Organizing the Data: 6th Subcircuit - Pantle vacancy

Updated March 16, 2020
Updated March 14, 2020
Updated March 12, 2020

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

Eileen Marie O'Connor - #233

Candidate Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluation Narratives

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Eileen O’Connor is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. O’Connor was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 2006 and concentrates her practice in personal injury law. Ms. O’Connor has had extensive trial and practice experience. Ms. O’Connor is well regarded for her knowledge of the law, work ethic, legal ability, and fine demeanor.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Eileen Marie O’Connor was admitted to practice in 2006. She specializes in civil litigation and has worked in several private law firms. Her focus is in personal injury, medical malpractice, product liability, railroad and construction negligence, workplace injuries, and civil rights matters. She has handled other cases including criminal law on child abuse matters pro bono. She is considered to have good legal ability and is praised as being hard-working. She has substantial motion practice in more complex legal matters. She is considered to have a good temperament and to be diligent and punctual. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Eileen O’Connor was admitted to the Illinois bar in 2006. She is a partner in her family’s law practice, O’Connor Law Group, where she handles civil litigation, primarily in the areas of personal injury, medical malpractice and civil rights. She has been a speaker on legal topics, a committee member with the Chicago Bar Association and is active in her community.

She has civil jury and bench trial experience in both state and federal court, and significant pre-trial motion practice. Attorneys consider her professional, level-headed and prepared. ISBA finds Ms. Eileen O’Connor qualified to serve as a judge to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Other Bar Association Evaluations

Arab American Bar Association: Recommended

Asian American Bar Association: Qualified

Black Women Lawyers' Association: Recommended

Cook County Bar Association: Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers: Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois: Recommended

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago: Highly Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Women's Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Endorsements

Chicago Federation of Labor
AMVOTE PAC
Indo-American Democratic Organization
47th Ward Democratic Organization
30th Ward Regular Democratic Organization
26th Ward Democratic Organization
Chicago NOW PAC
Personal PAC
Advocates Society (Recommended)

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

Cory Eli Oshita - #234

Campaign Website

Bar Association Evaluation Narratives

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Cory Eli Oshita is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Oshita was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 2008 and is currently engaged in private practice concentrating in domestic relations and family law matters. Mr. Oshita also served as a hearing officer for the Chicago Board of Education. Mr. Oshita is an experienced practitioner well regarded for his knowledge of the law, legal ability, work ethic, fine temperament, and calm demeanor.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Cory Oshita was admitted to practice in 2008. He has been a sole practitioner since 2011 with a focus on domestic relations case. He also serves as an administrative hearing officer for the Chicago Board of Education. He was an attorney in a small firm between 2008 and 2010. Mr. Oshita is considered to have good legal ability and is praised for his knowledge of domestic relations law. He is reported to be diligent and have a very good demeanor. He has bench trial litigation experience. While the candidate is well respected as a lawyer, the Council is concerned about the depth and breadth of his practice, particularly in light of the relatively small number of years that he has been a lawyer. The Council finds him Not Qualified at this time.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Cory Eli Oshita was admitted to the Illinois bar in 2008. After two years as an associate with Richard C. Irvin, in 2011 he opened a solo practice focusing on domestic relations and some criminal defense. He is also a hearing officer for the Chicago Board of Education. He is a member of several bar associations and is active in the community.

While he is considered to be knowledgeable in his area of family law with an excellent demeanor, concerns were raised over his limited practice area and his lack of jury and complex trial experience. ISBA finds Mr. Cory Eli Oshita not qualified to serve as a judge to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Other Bar Association Evaluations

Arab American Bar Association: Recommended

Asian American Bar Association: Not evaluated through no fault of candidate

Black Women Lawyers' Association: Not Recommended

Cook County Bar Association: Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers: Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois: Recommended

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago: Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Women's Bar Association of Illinois: Not Recommended

Endorsement

New 26th Ward Independent Democratic Party

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

Anthony Lucafo - #235

Campaign Website

Bar Association Evaluation Narratives

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Anthony Lucafo is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Lucafo was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 2006 and has served as a Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney his entire career. Mr. Lucafo is currently assigned to the Felony Trial Division in the Criminal Court. Mr. Lucafo has extensive trial experience and has taught trial advocacy and juvenile law to law students. Mr. Lucafo is highly regarded for his knowledge of criminal law, trial skills, and excellent temperament.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Anthony Lucafo was admitted to practice in 2006. He is an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney currently assigned to the Felony Trial Division at the Leighton Criminal Courts Building. He is described as a trial attorney who has good legal ability and temperament, He has substantial litigation experience in more complex matters and is praised for being willing to help train younger prosecutors. The Council finds him Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Anthony Lucafo has been licensed since 2006. He is a career assistant state’s attorney currently assigned to the Sexual Assault/Domestic Violence Unit. Prior assignments include Felony Review, Juvenile Justice and First Municipal. He has taught as IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law and is a member of the Justinian Society.

Attorneys praised his trial skills and described him as well-versed in the law, prepared and fair to all. He has criminal jury and bench trial experience including complex matters. ISBA finds Mr. Anthony Lucafo qualified to serve as a judge to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Other Bar Association Evaluations

Arab American Bar Association: Not evaluated through no fault of the candidate

Asian American Bar Association: Qualified

Black Women Lawyers' Association: Recommended

Cook County Bar Association: Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers: Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois: Recommended

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago: Highly Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois: Highly Recommended

Women's Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Endorsement

Chicago Tribune

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

Back to "Start here for the most complete information about every 2020 Cook County judicial race"

Organizing the Data: Countywide Funderburk vacancy

Updated March 14, 2020
Updated March 12, 2020

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

Jacqueline Marie Griffin - #191

Campaign Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluation Narratives

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Jacqueline Marie Griffin is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. Griffin was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 2005 and has served as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney her entire career. Ms. Griffin is currently a trial attorney in the Sex Assault and Domestic Violence Unit in the Felony Trial Division. Ms. Griffin has extensive criminal and civil trial experience and is well regarded for her knowledge of the law, fairness, and fine demeanor.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Jacqueline M. Griffin was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 2005. Since that time, she has been an Assistant State’s Attorney in the Cook County State’s Attorney Office, She is currently assigned to the Sex Assault and Domestic Violence Unit of the Felony Trial Division. Since 2007, she has also been a Solo Practitioner with a focus on wills and real estate transactions.

