counsel for the Illinois Department of Transportation. Earlier in his career, he was Deputy Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago Law Department, and a partner at Bell Boyd & Lloyd. Attorneys report that he has good legal knowledge, considers matters thoughtfully, is even-keeled and treats all equally. Judge Michael A. Forti 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 Chicago

Recommended

Cook County Bar Association

Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers

Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association

Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois

Qualified

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago

Not Evaluated

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois

Highly Recommended

Women’s Bar Association of Illinois

Recommended

Endorsements

Chicago Tribune
Cook County Democratic Party 8th Subcircuit Committeemen
Chicago Federation of Labor
Chicago NOW
Personal PAC
The Advocates Society (recommended)
Italian-American Political Coalition

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

Cyrus Hosseini - #159

Campaign Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Cyrus Hosseini 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:

Cyrus Hosseini did not participate in the evaluation process. The Council finds him Not Recommended for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Cyrus Hosseini declined to participate in the judicial evaluation process. Additionally, Mr. Hosseini was admitted to practice law in 2012; less than the ten years required. Pursuant to ISBA guidelines, Ms. Cyrus Hosseini 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 Chicago

Not Recommended

Cook County Bar Association

Not Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers

Not Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association

Not Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois

Not Qualified

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago

Not Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois

Not Recommended

Women’s Bar Association of Illinois

Not Recommended

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

Athena A. Farmakis - #160

Campaign Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Tribune Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Athena Farmakis is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. Farmakis was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1993 and has worked as a Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney for her entire career. Ms. Farmakis has served as a Supervisor in the Juvenile Justice and Child Protection Division and then as Supervisor of Preliminary Hearings in the Criminal Court. Ms. Farmakis has extensive trial experience and is well regarded for her work ethic, knowledge of the law, and legal ability.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Athena Aphrodite Farmakis was admitted to practice in Illinois in 1993. Since 2014, she has been the Supervisor of the Preliminary Hearings Branch at the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, where she supervises all felony cases brought before the court for a preliminary hearing. Ms. Farmakis has worked for the State’s Attorney’s Office since 1994. The majority of her experience is in the Felony Trial Division, but she also has experience in the Child Protection Division and the Juvenile Justice Division. Ms. Farmakis was formerly the Judicial Evaluation Chair and is currently the Director of the Lawyer of the Year Committee for the Hellenic Bar Association.

Ms. Farmakis is considered to have good legal ability and temperament. She is reported to be a good prosecutor who is professional and fair in her legal dealings. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Athena Farmakis was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1993. She has been a career assistant state's attorney, currently assigned as a supervisor in the Preliminary Hearings Unit of the Criminal Prosecutions Unit. She has tried numerous criminal juries as lead counsel, and is considered to have excellent legal knowledge and ability, with a good demeanor, integrity and diligence. She has been active with the Hellenic Bar Association and with animal-care organizations. Ms. Athena Farmakis 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 Chicago

Recommended

Cook County Bar Association

Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers

Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association

Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois

Highly Qualified

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago

Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois

Recommended

Women’s Bar Association of Illinois

Recommended

Endorsements

Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7
United Hellenic Voters of America

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

Organizing the Data: Countywide Rooney Vacancy

Updated March 19, 2018
Updated March 10, 2018

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

Jack Hagerty - #147

Campaign Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Tribune Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Jack J. Hagerty is “Highly Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Hagerty was admitted to practice law in 1990 and is currently practicing with a large law firm concentrating in complex civil litigation matters in state and federal court. Mr. Hagerty is highly regarded by his colleagues and adversaries for his diligence, knowledge of the law, outstanding temperament, and commitment to community.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

John Joseph Hagerty was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1990. He is a Partner at Taft Stettinius and Hollister LLP, where he represents public and privately held companies, various local government units and individuals in civil litigation matters. From 1990 to 1994, he served as an Associate at Phelan, Pope, and John Ltd., where he focused on commercial disputes.

