Summaries of Complaints Filed with the Courts Commission

The Complaint alleged that Respondent owned and operated an abstract company; practiced law, filed false statement of economic interest; and did not advise litigants or attorneys that opposing counsel was a business partner.

Order entered August 1, 1973: Respondent suspended for one-year without pay. Respondent then resigned from office.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent: 1) Threatened man and wife with handgun;
2) Struck another man and pushed his wife; 3) Interfered with Board investigation.

Order entered June 29,1973: 1) Respondent suspended for four months without pay; 2) Dismissed; 3) Dismissed.

The Complaint alleged mental and physical disability.

Order entered April 10,1973: Complaint dismissed upon Respondent's resignation from judicial office.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent: 1) Accepted favors from attorney who appeared before him; 2) Made cash transaction in chambers.

Order entered December 18,1973: 1)  Respondent suspended for two months without pay; 2) This count inherent in first count: dismissed.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent found three defendants in two criminal cases guilty before the defense was fully presented.

Order entered February 19, 1974: Respondent reprimanded.

The Complaints alleged that Respondent 1) Interfered with attorney-client relationship; 2) Refused to sign decrees; 3) Usurped authority of Chief Judge; 4) Abused attorneys and litigants; 5) Received money to convene special jury; 6) Filed false application for judgeship.

Order entered July 12, 1974: 1) Dismissed; 2) Dismissed; 3) No jurisdiction; 4) Dismissed; 5) Censured; 6) No jurisdiction.

Board's Motion to Reconsider Re: Count 6 denied, September 4, 1974.

The Complaint alleged three incidents involving driving while intoxicated.

Order entered February 21, 1974: Respondent censured.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent attempted altering of absentee ballots; consistently engaged in partisan politics; and adjudicated cases in which his nephew was counsel.

Order entered April 11, 1974:Respondent removed from office.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent pressured jail inmates to be his informants; raised bond because inmate would not be informant; released inmate on personal recognizance who then fled; appointed his brother guardian ad litem and acting probation officer.

Order entered July 12, 1974: Respondent censured.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent improperly and repeatedly used judicial process, including writs of body attachment and the power of contempt, for the collection of civil judgments.

Order entered July 24, 1974: Complaint dismissed.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent used judicial process for the collection of civil judgments.

Order of July 12, 2974: Respondent reprimanded.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent assessed court costs against defendants after charges were dismissed or findings of not guilty, knowing he was without authority.

Order entered October 15, 1974: Suspended for one month without pay.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent dismissed criminal charges upon defendants giving civil releases to arresting police officers.

Order entered December 11, 1974: Respondent reprimanded.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent assumed an active role in the management of a business and received compensation therefore in 1971 and 1972, and attempted to conceal the receipt of this compensation in his 1972 Federal income tax return.

Order entered July 16, 1975: Respondent removed from office.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent failed to disqualify himself in presiding over litigation where one of the parties was a close friend and with whom he had a business interest.

Order entered  October 21, 1975: Respondent for six months without pay.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent  drove while intoxicated, interfered with police investigation, resisted arrest and lawful police processing.

Order entered October 30, 1975: Respondent reprimanded.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent made improper statements to a woman in chambers.

Order entered January 16, 1976: Complaint dismissed upon Respondent's resignation from judicial office.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent detained a former tenant with the aid of a hand gun, had him arrested and charged with theft, procured a guilty plea and jury waiver, conducted a midnight proceeding in the police station and sentenced the tenant to 8 months in jail.

Order entered April 26, 1976: Respondent removed from office.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent improperly employed the bail system as a means of punishing defendants in prostitution-loitering cases and had a prejudiced attitude towards such defendants and their attorneys, as evidenced by his setting excessive bail, continuing motions to reduce bail until the case was set for trial and excluding a defense attorney from his courtroom.

Order entered September 13, 1976: Respondent suspended for one month without pay.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent ordered male defendants to have their hair cut as short as his and additionally ordered those who were probationers to surrender their driver's license to the court to be issued in lieu thereof a card identifying them as probationers; and committed a defendant to jail without bail on a bailable offense; directed defendants charged with alcohol violations to pick up cans and bottles beside the road.

Order entered December 3, 1976: Sustained as to haircuts and drivers' licenses. Dismissed as to bail and bottles and cans. Suspended for one month without pay.

Suspension vacated by Illinois Supreme Court on appeal November 30, 1977. Board's Motion to Reconsider denied January 11, 1978. (See 69 Ill.2d 445; 372 N.E. 2d 53).

The Complaint alleged that Respondent embarrassed and ridiculed a young attorney and misrepresented to the Judicial Inquiry Board that there had been two sidebar conversations with the young attorney prior to the alleged embarrassment and ridicule.

Order entered March 11, 1977: Complaint dismissed.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent published advertisements for his retention prior to a retention election which advertisements materially misrepresented a bar association recommendation that he not be retained, giving the impression that he had been recommended for retention.

Order entered June 23, 1977: Complaint dismissed. Board's Motion for Reconsideration denied August 31, 1977.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent caused two traffic tickets that were not assigned to him for adjudication to be nonsuited without compliance with the regular processes of law.

Order entered August 25, 1978: Respondent reprimanded.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent  found a spectator in his courtroom guilty of criminal contempt for wearing a T-shirt with the words "Bitch Bitch Bitch," without affording her an effective hearing and without her being represented by counsel or having an adequate opportunity to defend herself, and sentenced her to three days in jail, which she served.

Order entered August 13, 1979: Complaint dismissed.

The Complaint alleged that contrary to settled and established law of Illinois the Respondent refused to grant motions duly made and timely filed for change of venue or substitution of judge, required the attorneys presenting the motions to appear in person and argue the motions, attempted to inquire into the motives behind the motions and denied the motions but granted a change of venue or substitution of judge on his own motion. By such procedure he prevented effective review of his actions as evidenced by an unsuccessful mandamus action.

Order of September 17, 1979: Complaint dismissed.

Board's Motion to Reconsider denied November 11, 1979

The Complaint alleged that Respondent directed and permitted a court clerk to conduct part or all of the court calls on two days and enter orders disposing of matters on the calls; failed and refused to consider relevant evidence; acknowledged that procedures he followed and substantive legal principles he applied were contrary to determined law; gave judgments for plaintiffs where defendants were not present and where a careful examination would dictate otherwise; gave judgments for plaintiffs who presented no evidence; granted judgment for plaintiff in a case that had been settled; and by not explaining a ruling he misled parties.

Order entered July 10, 1980: Complaint dismissed.

Board's Motion to Reconsider denied August 26, 1980.

The Complaint alleged the Respondent expelled two reporters from his courtroom when one began sketching a witness, when they were not disrupting the proceedings or interfering with the conduct of a trial in progress; was intemperate, sarcastic and rude in so doing; ordered the courtroom doors locked for the remainder of the trial without motion or consent of the defendant, prosecution or any witness; and without a hearing excluded all members of the public from the courtroom for the remainder of the trial, refusing to allow even a paralegal assistant of the defendant's attorney to enter the courtroom.

Order entered July 15, 1980: Complaint dismissed.