Ms. Griffin is considered to have good legal ability and temperament. She has substantial litigation experience in more complex matters, The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Jacqueline Marie Griffin was admitted to the Illinois bar in 2005. She is a career assistant state’s attorney, currently assigned to the Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Unit after previous assignment in Juvenile Justice and Child Support. She has lectured students through the Lawyers in the Classroom program.

She has jury and bench trial experience and has handled complex matters. Attorneys report that she is diligent, punctual, respectful, and has good character and integrity. ISBA finds Ms. Jacqueline Marie Griffin qualified to serve as a judge to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Other Bar Association Evaluations

Arab American Bar Association: Recommended

Asian American Bar Association: Not evaluated through no fault of the candidate

Black Women Lawyers' Association: Recommended

Cook County Bar Association: Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers: Not Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois: Recommended

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago: Not Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Women's Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Endorsements

Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7
Italian American Police Association
Citizens in Action for Better Government
Advocates Society (Recommended)

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

Daniel L. Collins - #192

Campaign Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluation Narratives

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Danny Collins is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Collins was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1998 and is engaged in private practice concentrating in workers’ compensation, administrative hearings, and appeals. Mr. Collins has an excellent demeanor and possesses the requisite depth and breadth of experience to serve as a Circuit Court Judge.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Daniel L. Collins was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1998. Since 2014, he has been President and Solo Proprietor of the Dan Collins Law Firm, where he handles worker compensation, business, and employment litigation. He also handled worker compensation litigation at Krol, Bongiorno, and Given, where he was an Associate from 2003 to 2014. From 1999 to 2003, he was an Assistant State’s Attorney at the Cook County State’s Attorney Office, where he tried preliminary hearing and misdemeanor cases and conducted felony review.

Mr. Collins is widely praised as having very good legal ability and excellent research and writing skills. He has substantial litigation experience and is reported to have very good litigation skills. He has a professional demeanor, and, in general, is a well respected practitioner with a variety of experiences. The Council finds him Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Daniel L. Collins has been licensed since 1998. He spent four years as an assistant state’s attorney before joining two different firms, concentrating on workers’ compensation matters. In 2014 he opened a solo practice handling workers’ compensation, criminal, business, and employment matters. He is a member of several bar associations and is active with his local little league.

He is well-respected by other attorneys, considered to be level-headed with high integrity and a great temperament. He was praised for his excellent research and writing skills. ISBA finds Mr. Daniel L. Collins qualified to serve as a judge to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Other Bar Association Evaluations

Arab American Bar Association: Not evaluated through no fault of the candidate

Asian American Bar Association: Qualified

Black Women Lawyers' Association: Recommended

Cook County Bar Association: Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers: Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois: Recommended

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago: Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Women's Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Endorsement

41st Ward Regular Democratic Organization

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

Mary Therese Quinn - #193

Campaign Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluation Narratives

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Mary Therese Quinn is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. Quinn was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1988 and served for 22 years as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney. Since 2011, Ms. Quinn has been engaged in private practice concentrating largely in criminal law matters. Ms. Quinn has extensive criminal trial experience and is well regarded for her knowledge of the law, legal ability, compassion and excellent demeanor.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Mary T. Quinn was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1988. Since 2011, she has been a Solo Practitioner who handles criminal defense matters ranging from misdemeanors such as DUI, domestic violence, and traffic violations to felonies including drug cases, theft, robbery, and murder. Previously, she was an Assistant State’s Attorney in the Cook County State’s Attorney Office, where she worked in the Auto Theft Unit (2006-2011), Felony Trial Division (2001-2006, 1992-1998), the Financial Crimes Unit (1998-2001), the Narcotics Division (1990-1992), and at the Bridgeview courthouse, where she prosecuted misdemeanors (1989-1990). She is a member of the Cook County Bar Association and the South Suburban Bar Association, where she serves as Vice President and volunteers for the pro bono program.

Ms. Quinn is considered to have good legal ability with litigation experience in criminal law matters. She is reported to have a good temperament and is praised for her knowledge of the law. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Mary Therese Quinn was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1988. After spending 22 years as an assistant state’s attorney, she opened her own practice in 2011 concentrating on criminal defense. As a prosecutor, her assignments included the Auto Theft Unit, Financial Crimes, Narcotics and Appeals. She is a member of several bar associations, is vice president of the South Suburban Bar Association, and does some pro bono work through that same group.

She is considered by other attorneys to be knowledgeable and well-prepared with high character and integrity. She has a diverse clientele and treats all with respect. ISBA finds Ms. Mary Therese Quinn qualified to serve as a judge to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Other Bar Association Evaluations

Arab American Bar Association: Recommended

Asian American Bar Association: Recommended

Black Women Lawyers' Association: Recommended

Cook County Bar Association: Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers: Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois: Recommended

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago: Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Women's Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

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

Celestia L. Mays - #194

Campaign Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluation Narratives

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Judge Celestia Mays is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Judge Mays was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1990 and was appointed to the Circuit Court in January 2019. Judge Mays is currently assigned to the Fourth Municipal District and hears a variety of misdemeanor cases and traffic court violations. Judge Mays is hardworking and receives high marks for her fine temperament and people skills.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Hon. Celestia L. Mays was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1990 and was appointed to the Circuit Court by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2019. She was elected to the bench by the Circuit Judges as an Associate Judge in December 2019 . Before taking the bench, she was principal of Celestia L. Mays, P.C., where she practiced in family law and probate law, and handled real estate closings. She previously worked as an associate at Bourgeois & Bourgeois (1994-1997); and at the Los Angeles County law firms of McIntosh, Schmidt & Long (1991-1994, law clerk); and Mercer & Zinder (1988-1991, law clerk). She has served on the board of directors of the Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago; as the deputy regional director and treasurer of Region VII of the National Bar Association; and in a variety of offices at the Cook County Bar Association, including president. She is a former board member of Legal Aid Chicago.