Mr. Hagerty is a widely praised attorney with good legal ability. He has substantial litigation experience in complex matters and is reported to have excellent litigation skills. His temperament is unquestioned and many respondents commented on the respect that he shows to opposing counsel. He is active in community activities. The Council finds him Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Jack J. Hagerty was admitted to the bar in 1990. He is a partner at Taft, Stettinus and Hollister, focusing on labor, civil rights and FINRA matters. He has not litigated a jury trial to conclusion and has limited bench trial experience. He is considered to have very good legal knowledge, and to seek out creative resolutions prior to trial. He is thought of as professional, and has handled complex matters in both state and federal court. He has been active in bar association and charitable activities. Mr. Jack J. Hagerty 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 Chicago

Recommended

Cook County Bar Association

Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers

Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association

Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois

Qualified

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago

Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois

Recommended

Women’s Bar Association of Illinois

Recommended

Endorsements

Cook County Democratic Party
Chicago Federation of Labor
Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7
Chicago NOW
Personal PAC
Italian American Political Coalition

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

Mable Taylor - #148

No Campaign Website known

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Mable Taylor is “Not Recommended” for the office of Associate Judge. Ms. Taylor was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1994 and since her admission has been a sole practitioner concentrating in criminal, personal injury, wrongful death, workers’ compensation, probate, election, and family law matters. Ms. Taylor does not possess the requisite legal knowledge to effectively serve as an Associate Judge.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Mable Taylor did not participate in the evaluation process. The Council finds her Not Recommended for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Mable Taylor declined to participate in the judicial evaluation process. Pursuant to ISBA guidelines, Ms. Taylor 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 Chicago

Not Recommended

Cook County Bar Association

Not Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers

Not Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association

Not Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois

Not Qualified

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago

Not Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois

Not Recommended

Women’s Bar Association of Illinois

Not Recommended

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

Organizing the Data: Countywide Hartigan Vacancy

Updated March 10, 2018

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

Cecilia Anne Horan - #139

Campaign Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Tribune Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Cecilia A. Horan is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. Horan was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1997 and is currently a partner at Hinshaw & Culbertson. Ms. Horan has worked with the Hinshaw firm her entire career and concentrates in complex tort litigation and insurance defense matters. Ms. Horan is well versed in the law and has had substantial litigation experience. Ms. Horan is active in the legal profession and possesses all the requisite qualifications to serve as a Circuit Court Judge.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Hon. Cecilia A. Horan was admitted to the Illinois bar in November, 1997. She was appointed to the bench by the Illinois Supreme Court. Before taking the bench, she was a partner at Hinshaw & Culbertson, where she spent most of her career as a lawyer. Her practice concentrated on tort litigation, including personal injury, premises liability, product liability and insurance claims coverage. As a lawyer, Judge Horan was considered to have good legal ability and has experience with more complex litigation matters. She was praised for her temperament both in court and in dealing with opposing counsel. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Cecelia Horan has been licensed since 1997. She was appointed to the Circuit Court in January, 2017, and is currently assigned to the Municipal Department, First District, Traffic Section. Prior to her appointment, Judge Horan was a partner at Hinshaw & Culbertson, focusing on tort litigation, and she also handled some appeals. She is considered to be an excellent trial attorney, who handles complex cases, and to be a good listener. She has participated in bar association activities, and is the president of the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago. Judge Cecilia A. Horan 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 Chicago

Recommended

Cook County Bar Association

Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers

Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association

Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois

Qualified

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago

Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois

Recommended

Women’s Bar Association of Illinois

Recommended

Endorsements

Chicago Tribune
Cook County Democratic Party
Chicago Federation of Labor
Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7
The Advocates Society (recommended)
Polish American Police Association

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

Keith L. Spence - #140

Campaign Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Tribune Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Keith L. Spence is “Not Recommended” for the office of Associate Judge. Mr. Spence was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1999 and is currently a sole practitioner concentrating in family law, criminal and real estate law. Mr. Spence’s failure to disclose personal litigation along with concerns about his diligence, punctuality, knowledge of the law, and legal ability resulted in a “Not Recommended” finding. Mr. Spence needs to address these concerns.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Keith L. Spence was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1999. Since 2001, he has been a solo practitioner with a focus on criminal defense, domestic relations, and real estate. Previously, he was an Administrative Hearing Officer for the Village of Dolton, IL (2006-2012) and a trial attorney for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1999-2000).