The Complaint alleged that three pro se defendants filed written demands for jury trials. When they did not produce written jury instructions, Respondent ordered them to sign jury waiver forms. When they objected to signing because a printed statement on the form stated they were voluntarily waiving a jury, he induced their signatures under threat of a court order and then announced in open court that all present were witnesses that the signatures were voluntary. Respondent  later told the Chief Judge that he had talked the defendants into signing the forms. He further said the defendants had not filed jury demands which statement he knew was false when he made it.

Order entered December 29, 1980: Complaint dismissed.

Board's Motion for Reconsideration denied February 13, 1981.

Board's Mandamus Petition to Illinois Supreme Court to direct Courts Commission to act, denied April 16, 1982. (See 91 Ill.2d 130; 435 N.E. 2d 486.)

Board's Motion to Reconsider denied May 27, 1982.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent used the U.S. mails and other means to cause unauthorized, sham and bogus subscriptions to periodicals, reports and other publications, to be sent to Judicial Inquiry Board members and counsel and a Courts Commission member who had taken action against him in 76 CC-3, and to the state's attorney who in 76 CC-3 had advised him against issuing haircut orders and who had refused to file a brief in support thereof; sent anonymous letters to the attorney for the wife of this same state's attorney in a divorce action, suggesting ways to discover the state's attorney's assets and informing him of a newly enacted divorce law; mailed an anonymous letter to a candidate for state's attorney, charging him with corruption and threatening to cause an investigation unless he withdrew his candidacy; engaged in the practice of law on behalf of his father, an attorney; mailed Will forms, admonishments on the selection of attorney, memoranda, news clips, press releases, sympathy cards, etc., to persons unknown to him and who were unreceptive to receipt of such items, using the County postage machine for franking; had printed at public expense the sympathy cards and admonishments on the selection of attorneys; made regular press releases on his activities, one of which concerned a minor he had sentenced and which matter by statute was confidential; employed press releases, public commentary and "wooden nickels" to convey the impression of a "law and order" judge without regard to a reasonable standard of individualized punishment; attempted to intervene with prosecutors on behalf of certain defendants; and was not prompt in attending to judicial duties but fined and jailed attorneys who were late in matters before him, irrespective of the justification they offered. By all of this conduct Respondent, demonstrated an incapacity and mental inability to perform his duties.

Order of June 23, 1980: Complaint dismissed upon resignation from judicial office.

Board's Motion to Modify Order Re: Mootness, denied August 26, 1980.

The Complaint alleged that on September 5, 1977, in the presence of a group of third party witnesses, who knew that Respondent was a judicial officer, he sought to and did interfere with the performance and fulfillment of a police officer's duties and responsibilities. Having unsuccessfully sought to dissuade the officer from performing certain duties involving the issuance of traffic citations to two youths (one youth being his son), he became angry and thereafter verbally abused and physically assaulted the officer in the presence of such third party witnesses. Following these occurrences all relevant parties assembled at a police facility. At that location and based on apologies, assertions of professional embarrassment and indications of the likelihood of sanctions being imposed on him should criminal charges be filed against him for his misconduct, he sought to compromise the filing of such charges. Despite such efforts, he was criminally charged and later acquitted of such charges.

(During criminal proceedings, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed confidentiality of the Board's  records July 14, 1978. See 72 Ill.2d 225; 380 N.E. 2nd 801.)

Order entered July 16, 1981: Complaint dismissed. Board's Motion for Reconsideration denied June 8, 1982.

The Complaint alleged that on the night of September 21, 1978, the Respondent was stopped and arrested by an officer of the Caseyville, Illinois police department for driving under the influence of alcohol and weaving from lane to lane. At the time of his arrest and during his subsequent processing, Respondent, after advising the arresting officer that he was a judicial officer, cursed and orally abused the arresting police officer and other police personnel and refused to cooperate with police personnel who were processing him. He further made threats to fight and challenged one or more of the police personnel to engage in such fighting. The following day he aided and abetted violations of Illinois law and participated in the circumvention, frustration and obstruction of the appropriate legal and judicial process whereby the charges would otherwise have been legally and properly adjudicated. As but one aspect of such misconduct, he and his counsel took custody of all pertinent records of his arrest; such records are no longer available and he has never been prosecuted for the charges placed against him on the night of September 21, 1978.

Order entered December 17, 1982: Respondent reprimanded.

Respondent's Petition for Rehearing denied February 25, 1983.

The Complaint alleged that from 11/13/79 to 12/11/79 he failed to devote full time to his judicial duties and received nonjudicial compensation while employed as a watchman. He falsified judicial duty reports to the Administrative Office of the Courts showing he was performing judicial duties during the time of his employment as a watchman. His verified Statement of Economic Interests filed with the State for 1979 falsely failed to show this employment and income.

Order entered August 3, 1983: Respondent suspended for two months without pay.

The Complaint alleged that from December 1975 to March 1981 in the course of Respondent's judicial duties he regularly used intemperate and injudicious remarks, addressing defendants in vile, obscene, insulting and demeaning language.

Order entered August 3, 1983: Complaint Dismissed. Motion for Reconsideration denied September 20, 1983.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent conducted a hearing while intoxicated and made intemperate and injudicious sexual remarks, which were insulting and demeaning to a 17-year-old girl and her parents.

Order entered January 29, 1985: Respondent suspended for one month without pay.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent retained fees for solemnizing marriages outside of the regular session of the court's marriage division.

Order entered April 12, 1985: Complaint dismissed upon Respondent's termination of office.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent retained fees for solemnizing marriages outside of the regular session of the court's marriage division.

Order entered June 25, 1985: Respondent reprimanded.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent retained fees for solemnizing marriages outside of the regular session of the court's marriage division.

Order entered June 25, 1985: Respondent reprimanded.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent failed to report offers of bribes he received from attorneys and engaged in ex parte discussions with attorneys concerning the merits of cases pending before him.

Order entered May 14, 1985: Respondent suspended for one month without pay.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent maintained a fee-splitting arrangement with an attorney, presided in court cases involving property in which he had a financial interest, purchased property with four attorneys from whose cases he did not recuse himself when they appeared before him (nor did he disclose the relationship), and failed to report income from his real estate investments to the IRS or state revenue department or make full disclosure on his financial disclosure statements. (Respondent submitted his resignation during the investigation. The Board petitioned the Supreme Court that it not accept the resignation. The Court ruled that the resignation was effectuated upon submission.)

Order entered January 28, 1978: Complaint dismissed because Respondent resigned his office. Charges stand admitted by Respondent by his failure to deny. They are not moot because he could be reassigned as a retired judge and can perform marriages. The Courts Commission strongly suggests to the Supreme Court that Respondent not be recalled or reassigned to judicial duties.

Board's Mandamus Petition to Illinois Supreme Court to direct Courts Commission to assume jurisdiction, denied March 26, 1987. (Supreme Court #64945).

The Complaint alleged that Respondent made racially disparaging remarks to a black youth and his parents during a juvenile proceeding, and made rude and injudicious comments to a pregnant woman and her mother during a judicial proceeding.

Order entered August 10, 1987: Complaint dismissed after Respondent lost his retention election and was no longer in office.

The Complaint alleged intemperate, rude and sexist remarks to women attorneys during official proceedings

Order entered July 30, 1987: Stipulation of the parties on the facts accepted and Respondent reprimanded.

The Complaint alleged 1) that Respondent  maintained a long-standing personal, romantic and sexual relationship with his judicial secretary and terminated her employment when she discontinued that relationship 2) that he impaneled a jury in the absence of the parties and counsel for the parties and 3) that Respondent failed to cooperate during the investigation into these allegations.