Judge Mays is considered to have very good legal ability and is praised for her temperament. She has substantial litigation experience and is reported to be an excellent practitioner with great integrity. She is praised for her litigation skills. She is exceptionally active in community activities. The Council finds her Well Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Celestia Mays has been licensed since 1990. She was appointed to the circuit court in January 2019 and, subsequently, became an associate judge in January 2020. Judge Mays is currently assigned to the Municipal Department – Fourth District (Maywood). Prior to her appointment, she had been a private practitioner with her own firm for 22 years, concentrating in family law, probate and real estate. Prior to that, she had clerked in California and worked for a law firm. She is a past president of the Cook County Bar Association; after holding other offices, was a board member of the Legal Assistance Foundation (now Legal Aid Chicago), and was
appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court to the Committee on Character and Fitness. She has received many awards from the CCBA and other groups.

Judge Mays received positive marks from attorneys for her legal knowledge and ability and is highly regarded for her professionalism, diligence and her temperament. ISBA finds Judge Celestia L. Mays qualified to serve as a judge to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Other Bar Association Evaluations

Arab American Bar Association: Not evaluated through no fault of the candidate

Asian American Bar Association: Recommended

Black Women Lawyers' Association: Recommended

Cook County Bar Association: Highly Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers: Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois: Highly Recommended

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago: Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois: Highly Recommended

Women's Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Endorsements

Cook County Democratic Party
Chicago Tribune
Chicago Federation of Labor
AMVOTE PAC
Indo-American Democratic Organization
Cong. Danny Davis
Dorothy Brown
LGBTQ Impact
Personal PAC

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

Back to "Start here for the most complete information about every 2020 Cook County judicial race"

Organizing the Data: Countywide Coghlan vacancy

Updated March 16, 2020
Updated March 14, 2020
Updated March 12, 2020

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

Kelly Marie McCarthy - #184

Campaign Website

Bar Association Evaluation Narratives

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Kelly Marie McCarthy is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. McCarthy was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 2001 and has served the majority of her career as a Cook County Assistant Public Defender. Ms. McCarthy is currently serving as Chief of the Indigent Defense-Appeals and Post Convictions Division. Ms. McCarthy has excellent organizational skills and is well regarded for her knowledge of the law, integrity and excellent temperament.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Kelly M. McCarthy was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 2001. She works as a supervisor in the First Municipal Division of the Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender. Other positions that she has held at the Public Defender’s Office include Assistant Public Defender in the Homicide Task Force (2 years); Felony Trial Division (12 years); and Civil Division (1½ years). She is a former board member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Illinois Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. She has volunteered as an evaluator and coach for mock trial and moot court competitions.

Ms. McCarthy is considered to have good legal ability and temperament. She is reported to be knowledgeable and hard-working. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Kelly Marie McCarthy has been licensed in Illinois since 2001. She is a career assistant public defender currently holding the position of Attorney Supervisor. She spent two years on the Homicide Task Force and twelve years in the Felony Trial Division. She is a member of several bar associations, is active in community events and has been a continuing legal education presenter.

She has extensive criminal jury and bench experience, including complex litigation experience. She received praise for her knowledge and her ability to handle complex matters. ISBA finds Ms. Kelly Marie McCarthy qualified to serve as a judge to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Other Bar Association Evaluations

Arab American Bar Association: Not evaluated through no fault of the candidate

Asian American Bar Association: Qualified

Black Women Lawyers' Association: Recommended

Cook County Bar Association: Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers: Highly Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois: Recommended

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago: Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Women's Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Endorsements

Democratic Citizens of Berwyn
New 26th Ward Independent Democratic Party
Advocates Society (Recommended)
LGBTQ Impact

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

Aileen Bhandari - #185

Campaign Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluation Narratives

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Aileen Bhandari is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. Bhandari was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 2002 and has served as an Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney for 16 years. Ms. Bhandari is assigned to the Community Justice Center-West. Ms. Bhandari has extensive trial experience and is well regarded for her work ethic, knowledge of the law, legal experience, and excellent temperament.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Aileen Bhandari was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 2002. She is an Assistant State’s Attorney in the Cook County State’s Attorney Office, where she prosecutes criminal cases, including Armed Robbery, Criminal Sexual Assault, Attempted Murder, and Murder cases, for the Felony Trial Division. Her pro bono activities include participation in Lawyers in the Classroom (2015).

Ms. Bhandari is considered to have good legal ability and has substantial trial experience in more complex criminal law matters. Her temperament is described as calm and affable. She is a well-respected prosecutor who is described as having a commitment to understanding the needs of different communities and of crime victims from different backgrounds. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Aileen Bhandari was admitted to the Illinois bar in 2002. She is a career assistant state’s attorney currently assigned to the Felony Trial Division. She has been active with various bar associations, including serving as treasurer of the Indian American Bar Association, has spoken on various legal issues, works on diversity issues with the Sate’s Attorney’s Office, and helped organize a naturalization drive.

Ms. Bhandari has extensive criminal jury and bench trial experience. Attorneys report that she is punctual, prepared, follows court rules, and presents evidence honestly and straightforwardly. ISBA finds Ms. Aileen Bhandari qualified to serve as a judge for the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Other Bar Association Evaluations

Arab American Bar Association: Recommended

Asian American Bar Association: Qualified

Black Women Lawyers' Association: Recommended

Cook County Bar Association: Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers: Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois: Recommended

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago: Highly Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois: Highly Recommended

Women's Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Endorsements

IVI-IPO
AMVOTE PAC
Indo-American Democratic Organization
45th Ward Independent Dems
Citizens in Action for Better Government
Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7 (Well Qualified)
Advocates Society (Recommended)

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

Elizabeth "Beth" Ryan - #186

Campaign Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluation Narratives

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Elizabeth “Beth” Ryan is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Ms. Ryan was admitted to practice law in 2004 and is currently a solo practitioner concentrating in personal injury, corporate litigation, and social security disability law. Ms. Ryan is well regarded by her peers and by the judges before whom she has appeared for her knowledge of the law and legal ability.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Elizabeth Ryan was admitted to practice in 2004 and concentrates her practice on civil litigation. After law school, she was a judicial clerk for Judge Martin Agran in the Chancery Division of Cook County Circuit Court. Ms Ryan focuses her practice on representing plaintiffs in auto accidents, animal attacks, slip-and-falls, sexual battery, and Social Security disability claims.