Mr. Spence has had a long career as a lawyer, but the Council is concerned that he does not have substantial litigation experience in more complex matters. Some respondents also reported that he can have problems with punctuality, and some respondents – particularly women – are concerned about his temperament, including a lack of cooperation and a patronizing attitude. The Council finds him Not Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Keith L. Spence was admitted in 1999. He is a solo practitioner focusing on criminal defense, domestic relations, and municipal law, and an administrative law judge for the Village of Matteson. He is a former attorney for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and a former administrative law judge for the Village of Dolton. Attorneys contacted during the investigation had very divergent opinions on his qualifications. Some reported that he was very professional with adequate legal knowledge, others reported that he is not diligent, is uncooperative and does not have a good demeanor. Concerns were also raised about the lack of complexity of the matters he handles. In addition, the poor quality of the answers he submitted to the Alliance questionnaire raised questions about his overall diligence. Mr. Keith L. Spence 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

Not Recommended

Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago

Recommended

Cook County Bar Association

Not Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers

Not Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association

Not Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois

Not Qualified

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago

Not Evaluated

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois

Not Recommended

Women’s Bar Association of Illinois

Recommended

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

Organizing the Data: Countywide Clay Vacancy

Updated March 10, 2018

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

Kathaleen Therresa Lanahan - #126

Campaign Website

Law Bulletin Question

Tribune Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Kathaleen T. Lanahan is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. Lanahan was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1993 and has served as a Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney for 23 ½ years. Ms. Lanahan has extensive jury and non-jury trial experience. Ms. Lanahan is well regarded for her work ethic, fine demeanor, fairness, knowledge of the law, and legal ability.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Kathaleen T. Lanahan was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1993. She is a Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney, where she is a first chair felony trial assistant, and whose responsibilities include prosecuting homicide cases. Prior to her work at the State’s Attorney Office, she was an analyst at the Cook County Board of Real Estate Appeals (1993-1994).

Ms. Lanahan is considered to have good legal ability and has substantial litigation experience across a variety of criminal prosecution matters. She is praised for her trial skills and for her temperament and honesty as a prosecutor. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Kathaleen Theresa Lanahan was admitted in 1993. She is a career assistant state's attorney who is currently assigned to handle felony trials. She has substantial criminal jury and bench trial experience. Attorneys consider her to be knowledgeable, fair, even-keeled and thorough with sound reasoning. Ms. Kathaleen Theresa Lanahan 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 Chicago

Recommended

Cook County Bar Association

Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers

Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association

Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois

Qualified

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago

Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois

Recommended

Women’s Bar Association of Illinois

Recommended

Endorsements

Chicago Tribune
Italian American Political Coalition

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

Jonathan Clark Green - #127

Campaign Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Tribune Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Jonathan Clark Green is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Green was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1986 and is currently Senior Counsel in the Federal Civil Rights Litigation Division in the City of Chicago’s Law Department. Mr. Green is well rounded in the law and has had extensive experience in complex legal matters. Mr. Green is hardworking, passionate about the law, and well regarded by his peers and adversaries for his outstanding demeanor, knowledge of the law and legal ability.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Jonathan C. Green was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1986. He is senior counsel/supervisor of the Department of Law at the City of Chicago, Federal Civil Rights Litigation Division, where is responsible for all aspects of civil rights and torts legislation. From 2003 to 2013, he worked as a principal of the Law Offices of Green and Green, P.C., and of counsel at Rock, Fusco & Garvey Ltd. At both firms his practice included domestic and international civil litigation, including business and construction litigation, real estate and commercial transactions, and international law.

Mr. Green is viewed by many respondents as knowledgeable about substantive and procedural law with good legal ability. To these lawyers, he is a solid practitioner. Most respondents report that he has a good temperament. In general, he has had an impressive legal career with substantial litigation experience in more complex matters. The Council finds him Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Jonathan Clark Green was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1986. His varied career has included stints in private practice; practicing business law in Belgium; positions with the Illinois House Democrats and the Illinois Attorney General; and a position with the American Society of International Law. He is currently Senior Counsel/Supervisor Federal Civil Rights Litigation for the City of Chicago Law Department. Some attorneys contacted during the investigation reported that he is capable, competent, civil and fair; a few expressed concerns over ongoing discovery issues in federal court in civil rights cases with the city Law Department, and his role and responsibility concerning those issues. He has handled several civil juries as lead counsel. He is active with several bar associations, does some teaching, and participates in some community organizations. Mr. Jonathan Clark Green 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 Chicago

Recommended

Cook County Bar Association

Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers

Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association

Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois

Qualified

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago

Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois

Recommended

Women’s Bar Association of Illinois

Recommended

Endorsements

Cook County Democratic Party
Chicago Federation of Labor
The Advocates Society (endorsed)
Chicago NOW
Polish American Police Association