Order entered August 17, 1988: Sustained all three charges. Respondent suspended without pay for six months. Order denying Motion for Reconsideration entered September 2, 1988.

The Complaint alleged that to obtain a mortgage loan in Florida Respondent executed and caused to be delivered to a bank certain documents which falsely claimed the existence of a $15,000 down payment, and to which offense he pled guilty to a criminal information in Florida and was convicted, sentenced and required to pay investigative costs.

Order entered April 15, 1988: Respondent reprimanded.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent engaged in political activity when he was not himself a candidate for judicial retention or election in violation of Supreme Court Rules 67(A)(2).

The Respondent brought a civil rights action in the Federal courts to enjoin the disciplinary proceedings brought against him. The Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board then brought a motion to dismiss with leave to reinstate its Complaint and the Respondent brought his motion to dismiss for want of prosecution.

The Courts Commission made no decision as to the merits of any aspect of the controversy because the Respondent resigned from judicial service.

Order entered January 28, 1992: Complaint dismissed upon resignation from judicial office.

Order denying Motion to Vacate and for Reconsideration entered April 6, 1992.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent received free use of cars from an attorney's car rental client while attorney's law firm was appearing before the Respondent in pending litigation.

Order entered February 9, 1990: Respondent suspended for two months without pay.

The Complaint alleged that while high school students were observing courtroom proceedings as part of a tour, Respondent singled out and called one of the students before the bench. The student was castigated for creating a disturbance even though no disturbance had occurred. The student was ordered into custody and held in Respondent's chambers by handcuffing to a chair. When the student was brought a second time before the bench, the student was castigated again for the manner in which he approached the bench. The student was again ordered into custody and handcuffed to a chair in chambers. The student was required to apologize in open court before being released.

Order entered December 7, 1989: Respondent censured.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and refusing to cooperate with the deputy sheriff. The Respondent stipulated to the facts; as a result, the Courts Commission found Respondent had engaged in conduct bringing the judicial office into disrepute.

Order entered October 30, 1991: Respondent reprimanded.

The Complaint alleged that the Respondent, while a candidate for the nomination to the office of Appellate Court judge in the 1990 primary election, authorized and approved improper campaign advertisements and failed to properly oversee his campaign finances.

Order entered October 25, 1991: Respondent reprimanded.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent approved and used campaign literature during his campaign for election to the Supreme Court, which cast doubt upon his capacity to impartially decide issues that may come before him. The Complaint alleged that as a result, Respondent's conduct violated Illinois Supreme Court Rules 61, 62A, and 67B(1)(c) (before amendment).

Order entered October 25,1991: Dismissed. Motion for Reconsideration denied December 11, 1991.

Although the Courts Commission found a violation of the Code, the Commission stated that the violation was insubstantial, insignificant, and did not warrant the imposition of a reprimand. Note: Initially, Respondent moved to dismiss the Board's complaint on constitutional grounds. The respondent based his argument on that portion of Supreme Court Rule 67B(1) (c) (before amendment) which admonished judicial candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal or political issues. The Courts Commission found that the Board's complaint related solely to the so-called pledges and promises provision of Supreme Court Rule 67B(1) (c). Thus, the Commission found that it did not need to address the constitutionality of the disputed legal or political issues provision of Supreme Court Rule 67B(1)(c). Subsequent to the Courts Commission's decision, the respondent filed suit in the federal court challenging the constitutionality of Supreme Court Rule 67B(1)(c) and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the rule violated the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Rule 67 was subsequently amended. Buckley v. Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board, 997 F. 2d 224 (7 th Cir.1993).

The Complaint alleged that Respondent directed his court clerk to give jurors credit for days they did not perform jury service and to issue work affidavits for employers certifying that jurors were on jury service when they were not.

Order of July 29, 1993: Complaint dismissed.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent embarked on a course of conduct that exploited his judicial position, improperly used the prestige of his judicial office to advance his private interests and improperly assumed an active role in the management of one of his investments.

Order of July 29, 1993: Complaint Dismissed.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent sent some defendants to jail without due process, improperly jailed others for contempt and failed to treat litigants and others in his courtroom with patience, dignity and courtesy.

Order entered January 21, 1994: Respondent removed from office. Motion to Reconsider denied February 18, 1994.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent made derogatory and demeaning ethnic and nationality-based statements about defendants and witnesses who appeared before him.

Order entered March 9, 1994: Complaint dismissed. Motion to Reconsider denied March 9, 1994.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent created and allowed others to maintain the false impression that he is a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Order entered July 24,1995: Respondent Censured.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent engaged in a pattern of conduct whereby he intervened in a number of matters involving police action on behalf of his personal friends and acquaintances, using his position or status as judge to affect or influence police conduct in matters not before him.

Order entered February 19, 1998: Complaint dismissed.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent engaged in conduct where he possessed a controlled drug, namely, 4.9 grams of marijuana, while traveling through Phillip Golden International Airport, Ladyville, Belize. In addition, the Complaint alleged that Respondent refused to appear before the Board in response to its request for his testimony under Rule 4 (d) of the Board's Rules of Procedures.

Order entered January 17, 1997: Complaint dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (Respondent withdrew from election and resigned from office).

The Complaint alleged that Respondent failed to cooperate with and disobeyed law enforcement officials who were investigating him for violations of local traffic laws. In addition, Respondent volunteered information that he was a member of the judiciary after being detained by police officers who suspected that he had violated traffic laws. The Complaint alleged in doing so, Respondent knew or should have known that communicating such information was likely to influence the officers who were investigating him and would be perceived by them as an effort to use his judicial office to keep from being charged with a traffic violation.

Order entered April 30, 1997: Respondent censured.

 The Complaint alleged that Judge Buoscio approached Judge Sheridan and discussed with him an overweight truck citation that had been issued to an individual for driving an overweight truck; Judge Buoscio showed Judge Sheridan a copy of the citation and provided Judge Sheridan with written information about the citation. It is also alleged that Judge Sheridan acknowledged to Judge Buoscio that the overweight truck citation was scheduled to be heard in his courtroom. Prior to the court proceeding and dismissal of the citation, it is alleged that Judge Sheridan had ex parte conversation with the Assistant State's Attorney ("ASA") assigned to prosecute the case. It is alleged that during that ex parte conversation, Judge Sheridan provided the ASA with the written information about the case that had been provided to him by Judge Buoscio, asked the ASA to dispose of and dismiss the case, and told the ASA that he was making the request based upon a request that he had received from another judge.

Order entered July 29, 1999: Complaint dismissed after Respondents resigned from office.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent presided over a hearing for a preliminary injunction in which a Special Agent for the Illinois Liquor Control Commission was forced to reveal publicly that the FBI was investigating the attorney's client who sought the injunction. It is alleged that the Special Agent learned of the hearing only 15 minutes prior to the hearing, was not served with process or any other notice of the nature of the proceedings before being called as a party-witness, and was not allowed the opportunity to present any defense whatsoever. In addition, it is alleged that Respondent denied the Special Agent's requests for time to obtain a lawyer or to make a telephone call. The Complaint further alleged that Respondent issued the preliminary injunction with no expiration date, without bond and without setting forth any specific findings of fact. Respondent stipulated to and admitted each of the allegations of fact contained in the Board's complaint. During an April 2, 2001 hearing before the Courts Commission, the Board and the Respondent presented their joint stipulation of facts and submitted a joint recommendation for imposition of a three-month suspension from office without compensation. The Courts Commission accepted the stipulation and discipline recommendation.