Ms. Ryan is considered to have good legal ability and temperament. She is praised for her litigation skills and she has substantial litigation experience in more complex matters. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Elizabeth “Beth” Ryan has been licensed since 2004. Since 2011 she has been a solo practitioner handling mainly personal injury matters. Earlier in her career, she spent two years as a law clerk in Chancery followed by three years in a law firm. She is a member of various bar associations and has been a guest lecturer at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law.

Ms. Ryan reports that she has tried eight civil jury trials. She received overall positive comments for her legal knowledge and ability; a few questioned the extent of her experience in complex matters. She is considered to be very professional, diligent and punctual, with a good temperament and high ethical standards. ISBA finds Ms. Elizabeth Ryan qualified to serve as a judge to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Other Bar Association Evaluations

Arab American Bar Association: Recommended

Asian American Bar Association: Recommended

Black Women Lawyers' Association: Recommended

Cook County Bar Association: Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers: Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois: Recommended

Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago: Recommended

Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Women's Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Endorsements

Chicago Federation of Labor
41st Ward Regular Democratic Organization
38th Ward Nicholas Sposato
30th Ward Regular Democratic Organization
United Hellenic Voters of America
Chicago NOW PAC
Personal PAC
Italian American Police Association
Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7 (Well Qualified)
Advocates Society (Recommended)

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

James T. Derico, Jr. - #187

Candidate Website

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluation Narratives

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Judge James Derico is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Judge Derico was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1985 and was appointed to the Circuit Court in 2019. Judge Derico is assigned to the First Municipal District and hears a variety of contract and non-jury matters. Judge Derico has extensive legal experience and is well regarded for his legal knowledge, ability, diligence and fine demeanor.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

James Thomas Derico was admitted to practice in Illinois in 1985 and was appointed to the Circuit Court by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2019. Before taking the bench, he was a partner and founding member of Derico & Associates, providing legal services to small and medium-sized businesses regarding real estate, contract negotiations, dispute resolution, and employee relations.

Judge Derico is considered to have good legal ability and is praised for his temperament and pro bono work. Much of his practice involved legal counseling to businesses. However, he also had substantial litigation experience in the Probate and Chancery Divisions of the Circuit Court and in the Federal courts. The Council finds him Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

James T. Derico, Jr. was admitted to the Illinois bar in 1985. He was appointed to the Circuit Court in January 2019 and is currently assigned to the Municipal Department, District 1. Prior to his appointment, he had his own firm for 26 years handling mainly real estate and corporate matters. Previously, he had worked as an assistant corporation counsel for Gardner, Carton & Douglas and for Borg-Warner. He had some appellate and federal experience as well.

He was a founder of a legal clinic based at Trinity Church of Christ and is a recipient of the Distinguished Service Award from Chicago Volunteer Legal Services.

The majority of attorneys interviewed reported that Judge Derico is even keeled and personable; and he is considered by most to have sufficient legal knowledge and ability. A few expressed concerns that at times he could be uncivil. He is generally considered to be fair and impartial. ISBA finds Judge James T. Derico, Jr. qualified to serve as a judge to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Other Bar Association Evaluations

Arab American Bar Association: Not evaluated through no fault of the candidate

Asian American Bar Association: Recommended

Black Women Lawyers' Association: Recommended

Cook County Bar Association: Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers: Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois: Recommended

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 Tribune
Cong. Danny Davis
Dorothy Brown
Advocates Society (Recommended)

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

Back to "Start here for the most complete information about every 2020 Cook County judicial race"

Organizing the Data: 3rd Subcircuit - Murphy vacancy

Updated March 16, 2020
Updated March 14, 2020
Updated March 12, 2020

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

Erin Haggerty Antonietti - #241

Campaign Website

Bar Association Evaluation Narratives

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Judge Erin Haggerty Antonietti is “Qualified” for the office of Circuit Court Judge. Judge Antonietti was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 1991 and was appointed to the Circuit Court in 2019. Judge Antonietti has significant experience in both civil and criminal law and is performing well on the bench. Judge Antonietti is well regarded by her fellow judges and by the lawyers who appear in her court.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers says:

Hon. Erin Haggerty Antonietti was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1991. She was appointed to the Circuit Court by the Illinois Supreme Court in June 2019. Prior to taking the bench, she worked as an Assistant State’s Attorney in the Criminal Division of the Cook County State’s Attorney Office, where she was assigned to Central Bond Court, a position she held for more than 17 years. Between 1991 and 1994, she was an associate at Bresnahan & Garvey, an insurance defense firm. Since June 2019 she has been assigned to the First Municipal District assigned to traffic, civil non-jury, eviction, and pro se courtrooms. She has presided over bench trials, motions to dismiss, motions for sanctions, and motions to quash arrest and suppress evidence.

As a lawyer, Judge Antonietti has spent most of her professional career in Central Bond Court, where she was praised as professional, knowledgeable, and organized. She had litigation experience in more complex matters earlier in her career. As a Judge, she is reported to demonstrating good legal ability, temperament, and the ability to manage high volume courtrooms. The Council finds her Qualified for the Circuit Court.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Erin Haggerty Antonietti has been licensed since 1991. She was appointed to the circuit court in June 2019 and is currently assigned to the First Municipal District – Traffic Section. After spending three years with a civil litigation firm doing defense work, she became an assistant state’s attorney; a job she held until her appointment. Her assignments included Juvenile Justice, Misdemeanor and Bond Court. She has taught at Prairie State College and is active in her community.