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

Michael I. O'Malley - #128

Campaign Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Tribune Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Michael I. O’Malley is “Not Recommended” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. O’Malley was admitted to practice law in 2005 and has served as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney for 10 ½ years. Mr. O’Malley is currently assigned to the Civil Division, but has had criminal bench and jury trial experience and experience in handling financial crimes. Mr. O’Malley is a CPA and prior to his admission to the bar worked in the banking industry. Mr. O’Malley is knowledgeable and has good practice experience. The Committee believes that additional practice experience will better prepare him for service as a circuit court judge.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Michael O’Malley was admitted to practice in 2005. He serves as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney in the Civil Bureau. From 2013 to 2015 he was in the Special Prosecutions Bureau. He has worked in the Criminal Prosecutions Bureau and in the Child Support Unit. He is considered to have good legal ability. He is reported to have a good knowledge of the laws and has substantial litigation-related experience. He is praised for his temperament and for his litigation skills. The Council finds him Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Michael I. O’Malley was admitted to practice in 2005. He works for the State’s Attorney’s Office in the Civil Bureau. He has been assigned to several different areas of his office and has handled cases involving complex financial crimes. He has substantial litigation experience and has good legal knowledge and a professional demeanor. Mr. Michael I. O’Malley 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 Chicago

Recommended

Cook County Bar Association

Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers

Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association

Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois

Qualified

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago

Not Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois

Recommended

Women’s Bar Association of Illinois

Recommended

Endorsement

Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7

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

Lori Ann Roper - #129

Campaign Website (newly added)

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Tribune Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluations

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Lori A. Roper is “Not Recommended” for the office of Associate Judge. Ms. Roper was admitted to the practice of law in Illinois in 1994. Ms. Roper has a fine demeanor and is a skilled lawyer. However, the candidate failed to disclose a number of creditor lawsuits against her, as well as detailed listings of bench trials.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Lori Ann Roper was admitted to practice in 1994. She is a career Assistant Cook County Public Defender. She is assigned to 26th and California where she is an Attorney Supervisor. She has held various positions as an Assistant Public Defender. Ms. Roper has substantial litigation experience in a variety of complex criminal law matters. She advises other Assistant Public Defenders on litigation strategies, and is considered to be an excellent lawyer. She is reported to have a professional and low key temperament. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Lori Ann Roper declined to participate in the judicial evaluation process. Pursuant to ISBA guidelines, Ms. Lori Ann Roper 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

Qualified

Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago

Recommended

Cook County Bar Association

Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers

Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association

Not Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois

Qualified

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago

Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois

Not Recommended

Women’s Bar Association of Illinois

Recommended

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

The truly pernicious effect of collateral fee cases

Like a lot of you, I'm sure, I've spent the past six weeks hacking and wheezing with various degrees of severity, rallying occasionally, as (thankfully) on Christmas Eve, but falling apart before and after.

As a solo practitioner, I have had more freedom than most to work from home while battling this plague. When I have had to come downtown, I've chosen to drive. Al Gore might be displeased, but anyone who might otherwise have been forced to sit beside me on the Blue Line---red-eyed, bleary, dabbing at drips of one kind or another---would probably absolve me. I have yet to try out my new Ventra card.

If that sounds like virtue-signaling (am I using that right?) keep in mind that while I have been heroically saving CTA passengers from my own sniffling and snorting, I have also been quite consciously avoiding theirs....

During my semi-confinement, I have had occasion to watch a lot of early local news broadcasts. And, while the political commercials are starting to crowd them out, even in my enfeebled condition, I have been unable to ignore the fact that a great many sponsors of the early evening newscasts are personal injury lawyers.

The taglines are all similar: If you don't win, we don't get paid! Or, putting an even more positive spin on it: We don't get paid unless you do! The word 'contingent' is never used but, of course, contingent fee arrangements are what these TV-spokeslawyers are touting.

If you've clicked here hoping for a nice screed against 'greedy trial lawyers,' I'm afraid I must disappoint. If there are some abuses (and there are), the contingent fee arrangement in personal injury cases usually serves the laudable purpose of getting representation for and, sometimes, compensation to persons who could not otherwise hope to afford a lawyer. And, while it's true, as the Judicial Hellhole folks charge, that there are some personal injury lawyers who rake in millions and millions from the misfortunes of their fellow human beings, that is only because these superior lawyers, through hard work and expertise, and demonstrated good results, have conditioned their fellow lawyers to bring them only the most substantial cases, from which they may pick and choose, and be quite picky about it. In short, the really good PI lawyers have any number of number 1 draft picks, and they hardly ever take Ryan Leaf. One might be sometimes jealous of their success---one can hardly be human otherwise---but the miniscule elite atop the PI pyramid have earned their wealth and fame.