Written order entered on August 23, 2001. Respondent suspended from office for three months without compensation.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent engaged in a pattern of sexually intimidating and inappropriate conduct, made a variety of sexually intimidating and inappropriate comments, and engaged in sexually intimidating and inappropriate physical conduct toward female attorneys who appeared before him in his capacity as an Associate Judge. In addition, it is alleged that the Respondent failed to recuse himself from cases handled by a victim's assistance coordinator with whom he had a romantic relationship, he improperly used his judicial chambers to engage in sexual acts with a court reporter, and that he refused to answer any questions by the Judicial Inquiry Board concerning the proposed charges. A hearing was held on the allegations: June 4, 2001 through June 8, 2001.

Order entered December 3, 2001: Respondent removed from office.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent berated in a loud voice a juror for the jury's verdict in a criminal matter calling the jury "stupid" and "gutless" for its verdict of "not guilty" on one of the offenses, and stated that the verdict was the "worst" verdict Respondent had seen in years. In addition, it is alleged that Respondent raised his voice and said to an Assistant State's Attorney from the bench in open court, "_ _ _ _ you and your office." Respondent is also alleged to have refused to sign a court reporters voucher for payment of services in retaliation against her for signing a petition against Respondent concerning his disregard for following the ordinary selection process in selecting his permanent courtroom court reporter. It is alleged that when respondent eventually signed the voucher and returned it to the court reporter it stated, "Maybe you better think before signing petitions." The Complaint also alleged that on at least five occasions, Respondent referred to a female judge in a derogatory manner in or around his chambers or courthouse with various Assistant State's Attorneys whose cases were pending before him. Respondent stipulated to and admitted each of the allegations of fact and the alleged violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct contained in the Board's complaint. Based upon the Stipulation, the Board and Respondent submitted a joint recommendation that the Illinois Courts Commission impose the discipline of a three-month suspension from office without compensation.

Order entered November 17, 1999. Joint Stipulation and Recommendation adopted. Respondent suspended from office for three months without pay.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent had been drinking alcohol and was under the influence of alcohol at a time when he was stopped by a law enforcement officer, refused to take field sobriety and breathalyzer tests, and volunteered information that he was a member of the judiciary after being detained by police officers. Respondent stipulated to and admitted each of the allegations of fact contained in the Board's complaint. Based upon the Stipulation, the Board and Respondent submitted a joint recommendation that the Illinois Courts Commission impose the discipline of reprimand.

Order entered November 18, 1999: Joint Stipulation and Recommendation adopted. Respondent reprimanded.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent had been drinking alcohol and was under the influence of alcohol at a time when she was stopped by a law enforcement officer, that Respondent failed field sobriety tests, and Respondent refused to take a breathalyzer test. The Complaint also alleged that Respondent communicated information to law enforcement officers, which she knew or should have known would be perceived by the officers as an effort to use her judicial office to influence the officers to not charge her with a traffic violation. The Respondent and the Board agreed to a Stipulation of Facts. The Board stipulated that the clear and convincing evidence did not establish that Respondent intended to use her judicial office to influence the actions of the officers. Respondent stipulated to and admitted each of the remaining allegations of fact contained in the Board's Complaint and admitted that she violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. Based upon the Stipulation, the Board and Respondent submitted a joint recommendation that the Illinois Courts Commission impose the discipline of reprimand.

Order entered October 9, 2001: Joint Stipulation and Recommendation adopted. Respondent reprimanded.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent forged the signature of a former friend on twenty (20) federal and state income tax returns for himself and entities in which he and/or his wife had a beneficial interest, and on one additional return, Respondent forged the name "Richard J. Kutrubis" as the paid tax preparer; failed to disqualify himself from adjudicating a case against an individual that he had a personal relationship with wherein the individual was charged with a municipal violation for gambling; failed to disqualify himself from adjudicating a municipal violation case against his friend and business partner (the municipal violation involved gambling on a video-poker machine at a tavern owned and operated by Respondent's friend and business partner - the video poker machine at issue was placed in the tavern by respondent's wife); knowingly failed to disclose on his 1996 Statement Required of Members of the Judiciary of the State of Illinois ("Judicial Statement") a loan that he and his wife received from his wife's personal friend in the amount of $14,000; knowingly failed to disclose on his 1991 Judicial Statement that he had been sued in an action relating to his ownership of a condominium; in connection with his action relating to his ownership of a condominium, caused a false statement to be submitted to the Judicial Inquiry Board in advance of his hearing before the Board wherein he falsely and misleadingly stated that he had not been served with process in the action; knowingly failed to disclose on his 1991 and 1992 Judicial Statements that he had been sued in an action under the Illinois Liquor Control Act, Chapter 43, Section 135, involving his wife's tavern; knowingly failed to disclose on his 1996, 1997, and 1998 Judicial Statements that he had been sued in a second action under the Illinois Liquor Control Act, 235 ILCS 5/6-21, involving his wife's tavern; and engaged in an ex parte communication with a Circuit Court judge and attempted to use his judicial position to obtain an outcome-influencing continuance in a case that had been marked "final" for trial. The Board and Respondent agreed to a Stipulation of Facts and made a Joint Recommendation that Respondent be suspended without pay for six months. Respondent also made a Submission in support of the Joint Recommendation.

Order entered August 29, 2002: Stipulation of Facts, the Joint Recommendation, and Respondent's Submission in Support of the Joint Recommendation adopted. Respondent suspended from office for six months without pay.

The Complaint alleged that on December 29, 1999, and again on April 15, 2000, the Respondent verified and filed two statements of economic interest that were false and misleading because they failed to disclose certain debts and lawsuits. Specifically, the statements (1) failed to disclose Respondent's debts in excess of $500 to the IRS, the State of Illinois and other creditors; and (2) failed to disclose lawsuits to which Respondent was a party. The Complaint further alleged that the debts and lawsuits were required to be disclosed by Supreme Court Rules 66 and 68 and were known to respondent when he filed the statements. Respondent filed an answer to the complaint, admitting the allegations, requesting that the Courts Commission enter a judgment against Respondent on the allegations set forth in the complaint, and to set the matter for oral argument on the appropriate sanction to be imposed. The Courts Commission allowed the motion for oral argument on the sole issue of sanctions and heard arguments, after entering Judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Board and against Respondent.

Order entered May 25, 2001: Respondent suspended from office for one month without pay.

The Complaint alleged that in 1998 and early 1999, Respondent presided over two adoption cases in the Adoption Court involving lesbian partners. In each case, the child's birth mother and her lesbian partner petitioned for adoption of a child by the mother's lesbian partner. In each case, both the Guardian Ad Litem and the Cook County Department of Supportive Services recommended that the adoption petition be granted. But Respondent, whose conduct suggests that she is prejudiced against homosexuals and believes they should not be permitted to adopt children, attempted to thwart both adoptions. Respondent was eventually removed from the two cases by the presiding judge of the Adoption Court, who then granted each petition. Notwithstanding the presiding judge's orders granting the adoptions and even though Respondent had already been removed from the cases, Respondent took further judicial steps calculated to frustrate and void the adoptions. Respondent's bias against homosexuals resulted in her making rulings contrary to Illinois law and in her advancing her own personal beliefs over the legal rights of the parties who appeared before her.