Attorneys report has she is organized, punctual, even-handed, and professional. She has some trial experience. ISBA finds Judge Erin Haggerty Antonietti qualified to serve as a judge to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Other Bar Association Evaluations

Arab American Bar Association: Not evaluated through no fault of the candidate

Asian American Bar Association: Recommended

Black Women Lawyers' Association: Recommended

Cook County Bar Association: Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers: Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois: Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois: Recommended

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
Chicago Federation of Labor
18th Ward Democratic Organization
13th Ward Democratic Organization
Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7
Italian American Police Association
AMVOTE PAC

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

Thomas G. O'Brien - #241

No campaign website known

Law Bulletin Questionnaire

Bar Association Evaluation Narratives

The Chicago Bar Association says:

Thomas G. O’Brien 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:

Not Recommended -- Did not participate in the evaluation.

The Illinois State Bar Association says:

Thomas G. O’Brien declined to participate in the judicial evaluation process. Pursuant to ISBA guidelines, Mr. Thomas G. O’Brien is found to be not recommended for election to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Other Bar Association Evaluations

Arab American Bar Association: Not Recommended

Asian American Bar Association: Not Recommended

Black Women Lawyers' Association: Not Recommended

Cook County Bar Association: Not Recommended

Decalogue Society of Lawyers: Not Recommended

Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois: Not Recommended

Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois: Not Recommended

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 2020 Cook County judicial race"

What are lawyers afraid of on this snowy Halloween?

One of my sons is a fan of horror movies, or at least he used to be, back before he became a father himself.

And he would not hesitate to regale me with the gory details of whatever horrible horror movie he'd just watched.

I was uninterested. If I ever wanted to get scared, I told him, all I had to do was look at my checkbook. Or browse through the stack of unpaid bills on my desk.

But that's just me. Like Michael Binkley in Berke Breathed's cartoon strip Bloom County, we all have our own well-stocked Closets of Anxieties. Each of our Closets has different monsters within.

Still, it has occurred to me that there are certain types of monsters that commonly lurk under many lawyers' beds or in our respective Closets of Anxieties. Herewith then, for your Halloween fright, my suggested list.

Clients. Don't get me wrong. There are many clients out there who faithfully follow our well-researched, well-intended advice and who don't hesitate to honor our bills upon presentation. God bless these wonderful people. They come into our lives for a while -- weeks, months, even years -- and we help them through what they need help with and then they move on, and we move on, the better for having known each other. Maybe we even exchange Christmas cards.

But I'm not talking about that sort of client.

There are some clients who make up 10% of your practice -- and take up 90% of your time. When they don't follow your good advice, and they never do, it is somehow your fault for letting them. Or confusing them into doing whatever they intended to do in the first place.

There are clients who will challenge every billing entry, fight you over every single one, and yet, somehow, despite this exertion, or perhaps because of it, find themselves too weak to lift a pen and write you a check. Or they develop carpal tunnel. Or they suddenly go on an extended trip -- with no access to checkbooks. They also tend to suffer from amnesia; they often forget their solemn promises to pay the moment the words escape their lying lips.

And they'll withhold vital documents from you -- so you look like an incompetent, or a lying fool, or worse, to the court and opposing counsel when discovery comes due. And then they'll be offended that you're asking them, again, to give you what they should have given you when you first asked. Even if you're asking for the 37th time. And all the while they'll moan, "What am I paying you for if I have to do all this work?" And you'll bite your lip, maybe even drawing blood, trying not to say, "Well, first of all, you're not paying me...."

When you finally cut your losses with these parasites, and withdraw from the case or otherwise discharge the client, you calendar the date that the statute of limitations expires. That date will come, eventually, and go -- but the client will be forever burned in your memory, and take up residence in your personal Closet of Anxieties.

Opposing counsel. Our Supreme Court wants us to be nice to our opposing counsel. The Court even has a Commission that is meant to spur civility and cooperation among counsel. For the most part, the energies of this Commission are not needed, at least in my experience. We are all doing a job for our clients, doing our best. We understand and appreciate that our opponents must do the best for their clients, too. It's not personal. We may not be inclined to sleep together (as lawyers had to do when riding circuit back in Lincoln's day) but we are generally courteous to one another and sometimes even willing, after a long day of professional sparring, to seek out a beaker of nectar together.

But I'm not talking about that sort of opposing counsel.

There are some who graduated from the Scorched Earth School of Law. No civility commission on earth can rein in these terrors who badger, belittle, bother, and berate on every point, no matter how trivial. I recall a case in which I had an opponent who was a partner at a national, silk-stocking (or do you say white shoe?) firm. I was, he told me with a sneer, a mere state court lawyer. Until that moment, of course, I had thought it an honorable profession, but he disabused me of that notion forevermore (/snark).

He and I had to draft a protective order -- and nothing I came up with was good enough. Not nearly good enough. No matter how prolix, no matter how obscure, no matter how impenetrable the prose, no matter how convoluted the syntax, he needed it worse. Finally, after beating me up for a time he deemed sufficient, he favored me with a draft of an order that he deemed suitable. It said in 12 or 15 single-spaced pages the same thing I'd tried to say in three or four paragraphs. So when we next met -- a week or so later -- it was in the judge's conference room -- just before we were to step up and hopefully this time not disappoint her again about our lack of progress in arriving at a protective order -- I gave him back his own document, duly signed and ready for entry. I had surrendered unconditionally, changing not so much as a comma.

He took the sheaf of paper from me with evident disdain and quickly glanced at it. With a contemptuous sneer, he threw it back at me -- it was not nearly good enough, he said, not nearly good enough. (Ultimately, however, the judge thought his document, the document he'd prepared and forgotten about, sufficiently sufficient.)

Or there was this other gentleman, also a big firm lawyer. He had not yet made partner, and probably never would, because he had never tried a case. His sole job was to go to depositions and object.

