I have this oped in the Chicago Tribune, about a local judge who's gotten into a lot of trouble (and who has drawn national attention):
Judge Valarie Turner, of the Circuit Court of Cook County, is a very smart person who appears to have done a very dumb thing. While presiding over her call in a Markham courtroom, she allegedly turned her robe and gavel over to a lawyer, who then took the bench and adjudicated a couple of traffic tickets.
That was not quite as crazy as it sounds. The lawyer, whose name is Rhonda Crawford, won the recent Democratic primary in her judicial subcircuit, and she is running unopposed in November for a seat on the court. She was apparently "shadowing" Turner on the fateful day in order to learn more about the job of judging. It would not have been out of line for Crawford to try on Turner's robe, or even to sit on the bench for a bit. But ruling on cases, even if they were only minor traffic offenses, turned the situation into a fiasco.
The story of the faux judge eventually reached the office of Chief Judge Timothy Evans, who issued an order temporarily removing Turner from all judicial duties, pending further investigation. He also suspended Crawford from her current job as a staff attorney for the court.
Evans did the right thing by taking quick action on Turner and Crawford, but the real question is what will happen next.
Assuming that the allegations are true — neither Turner nor Crawford has issued a denial — the two of them violated a slew of ethics provisions that govern both lawyers and judges. They engaged in "conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice" that involved "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." The defendants on the two tickets were denied the "right to be heard according to law," and might now have to return to court to have their cases reheard by a real judge.
There are separate disciplinary bodies for lawyers and judges in Illinois. Lawyers are governed by the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission while judges are subject to the Judicial Inquiry Board. I believe it is safe to assume that both organizations already have initiated official investigations, and that some penalty is all but certain to follow. The potential range of sanctions runs from formal reprimands to disbarment of Crawford and removal of Turner from the judiciary. Which one should it be?
There is no defense for a judge who turned her bench over to a lawyer, and no excuse for a lawyer who pretended to be a judge, even if only briefly. Nonetheless, I do not think that these offenses should be career killers. Neither Turner nor Crawford acted for personal gain, manifested bias, demeaned litigants or witnesses or otherwise intended to hurt anyone. Although they do appear to have inconvenienced two traffic defendants, they did not commit a grave injustice.
Even thoughtful, hardworking people can make boneheaded mistakes on the spur of the moment, but that does not make them unqualified ever to do their jobs again. If disbarment and removal from the bench were imposed in this case, what would be left for the judicial miscreants — whom we have seen all too often in Illinois — who take bribes, abuse defendants, commit perjury or exploit and harass court staff? There needs to be some calibration in meting out lawyer and judicial discipline, and that means imposing penalties that fit the harmfulness of the offense, even if that does not correspond to the outrageousness or novelty factor.
Judge Turner has served honorably since 2002, without any previous hint of misconduct. Her reassignment from judicial duties — sometimes called commitment to "judge jail" — has already humiliated her. I believe a reprimand, or at most a short formal suspension, would be more than enough to get the point across and to make sure that nothing similar will ever happen again.
Attorney Crawford's position is trickier, as she will be subject to attorney discipline (currently) and judicial discipline (if she wins in November). Unlike Turner, she does not have an extended record of public service, so there is no good way to evaluate her long-term sensibility. Was the recent episode an aberration, or does it tell us something important about her judgment? Her ultimate discipline probably ought to correspond to Turner's — meaning at most a short suspension from the bar, during which time she could not serve as a judge, even if elected — but the voters can also have their say by getting behind someone for a write-in campaign.
What Turner and Crawford did was head-shakingly wrong; it cannot be ignored or excused. But this is not a case that demands an end to their legal careers.
This is one of those OOOPS kind of moments. An "Oh Shit" kind of thing. The two women appeared to be good friends and the attorney judicial candidate desired a taste of "judging," a test drive. To see what it feels like. All of this was done under the supervision of the judge standing over her shoulder. I do not see bad faith here. I don't even see bone headedness. What I see is something that seemed innocuous and was perhaps even viewed as a good idea by both at the moment that was not entirely thought through. How would it appear? Cook County was stung by Greylord ---and the pain 30 years on is still acute and palpable. In an environment like that one needs to be extra vigilant.
Posted by: Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King | August 23, 2016 at 10:55 AM
"Although they do appear to have inconvenienced two traffic defendants, they did not commit a grave injustice."
That seems an odd description, and a bit obtuse.
Posted by: J. Bogat | August 23, 2016 at 04:04 PM
The faux judge evidently disposed of two traffic tickets, which will now have to be re-decided by a real judge. It is possible that the two drivers will have to come back to court (though probably not, based on what I have learned subsequently), which would be a significant inconvenience. But no one was erroneously held in contempt or sent to jail, which is what I would consider a grave injustice.
Posted by: Steve L. | August 23, 2016 at 04:11 PM
Here in the Bay Area, we had a judge back in the 1990s who was hearing Barry Bonds' divorce case. After the hearing was over he asked him for an autograph.
Posted by: PaulB | August 23, 2016 at 04:37 PM
In many suburban Chicago "field" courts and quite a few County courts south of I-80, traffic matters are routinely disposed of without even stepping up to a judge. The prosecutor simply writes the negotiated "disposition" on the ticket jacket and then one proceeds to the clerk to pay the fines. The plea or disposition is not even run by the judge for his approval. Many defendants enter guilty pleas by simply sending in a ticket with a #120.00 payment or others send in a slightly higher payment and receive traffic safety school without ever stepping foot into a court room. In some jurisdictions, one can enter a plea online. In other words, these petty and business traffic offenses are ministerial.
Posted by: Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King | August 23, 2016 at 05:06 PM
The incident may not have resulted in injustice, but that doesn't mean it isn't shocking and doesn't show unfitness to be a judge. Suppose the judge made a similar boner and took a bribe one time, or slept with a plaintiff, etc., but not in a case where it made any difference.This kind of thing shows that the judge has a fundamentally unsound idea of what it means to be a judge.
Posted by: Eric Rasmusen | August 24, 2016 at 02:27 PM
So the two defendants took time from work and traveled to court in the expectation of presenting to a judge and getting a decision. Now they must set aside time and travel again, and that is not important because? They aren't important? Inconvenience is waiting a bit, not be denied a hearing and being forced to carry the burden of re-appearing. Why should they carry the burden of the errors of the judge? That no one went to jail is not the appropriate standard. And in this context, "erroneously" has no real meaning. I think the defense is confused -- the conduct is wrong and should result in a sanction. That should not depend on whether someone was sent to jail. I still find the characterization obtuse. I agree that this is not the stuff that should end a career.
Posted by: J. Bogart | August 24, 2016 at 04:22 PM
A Judge Pro Tem is often an attorney, and traffic is the place, folks.
Did the judge have authority to appoint a Judge Pro Tem to adjudicate what appear to have been infractions?
If not, what would have been required to obtain such authorization?
Not much, one suspects.
This bunch focuses its outrage in the wrong places, usually.
Posted by: anon | August 24, 2016 at 04:39 PM
This type of situation in Illinois is not unprecedented. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 7/11 (not to be confused with that convenience store of Slushes and decent chocolate brownies) provides that a law student can practice or appear at the bench under the direct supervision of an attorney. Perhaps they both contemplated that rule? The issue is not inconvenience or lack of consequences. The defense is, "what did they really do?"
Posted by: Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King | August 24, 2016 at 09:38 PM