Oral ruling entered September 27, 2002 and Written Order filed November 27, 2002: Complaint dismissed

 The Complaint alleged that in late 1999 or early 2000, Respondent's stepson applied for admission to the Southern Illinois University School of Law (the " Law School"). Respondent, an alumnus of the Law School, sought the advice and assistance of certain Law School faculty members and administrators with respect to his stepson's application. Despite Respondent's efforts, in July 2000, his stepson was denied admission to the Law School. Immediately following his stepson's rejection, Respondent banned all law students from appearing in his courtroom pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 711, which permits specified law-students ("711 students") to render client services, including appearing in trial courts, under the supervision of an attorney. The only law students affected by this ban were students at the Law School. The Complaint alleged that Respondent's prohibition on 711 students in his courtroom was in retaliation for the rejection of his stepson's application to the Law School, or created the appearance that it was in retaliation for the rejection of his stepson's application. The Board and Respondent agreed to a Stipulation of Facts and made a Joint Recommendation that Respondent be reprimanded. Respondent also made a Submission in support of the Joint Recommendation of reprimand.

Order entered November 30, 2001: Stipulation of Facts, the Joint Recommendation, and Respondent's Submission in support of the Joint Recommendation adopted. Respondent reprimanded.

The Complaint alleged that the Respondent addressed an African-American criminal defendant as "boy;" warned a criminal defendant to "Be careful. Be real _ _ _ _ _ _ _ careful;" and showed his dissatisfaction with a jury verdict by tearing up juror appreciation certificates while uttering words to the effect of, "They don't deserve these." In addition, the Complaint alleged that the Respondent knowingly misrepresented facts about his residency in his campaign literature, knowingly violated state constitutional residency requirements, knowingly registered to vote and voted in the wrong election district, and knowingly filed a false statement regarding his residency with the Illinois Secretary of State. The Parties entered into a partial stipulation of facts and a hearing was held on August 23, 2004.

Order entered November 15, 2004: Respondent removed from office.

The Complaint alleged that on at least three occasions, the Respondent used his status as a judge, or appeared to use his status as a judge, to advance his own personal interests. First, the respondent used an unofficial "judicial badge" to avoid receiving a speeding ticket. Second, in a separate incident, the Respondent attempted to induce a police officer to cite a motorist for traffic violations based solely upon his requests and without further investigation. In a third incident, Respondent called the Chief Judge of another judicial circuit and sought redress over a warrant that had been issued for his daughter's arrest for failure to pay a fine. The Board and Respondent agreed to a Stipulation of Facts and made a Joint Recommendation that Respondent be suspended without pay for one month. Respondent also made a Submission in support of the Joint Recommendation.

Order entered  February 28, 2003: Stipulation of Facts, the Joint Recommendation, and Respondent's Submission in support of the Joint Recommendation adopted. Respondent suspended from office for one month without pay.

The Complaint alleged that the Respondent failed to promptly dispose of the business of the court in time-sensitive cases and to diligently discharge his administrative responsibilities (after taking 12 cases under advisement, the Respondent rendered his decision in excess of ninety days, ranging from 147 days to 640 days). The Board and Respondent agreed to a Stipulation of Facts and made a Joint Recommendation that Respondent be reprimanded. Respondent also made a Submission in support of the Joint Recommendation of reprimand.

Order entered August 25, 2003: Stipulation of Facts, the Joint Recommendation, and Respondent's Submission in support of the Joint Recommendation adopted. Respondent reprimanded.

The Complaint alleged that from March 2003 to March 2004, Respondent conducted an unsuccessful campaign in the Republican primary for a Circuit Court Judge position in DuPage County, Illinois. In connection with this campaign, the Respondent circulated numerous campaign materials that contained graphic and sensational images, several misrepresentations, and statements that committed and appeared to commit the Respondent with respect to certain issues. The Board and Respondent agreed to a Stipulation of Facts and made a Joint Recommendation that Respondent be censured.

Order entered January 4, 2005: Stipulation of Facts, the Joint Recommendation, and Submission of Counsel Stating Facts in Mitigation adopted. Respondent censured.

The Complaint alleged that during Respondent's assignment to Kane County Drug Court in 2000, Respondent abused the powers of his office by systematically violating the constitutional and statutory rights of criminal defendants, systematically violating several Judicial Canons and statutory provisions, and engaging in intemperate acts of intimidation, retribution, and vindictiveness in response to those who disagreed with the manner in which he presided over judicial proceedings. The Complaint also alleged that Respondent attempted to conceal the systematic violations of defendants' rights by questioning defendants either without a court reporter present or after instructing the court reporter to go off the record; and while presiding over the Kane County Drug Court, Respondent systematically failed to discharge his adjudicative and administrative responsibilities. The Complaint further alleged that Respondent interfered with the operation of the Kane County Drug Court after his removal as Presiding Judge of the Kane County Drug Court.

An Agreed Motion to Dismiss was filed on August 17, 2006 - the parties agreed that Respondent voluntarily vacated his judicial position, that the Supreme Court of Illinois filled that vacant position with a new judge, and that because Respondent was no longer a state judge, the Illinois Courts Commission no longer had jurisdiction over the matter.

Order of August 28, 2006: Action dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The Complaint alleged that between 2003 through 2004, the Respondent engaged in the following improper conduct: (a) permitted an ex parte communication with an army recruiter concerning a criminal case not pending before him, caused the case to be transferred to his court call, then allowed the ex parte communication to influence his judicial conduct and judgment regarding the case; and (b) publicly endorsed another judicial candidate at a time when Respondent was not a candidate for office. Respondent admitted to the truth of the allegations as stated in the Complaint. The Board and Respondent made a Joint Recommendation that Respondent be reprimanded.

Order entered June 16, 2005: The Joint Recommendation and Mitigation Statement adopted. Respondent reprimanded.

The Complaint alleged that Respondent committed misconduct in 2003 by dating a litigant while presiding over her divorce and child custody case and he committed misconduct again in 2005 by engaging in frequent, personal ex parte contact with a witness who testified in her sister's child custody dispute, a matter over which the Respondent presided. On April 5, 2007 the Board filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint without Prejudice, asserting that because Respondent was no longer a sitting Illinois judge (resigned from office), the Illinois Courts Commission no longer had jurisdiction over the matter.

Order entered May 2, 2007: Action dismissed without prejudice.

The Complaint alleged that on June 30, 2006 Respondent was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and was issued citations for driving under the influence of alcohol, driving with an alcohol concentration above .08, and speeding. On July 26, 2006 Respondent pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol. Respondent was sentenced to court supervision for a period of twelve months and restricted driving privilege for ninety days, was fined $2300, and was ordered to attend a victim impact panel and complete treatment pursuant to an alcohol evaluation. The speeding violation was dismissed. The Complaint also alleged that Respondent volunteered his status as a judge to the DUI Investigator. Respondent stipulated to and admitted to each of the allegations of fact and each of the alleged violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct as entered into a joint recommendation that the Illinois Courts Commission discipline Respondent with a reprimand. Based upon Respondent's stipulation, the Board and Respondent tendered a joint recommendation that the Illinois Courts Commission discipline Respondent with a reprimand.

Order entered August 9, 2007: Stipulation and Joint Recommendation adopted. Respondent reprimanded.