And then there's the rest of us.

For most personal injury lawyers, including the TV pitchmen, a contingent fee case is by no means a sure thing. In one case, a settlement might make the lawyer a seemingly handsome hourly rate -- but the fee from the next file on the shelf, prorated over the hours expended, might not amount to minimum wage. And there are cases that seem so full of promise when the lawyer signs them up, only to learn that the clients were less than candid about this or that and the resulting fee---just like in the television commercials---turns out to be nothing at all. It seems counterintuitive, but a contingent fee lawyer's best, hardest, or most creative work often results in the least remuneration.

And then there's the fact that a lot of us lawyers don't work for contingent fees.

At least, not on purpose.

Although you'd never know it from the TV commercials, the contingent fee arrangement is not appropriate in a great many types of cases. In domestic relations and criminal cases, contingent fees are entirely prohibited. (See, Rule 1.5(d) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.)

Except sometimes in collection matters, you hardly ever see contingent fee arrangements in business cases. Smith insists that Jones breached his contract and they resolve to fight the matter out in court. All well and good -- but, if they attempt to 'lawyer up,' Smith and Jones will both have to pay their respective attorneys by the hour -- or at least pursuant to some non-contingent arrangement. And, generally, corporations cannot appear in court except through an attorney.

There really is no such thing as a contingent fee defense. If Smith sues Jones for a million dollars and loses, Jones's lawyer doesn't get a third of what Smith didn't get. Can you imagine? Jones's lawyer tells Smith's lawyer afterwards... next time sue for $10 million; we'll split my fee and both retire?

And yet... the contingent fee has become so deeply embedded in the the public consciousness (thanks to the steady drumbeat of TV commercials) that people -- and, by 'people' I mean clients, as opposed to lawyers, although leading scientists insist that lawyers are people, too -- start to think that if they don't win their case, or if they don't win their case fast enough, they can stop paying their lawyer. If you don't win, the thinking seems to go, you're not getting paid.

And clients can be pretty impatient. After all, on television, the thorniest legal problems are usually wrapped up in 40 minutes or less, exclusive of credits and commercials.

All lawyers know this; some exploit it.

The TV pitchmen sometimes warn that insurance companies will stall and delay unless you, the injured viewer, has the good sense to sign up with the firm running the ad. But some lawyers---any is too many, if you ask me---will use discovery to stall (and bleed) the party on the other side who's paying for representation from his or her own pocket.

Have you ever seen a bullfight?

The matador does not fight the bull one on one; he does not go for the kill right away. He relies on picadors and banderilleros to poke and jab and bleed the bull, softening it up before the matador dares the killing stroke. Similarly, the unscrupulous attorney does not go for the merits of a case right away; written discovery, depositions, discovery motions, are all jabbed into the uninsured client's hide, softening the opponent for a low-ball settlement or even an unfair dismissal.

The bull is unrepresented, and must die at the end of the bullfight. The uninsured, but represented, client, paying from his or her pocket, has a chance to avoid the bull's fate, but too often the client's good judgment, bled by unnecessary (but tactical) discovery, becomes clouded. The lawyer's fee may slide from a debt of honor to contingent status.

We can almost never wrap up real-world legal dilemmas in 40 minutes. But we can involve the court more intimately in the discovery process -- requiring the court to decide what discovery may be propounded in the first place, not waiting until a dispute arises and then, perhaps unfairly, settling it.

I call this zero-based discovery. (You can read more about this by following the link. I hope you will.)

Zero-based discovery could help clients avoid the legal fatigue that comes from being bled by discovery -- and help their attorneys get paid in a timely, as opposed to improperly contingent, manner.

The night I bothered Mike Royko at the Billy Goat

The entry of Tom Sam Sianis, a member of the family that owns the Billy Goat Taverns, into the forthcoming judicial primary reminds me of my favorite Billy Goat story....

I was a big fan of Mike Royko from a very young age. I'll pause here while any Millennials in the audience decide if the unfamiliar name is worth a Google.

(Are we ready to move on, kids?)

It was a rite of passage when, as a first year law student, I could pick up my very own copy of the Daily News on my way to the 4:42 express train, where I’d sit next to my father and nod off, just like nearly everyone else in the car – but never, in my case, before reading Royko’s column.

The Daily News didn’t make it all the way through my first year of law school.