To everything.

I wasn't in the room when this happened; I was in another office in the suite. But I heard it -- this guy had a booming voice -- and I later saw the transcript:

Q. What is your name?

BY MR. [LOUD GUY]: Objection. If you are so ill-prepared as to begin a deposition without even knowing the deponent's name, this deposition will be terminated immediately.

It went downhill from there.

Mr. Loud Guy and the Big Firm Draftsman are in my Closet of Anxieties along with several others. They have counterparts in many attorneys' closets, too.

Judges. You might think that a judicial blogger would not have any judges in his Closet of Anxieties.

But you'd be wrong. As with clients and opposing counsel, most jurists are fundamentally nice people. All judges were lawyers once, and most of them remember what a pain in the neck the practice of law can be.

But some either never knew or seem to have forgotten. There are a few of these in my Closet of Anxieties, too, along with their unrealistic deadlines, usually in cases featuring uncooperative clients. There's a natural force at work here somehow, something like magnetism, only much more malignant.

I could go on... but then you wouldn't need to buy my book, would you?

I think a lot of lawyers have the first draft of that book they've been meaning to write since forever tucked away in their personal Closet of Anxieties. In my Closet I suspect Mr. Loud Guy and the Big Firm Draftsman take turns reading passages from this yet-unwritten book. The one finds everything in it objectionable; the other finds it not good enough, not nearly good enough.

Happy Halloween.

You know... there might just be something wrong with national elections besides the Electoral College

In 2015-2016 about 25 Republicans -- or maybe, more accurately, about 24 Republicans and Donald J. Trump -- staged a reality TV show to see who would be the Republican presidential nominee.

Look what that got us.

Well, he had experience in the one area that was apparently important to the process: He was a reality TV host.

The Democratic Party's first response to this national tragedy was to say -- hey, let's get our own reality TV host!

But Oprah said she wasn't interested.

So now, for 2020, the Democrats have given us something like 50 wannabes -- some of whom have already been voted off the island -- in an even more glitzy and frivolous game show format.

In my email this morning, and also on Facebook, are breathless inquiries: Who won last night?

Who will move on? Who will get the rose? Why don't we just add a phone number to call during the show to cast our votes for best snappy comeback? Or biggest burn?

Can we make this process any more trivial? Any more farcical?

And yet, somehow, the problem with our presidential election system is the Electoral College?

Really?

If you want a serious President, you need a serious process. A truly national leader can not be a hyper-partisan. He or she will have to try to appeal to everyone -- try to build a national consensus -- try to bring us together as a nation.

It can't happen, of course.

I mean, Lincoln couldn't get everyone behind him... even in the North.

Even George Washington was slandered, viciously, at least in his second term.

But they tried. They understood that their job was to lead a nation, not just a party, and certainly not just a wing or faction of that party.

Today, in 2019, We the People have apparently stopped looking for persons willing to undertake the thankless task of building a national consensus. Trying to build a national consensus is just too hard. Or maybe its boring. Instead, we're looking to pick our national leader in game shows.

The fault, dear readers, lies not in our stars, and not in our Constitution, but in ourselves.

We are better than this. We can do better than this. We must insist that our politicians do better than this.

My 9/11 story takes place on 9/10 and 9/12

My cousin Gene was officing with me in 2001. A Naval Reserve officer, Gene had command of a reserve squadron at Great Lakes, and all of the administrative headaches that were attendant thereto.

It may not have been September 10 exactly. It might have been a day or two before. Memory is a funny thing.

But I clearly recall walking into Gene's office as he was having a rather stern telephone discussion with a suburban police chief. It seems one of the police dispatchers was a Navy reservist, and she had not yet completed her mandatory two weeks of active duty. By September, all of the two-week duty slots had been used up, and the only way the dispatcher could fulfill her two-week requirement was by taking a six-week assignment.

The chief wanted to fire her.

When I walked in, Gene was patiently explaining, and apparently not for the first time, that the chief could find himself in a world of trouble if he fired the dispatcher. He might not have to pay her for her active duty time, but he had to let her come back to work when her obligation was fulfilled.

The chief was not happy. But he eventually subsided and Gene and I got on with our day.

No one was in the office on 9/11. I had to go to court in Joliet that morning -- and the judge, who'd been glued to the TV like I'd been glued to the radio heading down there, was late taking the bench. By the time I finished my business in court, I decided to go home instead of trying to go downtown. This proved a good thing, inasmuch as the Loop pretty much shut down.

But Gene and I were both back at work the next day.

And that's when the suburban police chief called back. Not only could his dispatcher go, he told Gene, but he -- the chief -- wanted to go, too!

The dominant emotion of that moment was not anger, or hatred, and certainly not (at least for the vast, overwhelming majority of us) anger or hatred against any particular group of people, but pride and patriotism. Pride for the heroism and sacrifice of the first responders who ran to the Twin Towers, and into them, even as they were collapsing. We were united by the tragedy and united in resolve to defend our nation, and avenge our losses, against those who would do us -- all of us -- harm.

The criminals who planned and executed the 9/11 attacks did not see us as divided by race, or ethnicity, or religion, or income level, or political persuasion. They saw us as Americans all; we were all equal targets accordingly. In the stunned aftermath of the September 11 attacks, if only for a moment, we recognized that we really are united, and that the things that unite us are more important than those things that divide us.

History will probably judge that our national resolve, in the aftermath of 9/11, was misdirected, perhaps cynically misdirected, perhaps only mistakenly. Our subsequent missteps -- and you may well have a different list than I would -- should not be the subject of today's remembrance. Rather, we should recall, and strive to recapture, that feeling of unity: And I want to go, too!

Strictly Personal: Did Adam Schefter really have to break the Andrew Luck story Saturday night?

The whole family was over Saturday evening. The older grandkids were grumbling that the TV was tuned to the Bears game (such as it was), with sidetrips only for the Sox game (fewer and fewer as the evening wore on) and the University of Miami vs. University of Florida tussle on ESPN.