The Complaint alleged that on December 3, 2006, Judge Patrick Young drove a car while under the influence of alcohol and was involved in an accident in which the driver of another car sustained injuries. Judge Young received traffic citations for driving while under the influence of alcohol and for failure to yield while turning left. On March 2, 2007, Judge Young was found guilty by stipulated bench trial of the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol; he was sentenced to court supervision for a period of two years; fined $1500; and ordered to complete treatment pursuant to an alcohol evaluation. Judge Young's citation for failure to yield while turning left was dismissed. The Complaint further alleged that on December 3, 2006, Judge Jan V. Fiss was a passenger in Judge Young's vehicle; was aware that Judge Young was driving the vehicle after Judge Young had been drinking alcohol for much of the day; and illegally transported open alcohol as a passenger in Judge Young's vehicle. On March 20, 2007, Judge Fiss pled guilty to illegal transportation of alcohol by a passenger and was sentenced to court supervision for a period of sixty days and was fined $500.00. In regard to the Board's Complaint against Judge Fiss ("Respondent"), the Board and the Respondent filed a Stipulation and Joint Recommendation wherein Respondent stipulated to and admitted to each of the allegations of fact and each of the alleged violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct as stated in the Board's Complaint. Based upon Respondent's stipulation, the Board and Respondent tendered a joint recommendation that the Illinois Courts Commission discipline Respondent with a reprimand. The Respondent also filed a Submission of Facts in Support of the Joint Stipulation and Recommendation of Reprimand.

Order entered  December 20, 2007: Stipulation and Joint Recommendation adopted. Respondent reprimanded.

As to the Board's Complaint against Judge Young ("Respondent"), the Board and the Respondent filed a Stipulation and Joint Recommendation wherein Respondent stipulated to and admitted each of the allegations of fact and each of the alleged violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct as stated in the Board's Complaint. Based upon Respondent's stipulation, the Board and Respondent tendered a joint recommendation that the Illinois Courts Commission discipline Respondent with a reprimand. The Respondent also filed a Submission of Facts in Support of the Joint Stipulation and Recommendation of Reprimand.

Order entered December 20, 2007: Stipulation and Joint Recommendation adopted. Respondents reprimanded.

The Complaint alleged that on Saturday, June 16, 2007, Judge Michael J. Chmiel ("Respondent"), a juvenile-court judge not on duty that day, was told by Robert Miller – a friend, former client, and political ally – that Miller's brother David had been arrested that morning on felony charges and would have to remain in jail until the following Monday absent a special bond hearing. In response, Respondent agreed to preside over such a special bond hearing, thereby enabling David Miller to be released on bond that same day. In addition, the Complaint alleged that subsequent public outcry of political favoritism for the locally-powerful Miller family caused Respondent's fellow circuit judges to inquire into the reasons why Respondent had held such a hearing; in response, Respondent failed to disclose Robert Miller's involvement. The Complaint further alleged that later, on October 12, 2007, during sworn testimony before the Board regarding the aforementioned special bond hearing, Respondent made false and misleading statements, and otherwise failed to disclose Robert Miller's involvement in causing that hearing to have occurred.

Order entered November 19, 2010: Conduct of Respondent in holding a bond hearing on June 16, 2017 created the appearance of impropriety. The Board did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed actual impropriety by conducting the June 16, 2007 bond hearing, engaged in ex parte communication or gave false and misleading testimony to the Board. Respondent reprimanded.

The Complaint alleged that on May 9, 2008, Judge Sheila M. McGinnis ("Respondent") rear-ended a vehicle at a stoplight, which resulted in damage to the motorist#39;s vehicle; a police officer, who responded to the scene of the accident, detected alcohol on the judge#39;s breath when he attempted to question her. The Complaint also alleged that Judge McGinnis declined to take a field sobriety test at the scene; refused to answer questions; and failed to provide the officer with proof of valid automobile insurance. Judge McGinnis was subsequently arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and issued citations for driving under the influence of alcohol, failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident, and failure to provide proof of valid insurance. The Complaint further alleged that while at the police station, Judge McGinnis again declined to take a Breathalyzer test. On January 20, 2009, Judge McGinnis pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol and she was sentenced to court supervision for a period of eighteen months, fined $1000.00, and ordered to attend a victim impact panel and complete treatment pursuant to an alcohol evaluation.

Order entered November 18, 2009: Stipulation and Joint Recommendation adopted. Respondent Reprimanded

The Complaint alleges that on June 27, 2009, Judge Albert L. Purham, Jr. drove a car while under the influence of alcohol and was pulled over by a police officer because he was swerving and drifting between lanes. The Complaint also alleges that the officer detected the order of alcohol upon questioning Judge Purham and although he refused to take several field sobriety tests, he offered to take a Portable Breath Test and agreed to take a Breathalyzer test while at the Washington Police Station. Judge Purham was subsequently arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and was issued citations for improper lane usage, driving under the influence of alcohol, and driving under the influence of alcohol – BrAC over Legal Limit of 0.08. On September 3, 2009, Judge Purham pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol and he was sentenced to court supervision for a period of twelve months, fined $750.00, and ordered to complete all required treatment and counseling pursuant to an alcohol evaluation.

Order entered September 14, 2010: Stipulation and Joint Recommendation adopted. Respondent reprimanded.

The Complaint alleged that on Tuesday, June 29, 2010, the Respondent, while driving a 2003 Jeep Liberty, struck an unattended parked car and then, with willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons and property, drove from the scene at a high rate of speed while the passenger-side front tire of his car was nearly off the rim, disobeyed multiple stop signs, and caused a thirteen-year old girl to move away from the road quickly in order to avoid being struck by his car.

Order entered May 9, 2012: Respondent suspended without compensation for 60 days.

The Complaint alleged that on or about April 30, 2010, Respondent#39;s daughter received a traffic citation (the “Citation”) in a city located within the Seventh Judicial Circuit and five days prior to the scheduled June 7, 2010 court hearing on the Citation, Respondent spoke to a then sitting judge (“Judge A”) of the Seventh Judicial Circuit who was scheduled to preside over the matter. The Complaint also alleged that during the conversation between Respondent and Judge A, the topic arose of the many traffic cases scheduled to be heard by Judge A on June 7, 2010. Thereafter, it is alleged, among other things, that Respondent informed Judge A that Respondent#39;s daughter#39;s traffic case was one of those cases; and on the scheduled date of her hearing on the Citation, she was going to be out of state on a mission trip. The Complaint additionally alleged that Judge A then asked Respondent his daughter#39;s name, wrote her name down, and told Respondent that he would continue Respondent#39;s daughter#39;s hearing date and she would not be required to appear in court on June 7, 2010. The Complaint further alleged that on June 7, 2010, Judge A dismissed the Citation on his own motion, without first consulting the State#39;s Attorney#39;s Office and without ever conducting a hearing on the Citation, and falsely docketed that the Citation had been dismissed for insufficient evidence based upon a motion of the State.

Order entered September 9, 2011: Complaint dismissed.