My law school extracurricular was Blackacre, the Loyola Law School newspaper. It was where old Loyola Phoenix editors went to die. I was never the editor of the Phoenix, but I was on the editorial board during my undergraduate years. I would eventually become co-editor of Blackacre along with my old Phoenix colleague, Phil Zukowsky.

Although we would usually slake our thirsts at Pippins or whatever they were calling Streeter’s Tavern in those days, Phil and I would occasionally venture south on, and under, Michigan Avenue to the original Billy Goat Tavern. We’d have a drink or two and read the walls and hope to run into Mike Royko. We didn’t.

Fast forward to the late 1980s: Royko had moved to the Tribune. Zukowsky was well on his way to becoming one of the leading lights of the tax bar of Dayton, Ohio. I was no longer taking express trains; I’d married and bought a house in Norwood Park. I was working in an insurance defense practice. I was only writing motions in those days, or discovery responses. But when Phil came through Chicago on this particular occasion, we decided to revisit the Billy Goat.

I don’t remember who spotted Royko first but, as I recall, Phil had more sense than to bother a legend taking his ease. I didn’t. No doubt a tad more eloquent than usual (after a couple of drinks) I intruded upon the great man and his companion, introducing myself and professing my sincere appreciation for his work.

Mr. Royko was unimpressed.

I think gruff and crusty were his default attitudes. I think my intrusion brought him down a couple of notches from there.

I don’t remember all the exact words used – if he included a profanity or two it was certainly his right, given that I was interrupting his evening – but the one thing I do remember, clearly, was that he called me a “yuppie.”

Yuppie was a fighting word insofar as I was concerned. I live in Chicago, I responded angrily, I have three kids (this puts the encounter somewhere between the Fall of 1987 and the Fall of 1989), I drive a Plymouth K-car – with a stick shift – and I do not own a pasta maker!

Roughly 30 years later, I can better imagine what must have been going through Royko’s mind: How can I make this crazy person go away? But, at the time, I thought his reply a complete vindication: “OK, kid, you’re not a yuppie.”

And Royko got what he no doubt wanted as well: I went away.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For more (and no doubt better) about Mr. Royko, and other things, consider this Neil Steinberg blog post from 2016. Steinberg re-ran the post this morning.

Solving the Pro Se Revolution, and putting lawyers back to work, too

The October 2017 issue of the Illinois Bar Journal features an article by Ed Finkel, "The Pro Se Revolution," concerning the May 2017 Strategic Plan issued by the Supreme Court's Commission on Access to Justice.

There have always been pro se litigants. In days of yore, it seemed like pro ses were mostly party plaintiffs, rumpled men or women with piercing stares and unshakable confidence in the merits of the most dubious cases. As a young lawyer, I knew, when arriving for a Law Division morning motion call, that if three or four deputy sheriffs were present, there was a pro se case on the call that day.

But if there are still pro se litigants like this, and there are, they are far outnumbered, these days, by normal, average people who simply can't afford, or who believe they can't afford, legal representation. From Mr. Finkel's article:

Data from the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts ("AOIC") show that in 2015, nearly two-thirds of total civil cases outside Cook County - 65.2 percent - had at least one self-represented litigant. For certain types of cases, this figure rises as high as 80 percent. In addition, the court system is facing the facts that one out of five Illinois residents speaks a language other than English at home according to U.S. Census data, the number of Illinois residents below the poverty line has grown, and the number of pro bono attorneys has not kept pace.

Finkel quotes Appellate Court Justice Mary K. Rochford, who chairs the ATJ Commission, as saying "people cannot afford legal representation for many reasons beyond our control, and often parts of our state do not have enough legal aid attorneys - and legal aid attorneys are facing their own economic issues.... Our focus is on how we can help the self-represented litigant navigate the court system, and have a full opportunity to present their claims and defenses. We wish everybody could afford a lawyer."

There is a way.

But it will take a lot more than merely streamlining existing procedures.

Why have legal services been priced beyond the reach of so many civil litigants?

In a word, discovery. Largely unfettered, "routine" discovery grossly inflates the cost of any litigation. Frequently deployed as a strategic weapon -- the pious admonitions against this practice in the cases notwithstanding -- discovery too often bleeds an opponent into either submission or bankruptcy.

The word discovery appears twice in the ATJ's Strategic Report, first at page 2 of the Executive Summary:

If more than half of the users of the civil court system are unrepresented by counsel, is it still feasible to require strict adherence to rules of civil procedure, discovery, and evidence?