It was while watching the college game that we first saw news of Adam Schefter's tweet about Andrew Luck's retirement. My sons and sons-in-law had their phones out in an instant -- they all follow Schefter -- and instantly confirmed that Schefter had made this report. "He'd better be right," said one. "If he misses on this one, it's a possible career-ender."

"Well, he just doubled down," said another, reading Schefter's latest tweet.

(I had my phone out, too, but I seemed to only have tweets from Popehat's Ken White. Nothing about Indianapolis quarterbacks at all.)

We flipped back to the Bears game, where Schefter's tweets were under discussion by the broadcasters -- and, apparently, by many of the fans. There was quite a bit of exaggerated gesticulation going on in the stands that appeared unrelated to any action on the field.

"Try NFL Network," someone suggested, and we flipped over there next, but a different, though equally meaningless preseason game was unfolding there.

Millennials flip channels way too fast for me, but somewhere in the back and forth, supplemented by phone data, it was determined that Luck would address the media following the Bears game. And that Luck was booed by the fans in the Lucas Oil Stadium stands as he left the field for perhaps the last time.

One of my sons-in-law is an Indianapolis native. It would be too much to say that he was actually distraught, but he was a bit in shock. "They're not booing Luck necessarily," he finally said. "They're angry at the team for squandering Luck's talent. For failing to get a capable offensive line. The Colts ruined him."

I don't think they quite made it to halftime of the meaningless game on the NFL Network before the network cut away to show young Mr. Luck, choking up at the podium. They did a split screen for a minute or two, then just put Luck up full frame.

This wasn't how he wanted to go out at all.

He had talked to management about his decision to retire before the game. He wanted to break it to the team after the game, then have a press conference to explain it to the world on Sunday.

Obviously, somebody blabbed. A family member, perhaps. A team employee. Whoever the blabber was no doubt thought that he or she had extracted a promise from the blabee not to spread the news further.

Thus illustrating the old Ben Franklin maxim, "Two people can keep a secret so long as one of them is dead."

But why did Schefter have to tell the world so quickly?

Who would have been hurt by sitting on the news for an hour or so? That would have given Luck time to tell his teammates. It was evident, watching Luck's premature press conference, that he was devastated that he was not permitted to tell the team his news his way.

The Vegas bookies had to quickly recalibrate the odds of Indy getting to the Superbowl. Someone on Twitter posted a receipt from a sports book in Iowa -- do they really have sports books in Iowa? -- allegedly showing a wager made on Indianapolis to go to the Super Bowl made not five minutes before Schefter's first tweet.

But did we all really have to know Luck was going right then? The good people who bought Colts season tickets in reliance on Andrew Luck's return had already done so.

It was hardly a matter of life or death. I guess revealing the information when he did burnished Schefter's reputation as a knowledgeable insider.

I think it would have been better for all concerned, however, better even for Mr. Schefter, if the news had been withheld until after Luck had the chance to tell his locker room.

I guess I would never have made it in journalism.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Luck photo obtained here.

Thankfully, the practice of law does not always involve fighting for justice

This is what is known as a "hot take" headline.

But now that you've taken the clickbait, let me explain.

I was at a birthday party for one of my granddaughters recently. My daughter must have told one of her guests, one of her neighbors, that I am a lawyer. He approached me in the kitchen as I was fetching something, or putting something away, and introduced his daughter. Like my granddaughter, she'd just turned five, he told me, adding, "I think she's going to be a lawyer, too, someday. She's always telling me that she wants to fight for justice."

Well. To my ear that sounded more like the little girl was thinking more of being a superhero than a lawyer. Very young children don't know that some career ambitions are not really attainable -- Meghan Markle notwithstanding, there can only be so many new princesses. And the otherwise admirable Doc McStuffins does not really explain to its young viewers that there are very limited opportunities for toy doctors. But you know what? There's plenty of time to find that stuff out. If five-year olds want to be princesses, or unicorn herders, or princesses who herd unicorns, or dragon tamers, or superheros -- I say, good for them.

But this was a party. I did not challenge the proud father's perceptions. Instead I said, "That's wonderful! I'm sure she'll be a great one." And the kid found another handful of chips and all was well with the world.

A few months before, though, I was part of a panel discussion for pre-law students at a local college. There were several distinguished practitioners, from various backgrounds -- and then there was me. I was a last-minute substitute for a much more distinguished practitioner who had to cancel because of a work-related emergency.

At the end of the discussion there was a little meet-and-greet in the lobby of the auditorium, where the students could talk one-on-one to the presenters. As a bitter, crusty solo, I did not expect to deal with a lot of questioners, and I was not disappointed. But I was surprised to see that the former prosecutor turned white-collar criminal defense attorney and the commercial real estate attorney who had made deals for skyscrapers were nearly as lonely as I was. The attorney who was championing voting rights causes attracted all the attention.

I am pretty certain that the eager young men and women who crowded around the public interest lawyer no longer believed in unicorns or dragons or superheros -- but they all wanted to "fight for justice."

But lawyers don't really fight for justice. At least, except in the broadest sense, we don't fight for justice all the time.

I don't mean to suggest that lawyers fight against justice, although some do. ARDC will always be with us.

Rather, all of us, whatever our role, even crusty solos, are part of the justice system. And our system of laws and justice is part of the glue that binds our increasingly fractured society. Sometimes it seems like the law is all we have left holding us together.

Still, we're not fighting for justice every day. We represent our clients, zealously, but within the bounds of professional ethics. We handle specific cases, not causes.

When I was just out of law school, I handled an inordinate number of property damage subrogation cases -- car hits garage, car hits fence -- that sort of thing. And I'd have to deal with the other side raising affirmative defenses like contributory fault. Wait a minute! Are you saying the garage moved? Oh, I was fighting, alright, but I'm not sure it counted as "fighting for justice."