The Complaint alleged that on the morning of September 23, 2010, Respondent went into a detail shop and spoke to the shop#39;s Owner regarding getting his car detailed; during the course of their conversation, Respondent informed the Shop Owner that he worked at the Markham courthouse. The Complaint also alleges that the Shop Owner then volunteered to Respondent that he had a case pending at the Markham courthouse (the “Shop Owner matter”) and a court hearing was scheduled for that morning; thereafter, the Shop Owner showed Respondent an Order dated August 12, 2010 noticing the Shop Owner matter for hearing. The Complaint additionally alleged that Respondent left the detail shop; went to the Markham courthouse; and after arriving at the courthouse, Respondent went to the courtroom of the judge presiding over Shop Owner matter (“Judge A”). At the time of Respondent#39;s arrival in Judge A#39;s courtroom, Judge A was in the process of conducting his pro se call. After Respondent informed Judge A that he wanted to speak with him, Judge A recessed his call and met with Respondent in Judge A#39;s chambers. The Complaint alleged that while in Judge A#39;s chambers, Respondent showed Judge A the August 12, 2010 Order, informed Judge A that he (Judge A) had the case associated with the Order, that one of the parties was a mechanic who had done work for another judge, and that the mechanic was a “good guy;” Judge A then stood up and Respondent told Judge A that he was not asking him to do “anything improper.” The Complaint also alleged that Judge A returned to the bench immediately following the conversation with Respondent in his chambers and after finishing his call and trial, Judge A informed the Presiding Judge of the morning#39;s events. The Complaint further alleged that later that morning, Respondent called Judge A#39;s chambers and left a voicemail message; and that Judge A returned his call, during which Respondent apologized and said he “regretted” his actions. The Respondent then asked Judge A to disregard their conversation that had taken place earlier that morning. On September 27, 2010, Respondent returned to Judge A#39;s chambers and apologized for his conduct on September 23, 2010; Judge A informed Respondent that he was “uncomfortable” with the situation and he would report the matter to the Judicial Inquiry Board. The Complaint further alleged that Respondent asked Judge A if he could “talk him out” of doing so to which Judge A responded that he had to report the matter. Judge A ultimately recused himself from the Shop Owner matter and it was transferred to the Fifth Municipal District.

Order entered November 7, 2011: Respondent censured.

The Complaint alleged that beginning in 2010 and periodically until August 2011, Respondent frequently used his Will County issued work computer to access pornographic websites during work hours in his chambers. The Complaint further alleged that Will County's policies prohibited its employees from using Will County's electronic communication systems for accessing explicit material.

Order entered February 1, 2013: Respondent suspended without pay for 60 days.

The Complaint alleged that on March 8, 2012, Respondent, while on the bench and in open court, made a number of inappropriate comments; and that on the next day, March 9, 2012, Respondent pushed a Cook County Deputy Sheriff.  The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office subsequently filed criminal charges for battery against Respondent related to her conduct on March 9, 2012. The Complaint also alleged that on February 4, 2013, after a bench trial, the trial judge ruled that the evidence against Respondent satisfied the elements of battery beyond a reasonable doubt but that Respondent was not criminally responsible because she had been legally insane at the time of the battery. The Complaint further alleged that Respondent had and continues to have schizoaffective disorder (bipolar type); and without the necessary and appropriate medication, this condition renders Respondent mentally unable to perform her duties.

Order entered May 9, 2014: Removed and dismissed Respondent from the office of Circuit Court Judge.

The Complaint alleged that on March 31, 2014, Judge Joseph P. Hettel drove a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; and while driving under the influence of alcohol on that date, he collided into a parked vehicle, causing significant damage to both vehicles and a nearby utility pole.  The Complaint also alleged that at the scene of the accident, Judge Hettel refused to take any field sobriety tests; and he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Thereafter, the Complaint alleged that Judge Hettel was taken to the Ottawa Police Station, where he refused to take a breathalyzer test and also refused to provide a blood or urine sample. Judge Hettel was subsequently issued citations for driving under the influence of alcohol, failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident, using an electronic communication device while operating a motor vehicle, and improper lane usage.

On May 21, 2014, Judge Hettel pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol (the State dismissed the companion citations). The Court sentenced him to court supervision for a period two years; fined him $2,000; required him to complete all recommendations in his DUI evaluation by December 11, 2014; ordered him to attend the drunk Driving Impact Panel; and required that he perform on hundred hours of community service by December 11, 2014.

Order entered December 22, 2014: Respondent reprimanded.

The Complaint alleged that beginning no later than December 5, 2010, and continuing through at least February 16, 2011, Judges Drazewski and Foley engaged in an undisclosed extramarital affair, during which time period Judge Drazewski presided over a number of pending cases, including a three-day jury trial, where Judge Foley’s husband – an attorney who practiced regularly in the judges’ courthouse – represented parties.  The Complaint also alleged that during the time period that Judge Drazewski presided over Judge Foley’s husband’s pending cases, Judge Foley did not disclose to her husband or to her Chief Judge that she was having an extramarital relationship with Judge Drazewski. According to the Complaint, Judge Foley was aware that Judge Drazewski presided over a jury trial in which her husband represented one of the parties while the extramarital affair was ongoing. The Complaint further alleged that it was only after Judge Foley’s husband had confronted Judge Foley and demanded that Judge Drazewski recuse himself, and after Judge Foley had then related that conversation to Judge Drazewski, that Judge Drazewski recused himself from Attorney Foley’s cases. The Complaint also alleged that during subsequent communications with his Chief Judge, Judge Drazewski failed to disclose the actual reason for those recusals, namely his extramarital relationship with Judge Foley.

Order entered March 11, 2016: Respondent Scott D. Drazewski suspended from office for four months without pay effective May 1, 2016; Respondent Rebecca S. Foley censured.

The Complaint alleged that beginning no later June 2013, and continuing through March 2014, Judge Santiago, in connection with the refinancing of her mortgage on a property located on North Spaulding Avenue in Chicago, Illinois (the “Spaulding property”), attempted to and did deceive her mortgage lender by making several misrepresentations in her mortgage application documents that caused her lender to believe she occupied the Spaulding property as her primary residence and that she intended to occupy the Spaulding property as her primary residence within 60 days of executing a mortgage agreement, when in fact she resided at another property and had no intention of establishing residency at the Spaulding property.

Order entered August 18, 2016: Respondent censured

The Complaint alleged that in August 2016, Judge Turner allowed Rhonda Crawford, a former law clerk/staff attorney for the Office of the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County to wear her robe, sit on the bench, and adjudicate traffic ticket cases assigned to her at the Markham Courthouse.  The Complaint further alleged that at the time of the August 2016 incident, Judge Turner then suffered and continues to suffer from memory loss, and is mentally unable to perform her duties.

Order entered December 1, 2017: Respondent retired by the Illinois Courts Commission

The Complaint alleged that beginning in or about February 2015, and continuing in or about November 2016, Respondent used official court letterhead, computer equipment, and staff to solicit paid lecturing opportunities from law enforcement organizations, medical societies, and hospitals. The Complaint also alleged -  in doing so - Respondent used the prestige of his judicial office as well as the court’s resources to advance his private interests. The Complaint further alleged that Respondent’s conduct created a potential for an appearance that he is biased in favor of physicians and law enforcement with respect to matters involving those professions.

Order entered August 13, 2018: Respondent reprimanded

The Complaint alleges that on December 30, 2016, while being interviewed by police officers in connection with the criminal investigation of the murder of Carl Z. Silas, Respondent made statements he knew to be false and deceptive, and omitted facts that he knew were relevant to the matters the officers were investigating. Respondent's misrepresentations, deceptions, and omissions concerned facts that were relevant to an active murder investigation. The Complaint further alleges that on May 12, 2017 and June 9, 2017 Respondent also made statements he knew to be false and deceptive while testifying before the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board, and omitted facts during his testimony that he knew were relevant to the matters the Board was investigating. These misrepresentations, deceptions, and omissions were made under oath, and concerned facts that were relevant to the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board's investigation into Respondent's conduct.