The second and final appearance of the word comes at p. 27 of the Report, under Initiative 5, concerning the possible simplification or streamlining of existing court processes. The Commission report notes that, in civil cases in which less than $10,000 is sought, the Illinois Supreme Court has, by rule, done away with discovery except as permitted by court order (Supreme Court Rules 281-289), and in other cases, in which less than $50,000 is sought, imposed some limitations on "routine" discovery (Supreme Court Rule 222).

These rules are on the books now and the pro se crisis is growing. The ATJ Commission "proposes to gather information about simplification efforts in Illinois and in other jurisdictions, with the goal of evaluating the potential benefits of such efforts in additional areas of law" (p. 27).

But further nibbling at the edges of the monster that is unfettered discovery will prove unavailing.

What is required is a fundamental shift in the attitude of judges and lawyers toward discovery. We need to go back to the future.

In Lincoln's day, a lawyer seeking discovery in a tort or contract case had to file a separate chancery action, a bill of discovery, in order to -- possibly -- obtain discovery. We don't need to go back to that model exactly.

But we do need to make judges the gatekeepers -- skeptical gatekeepers -- as to what sort of discovery may be allowed in any case. I call this zero-based discovery.

Right now, discovery is supposed to take place largely off stage. The filing of discovery requests and discovery responses is actually prohibited (Supreme Court Rule 201(m)). The success of discovery depends on the cooperation of counsel (or counsel and any self-represented parties). In other words, it is a system that too often fails on contact with unhappy reality.

When it comes to discovery matters, judges are like parents driving kids on a long-distance trip. Discovery is what goes on in the back seat -- and when the inevitable squabbling takes place, judges don't know who started it, or why, but they need it to stop, and stop now! Order was usually restored when Mom or Dad threatened to pull over, but justice was not necessarily served. So it is with discovery disputes.

On the other hand, the judge who agrees that certain interrogatories will advance the conclusion of case for either trial or settlement, and who agrees on the formulation of those interrogatories, has an expectation of what will be asked and how it will be answered. The discovery manipulator who is never satisfied with any response will be cut off quickly when the allegedly offending party shows that he or she has met the court's expectations.

I know that many of my colleagues may blanch at the prospect of so limiting discovery. Discovery is often the chief means for associates to bill hours -- and fuel partner bonuses. And senior partners, at mid- or big-sized firms, are riding in the front seat along with the judges when it comes to discovery matters: They're often not paying attention to what goes on in the back seat either... unless one of their associates gets sanctioned.

But, even with zero-based discovery, judges would not always have to say no to discovery: When big firms, representing well-heeled clients, want to go after each other a bit, jostling for advantage, it's common sense not to get between them. But the judge who turns the lawyers loose on each other will have an expectation of what will emerge from the joust before it begins. Meanwhile, in most cases, the cost of litigation could come down -- way down -- with judges asking simple questions about why this deposition is necessary, or what a party expects to find in her opponent's documents. Imagine being the judge who, for the first time ever, gets to ask why a party needs his opponent to identify "with particularity, each and every data or document source" that opponent has "searched in responding to" a proposed production request. Imagine a judge sitting down with the parties at the outset of a case, asking what do you need, plaintiff, to prove your case that you don't already have? What do you need, defendant, to establish your defense, that you don't already have? What are the most efficient ways to get what you need?

Bring down the cost of litigation, bring back employment opportunities for lawyers. With zero-based discovery, maybe everybody can afford a lawyer. Less lawyers answering discovery... but more handling cases? That increases access to justice, does it not?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For more on zero-based discovery, see:

• Reforming civil discovery – Part 1 – the problem of human nature;
• Reforming civil discovery – Part 2 – preserve the civil justice system by adopting zero-based discovery;
• Reforming civil discovery – Part 3 – how zero-based discovery can work; and
• Reforming civil discovery – Part 4 – one more post on zero-based discovery

Lost in the translation?

I tweet out links to most of my page one posts. It seems to have helped build traffic on my site and, apparently, some blog readers get alerts when I tweet; that way, they know for sure when they click over there will be at least one new post to read. I don't understand how any of this works, really; then again, my ignorance of how the Twitter-realm works is unlikely to trigger a nuclear exchange with North Korea. So I've got that going for me.

But then there are mornings like this one. I put up a post. I lined up the next couple of posts that must go up soon -- just as soon as I do a little legal work -- and I answered a few blog-related emails and put up the tweet that you see in the above image.