Some lawyers help make bigger profits for giant corporations. When they do this in accordance with their ethical obligations, they are as much helping to do justice as the lawyers who might be arrayed against them in a given case. Even the lawyers who help evict widows and orphans or who try to collect debts from persons who are broke are doing justice in the broadest sense, as long as they do their work according to our profession's ethical standards, although those pre-law students I saw earlier this year might not think so. The persons who defend the vilest criminal fiends are also doing justice in the broad sense, protecting our rights as well as the rights of their clients, just as the persons who try and incarcerate those same persons are likewise doing justice. Mostly what we do as lawyers is help our clients -- some who are good people, or good companies, some who most definitely are not -- get a better deal, or avoid a worse one, than they might get without our assistance.

There's a reason why the motto of the Illinois Supreme Court is Audi Alteram Partem (Hear the Other Side). And, no, the reason is not because all the good mottoes had already been claimed.

The real reason is that there almost always is another side.

Rare indeed is the case where all the facts, all the law, and all the equities point only one way.

I have had such cases, or I thought I did at one time, and these have always made me unfailingly miserable.

When you are all that stands between your client and rank injustice, it feels as if the whole weight of the world is on your shoulders.

You expect the other side to realize the hopelessness of his case, to graciously acquiesce to your righteousness. Or you expect opposing counsel to at least withdraw if her evil client will not fold.

But this does not always happen.

OK, this never happens.

It may be because the lawyer on the other side is not interested in doing justice, but in milking his client, or fleecing yours, or both. ARDC caught up with one of my opponents from one of these awful cases some years back -- years, unfortunately, after my case with this person had concluded (although, in the case that led to his disbarment, he was doing the same stuff he did in my case -- I got some satisfaction from that). There are still a couple of more names I expect to see someday in the Supreme Court's disciplinary orders.

But... you know what? It may be that the other side doesn't see things the way you do because there is another side. Puny, weak, and pitiful perhaps, but maybe just the barest gossamer thread of good faith. And sometimes, possibly, just a wee bit more substantial than you understand.

But let's say, for argument's sake, that your opponent is bereft of morals and decency and ethics, and his or her client is worse, and you are 1,000% in the right. Surely the judge will immediately grasp the virtue of your cause and swiftly see that justice prevails?

Uh, no.

This does not mean that the judge is a political hack, or corrupt, or ignorant of the law, or uncaring, or any of the other things you may mutter, hopefully to yourself, as you head back down the elevator from another status hearing where the scales did not fall from the judicial eyes.

He or she may be all of these things and more -- and you and your client got the fuzzy end of the lollipop once again.

But... there is some belief among psychologists that indigenous persons, looking from the shore for the first time at the large wood and canvass ships of European explorers, did not actually see them. Or, at least, they did not see them until the ships anchored and the longboats came ashore and their reality could no longer be denied.

Why? Because the indigenous person had no experience of ocean-going vessels. He could not process what he was looking at. She had no frame of reference with which to understand what she was seeing.

So it may be also with judges. You have the perfect case; you have the moon, the stars, the planets, the laws, the ethics, and the equities all lined up in your favor. But the judge, who sees thousands, or tens of thousands, of cases where each side has something to legitimately talk about, can not instantly recognize your case as so fundamentally different, even though the judge is truly learned, and wise, and caring, and empathetic, and all the other judicial virtues personified. She doesn't see it. Or he sees it and cannot process what it is.

Now, in such a case, you really are fighting for justice.

And it is a lonely, miserable, even frightening place to be. You can't grab the judge by the front of his or her robe and shout sense into the judicial noggin. You can't hit opposing counsel smack across the head with your righteous file. (For you non-lawyers out there, whatever you may have seen in movies or on TV, you really, really can't do these things.) Instead, you must somehow recapture your sense of professional detachment and find a way to lead the court to its own discovery of the truth you hold so desperately dear.

And that's hard. Really hard.

And that is why I say thank goodness we don't have to fight for justice in every case, although I hope we do justice always.

An anniversary tinged with regret

Some anniversaries make us nostalgic. Some just make us sad.

Today's 50th anniversary remembrance of humanity's first footsteps on the Moon falls, for me, in the latter category.

It might be different if tonight's commemorations were observed not just here on Earth, but in all the lunar cities, and in the Martian colonies, and among the asteroid miners.

But there are no lunar cities. And we've never been to Mars. The vast riches of the Asteroid Belt remain untapped.

It took just 54 years for humanity to advance from Kitty Hawk to Sputnik. Just 12 more to get from Sputnik to Apollo 11.

At that dizzying rate of progress, it was hard to imagine, then, how far the human race might have traveled by now, and what we might have discovered, and what we might have achieved.

I was still pretty young that Sunday night when Neil Armstrong took his one small step. So perhaps I can be excused for failing to imagine, even in my worst nightmares, how little humankind would achieve in Space in the coming half century.

We've gone nowhere.

Oh, we've sent some probes.

And we've collected mountains of data, seen millions of photos, all of which show that Space is even more thrilling, and more likely to contain life, or at least the building blocks of life, than any respected scientist might have imagined in 1969.

It's all still Out There. But we're all still Here.

Robert Kurson's recent book, Rocket Men, chronicles the Apollo 8 flight, the first manned flight to the Moon, at the end of 1968. He chronicles a great nation coming together in common purpose and hope, with hundreds of thousands directly involved in seeing that incredibly daring mission off the ground.

But it all went so terribly wrong -- even as things went so wonderfully right in Space. We actually put men on the Moon. And brought them home safely. And even when things went wrong in Space, the miraculous rescue of the Apollo 13 crew should have persuaded humanity that we could figure it all out, whatever challenges we encountered. And yet -- by December 1972 -- three short years later -- with Apollo 17 -- we were done.

We haven't built cities on the moon, though we now have reason to expect that there's water there to support them. We haven't been to Mars at all.

Some visionaries, and/or billionaires, talk about Mars. Or about mining asteroids. Or about seeing if there is life on Europa. But we haven't even gone back to the Moon.

So pardon me for not joining in the general merriment over tonight's anniversary.

It just makes me sad for the future we might have had, but didn't.

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