Order entered January 10, 2020: Respondent removed from office.

The Complaint alleged that on February 15, 2018, following a trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, a jury found Respondent guilty of mail fraud and bank fraud related to a scheme to defraud lenders and entities in connection with the purchase and financing of her investment properties. The Complaint also alleged that on April 26, 2018, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled on the Petition of the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission ("ARDC") for Interim Suspension in light of this jury verdict and the conduct underlying it, suspending Respondent from the practice of law until further order of Court. The Complaint alleged that although the Illinois Constitution requires all judges to be "licensed attorney[s]-at-law of this state," Respondent has continued since her suspension to hold the office of title of Circuit Court judge, continues to receive a judicial salary, and seeks retention in the upcoming judicial elections. Further, the Complaint allegedthat this undermines public confidence in the judicial system, is prejudicial to the administration of justice, and brings the judicial office into disrepute.

Order Entered November 1, 2018: Action dismissed without prejudice (The Judicial Inquiry Board filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint Without Prejudice, asserting that because Respondent is no linger a sitting Illionis Judge, the Illinois Courts Commission no longer has jurisdiction over the matter).

The Complaint alleged that on September 27, 2017 while being interviewed by detectives in connection with an investigation into Respondent's discharge of a firearm inside his apartment and firing a bullet into a neighboring apartment, Respondent made statements he knew to be false and deceptive and knowingly omitted facts that were relevant to the matters the detectives were investigating.  It was also alleged that these misrepresentations, deceptions, and omissions concerned facts Respondent knew were relevant to an active criminal investigation. 

It was alleged that on April 13, 2018 Respondent again made statements he knew to be false and deceptive while testifying before the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board, and knowingly omitted facts during his testimony that were relevant to matters the Board was investigating.  The Complaint alleged that the misrepresentations, deceptions, and omissions before the Board were made under oath and concerned facts Respondent knew were relevant to the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board's investigation into his conduct.

Additionally, the Complaint alleged that on or about September 28, 2017 Respondent filed a "Formal Complaint" against a court employee who had lodged a complaint of sexual harassment against Respondent that was investigated, substantiated, and deemed to be a violation of the Illinois Supreme Court Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures. It was alleged that Respondent filed the "Formal Complaint" in an attempt to retaliate against the court employee for lodging a sexual harassment complaint against him, and in an attempt to damage the court employee's standing with her employer and to discourage or dissuade her from raising future complaints.

The Complaint further alleged that during July and August 2016 Respondent took other negative employment actions against his former administrative assistant, including verbally complaining to her supervisors and co-workers about her appearance and job performance, demanding her termination, threatening to sue her, and threatening to hold her in contempt and take her into custody, after his assistant submitted information in support of a sexual harassment complaint against Respondent that was investigated, substantiated, and deemed to be a violation of the Illinois Supreme Court Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures. It was alleged that Respondent took these actions in an attempt to retaliate against his assistant for lodging a sexual harassment complaint against him, and in an attempt to damage his assistant's standing with her employer and to discourage or dissuade her from raising future complaints.

Order entered September 27, 2019: Respondent removed from office.

The Complaint alleges that Respondent engaged in a pattern of inappropriate and harassing behavior toward women with whom he has interacted in professional settings and in his official judicial capacity.  It is alleged that in or around the Spring and Summer of 2012, on two separate occasions, Respondent made unwanted sexual advances toward a court reporter while alone with her in the confined space of an elevator at the Domestic Violence Courthouse in Chicago.  It is also alleged that on August 15, 2016, Respondent made unwelcome sexual comments toward, and attempted unwanted physical contact with, a Chicago Police Officer while she was in his chambers at the George N. Leighton Criminal Court Building to obtain his signature on a search warrant.  In addition, it is alleged that on September 11, 2018, Respondent made inappropriate and sexually suggestive comments about an Assistant State's Attorney after she appeared before him, and did so in the presence of another Assistant State's Attorney.

Oral ruling entered September 29, 2020.  Respondent resigned October 5, 2020.  Order entered November 6, 2020.

The Complaint alleges that on March 10, 2016, the Third Division of the Appellate Court entered an order in a case where Respondent’s nephew was a party. The Justices of the Third Division who entered that order were Presiding Justice Mary Anne Mason, Justice Terrence Lavin, and Justice James F. Smith. Thereafter, in March 2016, Respondent initiated and engaged in an improper ex parte communication with Justice Lavin about the order. The Complaint also alleges that on March 29, 2016, Respondent met with Presiding Justice Mary Anne Mason and engaged in an improper ex parte communication with her regarding the same order. The Complaint further alleges that on February 14, 2020, Respondent made statements he knew to be false while testifying before the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board. The deceptions before the Board were made under oath and concerned facts Respondent knew were relevant to the Judicial Inquiry Board’s investigation into his conduct.

Order Entered July 6, 2022: Complaint dismissed upon resignation of judicial office.

The Complaint alleges that on January 11, 2022, Respondent conducted court proceedings via livestream video. After court had adjourned, Respondent, while still on the bench, mistakenly believed that the livestream had ended and initiated a conversation with two Assistant State’s Attorneys and an Assistant Public Defender. Through the course of that conversation, Respondent made derogatory, injudicious, and demeaning statements about two attorneys who had appeared before him that day.

Order Entered December 2, 2022: Complaint dismissed upon resignation of judicial office.

The Complaint alleges that on November 23, 2021, Respondent struck the rear end of a parked vehicle which resulted in damage to both vehicles. A police officer, who responded to the scene of the accident, smelled a strong odor of alcohol coming from Respondent’s mouth when he questioned him. He also observed Respondent’s eyes were glassy and bloodshot, and he was swaying back and forth. The Complaint also alleges that Respondent declined to take field sobriety tests at the scene. Respondent was subsequently arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and issued citations for driving under the influence of alcohol and failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident. The Complaint further alleges that while at the police station, Respondent declined to take a Breathalyzer test. On February 18, 2022, Respondent pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol and was sentenced to court supervision for a period of twelve months, fined $1500.00, and ordered to complete the Court Sentence “DUI” Monitoring Program for remedial education and DASA Level II-M DUI counseling, including attendance at a Victim Impact Panel.

Order Entered October 14, 2022: Stipulation of facts. Respondent reprimanded.

The Complaint alleges that on January 3, 2022, in the case of the People of the State of Illinois v. Drew Clinton, 2021-CF-396, Respondent, in order to circumvent the law and prevent the Defendant in the case from serving a mandatory sentence of incarceration, vacated his prior finding of guilt and found the Defendant not guilty. The Complaint also alleges that on January 12, 2022, Respondent told a prosecutor who appeared before him that he couldn’t be fair with him and to leave the courtroom because the prosecutor had “liked” a comment on a social media post that was critical of him. The Complaint further alleges that on April 8, 2022, Respondent made statements he knew to be false while testifying before the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board. The deceptions before the Board were made under oath and concerned facts Respondent knew were relevant to the Judicial Inquiry Board’s investigation into his conduct.

Order Entered February 23, 2024: Respondent removed from office.