I thought the tweet was rather straightforward and written in plain, if pedestrian, English.

Twitter, apparently, thought otherwise. That can be the only explanation for the "Translate from Danish" button thoughtfully added by the folks at Twitter. I didn't have the heart to see what the 'translation' might be. All I can say is uff da!

For those who came in late: Why I cover judicial stuff on my blog

I first ran for judge so long ago that Ed Vrdolyak and the late Ty Wansley were still holding down the afternoon drive slot on WLS-AM.

The reference is not a random one. In the run-up to the 1994 primary, Vrdolyak and Wansley encouraged down-ballot candidates (including judicial candidates, who are always at the very bottom of the ballot) to call in and make their pitch to the voters.

I called.

In an article written for the 1994 Law Day edition of the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (optimistically---and inaccurately!---titled, "A neophyte learns what it takes to run for judge"), I recounted what happened next:

I waited two hours on hold only to have Wansley ask me how, if elected, I would make him feel safer.

A good politician might take this kind of a question and give a wholly unrelated, self-serving answer. I, on the other hand, had a self-destructive tendency to be literal....

I finally started stammering out something about how, as a new judge, I'd wind up in Traffic Court... and my answer kind of went downhill from there.

[Aside to the general public: Judges shouldn't make you feel safer, and they shouldn't promise to. Judges have to follow the law. In a given case, that might mean that a dangerous felon is removed from the streets. In another, as Cardozo famously said, "The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered" (People v. Defore, 242 N.Y. 13, 21, 150 N.E. 585 (1926)). In a great many cases, probably most of them, the judge following the law ultimately means that somebody has to pay money. Or not. You want to feel safer? Buy a home security system.]

Anyway, I was awful at these 'beauty contest' questions---I still am, unless I have the time to think up a decent answer---but that was only one of my many defects as a candidate.

There are a host of other, better reasons why I lost: I was unslated. I was unknown. I didn't have a lot of money. What money I had, I spent badly (although, to be honest, even though I failed to include my punch number, I still think the billboards looked pretty snazzy). I have a terrible ballot name, made all the worse by my decision to appear on the ballot as Francis J. "Jack" Leyhane III. Ye gods and little fishes: Has a ballot name ever looked more pretentious than that? (Probably not in the 10th Subcircuit, I'll warrant.)

I was the Bob Uecker of judicial candidates. And I probably owe apologies to Mr. Uecker for making that analogy.

About the only thing I did right was to qualify for the ballot. I didn't know beans about politics (and I'm still several beans short of a casserole, I realize) but I was a decent lawyer. I could look stuff up. That -- and the fact that Jim Roche was one of my partners, and one of his ex-partners was election law expert Burt Odelson. So, let's be honest, I got lucky there (Burt asked one of his partners, Mat Delort, to do my petitions; yes, that's the same guy now sitting on the Appellate Court).

And, for all these many faults, I was arguably a "good" candidate -- at least I was rated qualified or recommended by all the bar associations.

As a practicing lawyer, I want only good candidates to become judges.

Like every lawyer (like every litigant) I want all judges to rule in my favor all the time. That's not possible, of course. Even Perry Mason lost three cases (at least he lost them temporarily). But if I can't win every case I take, I want the outcomes of the cases I do take on to be as predictable as possible: If I have correctly looked up the law, I should be able to tell, right from the start, where I will wind up. And if I haven't correctly understood the law, I want to learn something from the experience. I want the court to explain to me, so I can explain to my disappointed client, why we failed to prevail.

Even this is not possible, of course, but I want to move ever further in the direction of predictability and certainty in case results -- and good, competent, honest, smart, hard-working judges are necessary to bring that vision to life.

So I have a selfish motive.

And I also have another motive: I don't want future judicial candidates to stumble around as blindly as I did in 1994 (and 1996 -- but that's a story for a different day). I want judicial candidates to be able to get their names and their credentials and their messages out to the public. I want the public to have a place to go to find out about judicial candidates. I want to put to rest the stale nostrum that even interested voters can't find out anything about judicial candidates.

I never imagined, 10 years now into this project, that I'd still be one of the only ones doing this. I thought surely others would come along by now who would leave my amateurish journalistic efforts in the dust.

But here I am. Still. And here you are. Welcome. And thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're really new here, you might not realize most of the judicial stuff is on page one of this blog. Well, I consider it page one. Blogger calls the site that you're visiting now an entirely different blog from For What It's Worth. But now you know differently.