Hypocrisy on Trial

When Justice Robert Steigmann appears before the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board for a disciplinary hearing, the full-blown hypocrisy of our state’s court system will be on trial.

Hypocrisy #1: The State of Illinois cares very little about judicial ethics. A 2014 audit of this board was highly critical of the state’s neglect. The Board had four vacancies for its fourteen-member complement. The Board had a backlog 311 complaints filed by citizens and lawyers, some alleging mental incapacity of judicial officers. Today, the Board has nine members—and operates with three vacancies. One vacancy is for a public member; one is for a lawyer, and one is for a judge. The only explanation for these vacancies is neglect.

Hypocrisy #2: The only judge on the current Board, who also serves as the Vice Chair, is Paula Gomora. Judge Gomora was appointed to fill a vacancy in 2001 but failed to retain her seat in the 2002 election. Sitting judges in Illinois almost never lose retention elections. She spent the next six years off the bench and won a seat in 2008. Could the Illinois Supreme Court not find a judge with a better track record to preside over its only check on its ethics rules? And why is there a judicial vacancy?

Hypocrisy #3: Justice Steigmann is accused of accepting more than $20,000 in speaker fees by using the court’s office to solicit paid speeches. The complaint also alleges that Justice Steigmann made himself available only to police agencies—but not defendant groups—and to health care providers, but not to groups that sue hospitals and doctors.  

Compare that to the fact that the current Chief Justice, Lloyd Karmeier, a Republican with strong backing from big business, and his Democratic opponent spent $9.3 million on a supreme court seat. Justice Thomas Kilbride, a Democrat, received more than $2 million from the state Democratic Party and labor unions. These campaign donations are perfectly legal and do not raise issues under our state’s judicial ethics rules. But many Illinois citizens wouldn’t see much difference in Justice Steigmann’s alleged misconduct and the norm in this state that candidates for Supreme Court receive millions of dollars with the purpose to influence how these judges rule on important cases.

Hypocrisy #4: Most states model their rules after the American Bar Association’s suggested code. One rule, titled “Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary,” says: “A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety (emphasis added).”

Now look at the milder version we have in Illinois, which avoids “shall” and replaces it with “should.” Our version states: “A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself or herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary (emphasis added).”

What curious wording we have for Illinois judges. Our judges “should” comply with the law. For the rest of us, we can never argue in a judge’s court that we “should” obey the law, but we aren’t required to. As to us, laws are mandatory.

Unless and until our state judicial code adopts the rules that apply to almost every other state, we will have a court system that is prone to abuse. Even if only a handful of judges misbehaves, the damage to the integrity of our courts is too large to ignore.