Thy Brother’s Counsel

An Illinois Hearing Board recommends a three-year suspension and until further court order for a host of statements made by an attorney while representing his brother in a murder trial

While representing his brother in a first-degree murder trial, Respondent made statements impugning the integrity and qualifications of judges and insulting opposing counsel. Based on his conduct, he was held in criminal contempt of court four times. The Administrator charged Respondent with engaging in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal; using means that had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person; making statements that he knew to be false or with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge; committing criminal acts that reflect adversely on Respondent’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rules 3.5(d), 4.4(a), 8.2(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. The Hearing Panel found that the Administrator proved all of the charges by clear and convincing evidence.

Based on the egregious misconduct and aggravating factors including Respondent’s insistence that his conduct was justified and lack of recognition of the harmful impact of his words, the Hearing Panel recommended that Respondent be suspended for three years and until further order of the Court.

The genesis of Respondent’s statements concerning the judge in his brother’s case

On May 8, 2017, while in Judge Linn’s courtroom, Respondent observed Judge Linn leave the bench during a busy court call. A few minutes later, Respondent observed First Assistant State’s Attorney Eric Sussman walk into Judge Linn’s chambers. (Tr. 75). Sussman was not one of the prosecutors in People v. Jackson. (Tr. 77). Respondent stood near the door to the judge’s chambers so he could hear the conversation between Judge Linn and Sussman. Respondent testified they were discussing DNA evidence strategies and case law. (Tr. 76, 82). When People v. Jackson was called, Respondent asked Judge Linn about his discussion with Sussman. Judge Linn responded that he and Sussman were discussing closed cases and DNA evidence.

Respondent did not accept the explanation and filed an emergency motion

One cannot expect Associate Judge Linn to honestly reveal details of the discussion.
***
Having shamelessly and secretively –in a literal backroom meeting—availed himself of the State’s institutional stance with DNA evidentiary issues, the Associate Judge has forever foreclosed his ability to be a fair judge in matters involving the office of the Cook County State’s Attorney, and certainly he cannot continue to preside over this case because it was defense counsel who caught him in the act. In other words, having bitten from the state’s apple of knowledge, the judge in simple fairness to the putative men and women who would stand before him, must be cast out of the garden. At least in theory, he cannot continue as a judge presiding over any case being prosecuted by the office of the Cook County state’s Attorney. Because of his conduct, he should not be a judge period.
***
Linn, who for years has convicted defendants and sentenced them to jail for skirting the rules, has himself skirted the rules, ensnared a First Assistant new to the state system, now Linn must go.
***
The miscreant behaviors of Linn and Sussman were, in a word, stupid.
***
Linn’s childish and blistering personal attacks on defense counsel’s mental stability and legal acumen, which are vile and gutless attacks on his competency demand that counsel defend himself.
***
Associate Judge James B. Linn mirrors in clone-like fashion the Jack Nicholson character Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men, a narcissist with unchecked hubris freely and knowingly violating rules he considers being nothing more than inconvenient nuisances. That arrogance which encapsulates Associate Judge Linn portends that he will be met with the same fate as the Colonel as well he should.

Followed by a motion for reconsideration after denial

Judge Dennis Porter denied Respondent’s motion. Respondent then filed a motion to reconsider containing the following statements:

Linn is broken and, we suspect, he has been for some time.
***
Associate Judge James B. Linn’s judicial career balloon has burst. He very well may have been [sic] good judge in times past, but he is not a good judge now. He has run amuck [sic] in his actions as a judge, as recounted in greater detail in the SOJ motion. (Adm. Ex. 3).

Also in his motion to reconsider, in connection with an allegation that Judge Linn’s conduct was “centered on race and ethnicity,” Respondent set forth a lengthy scenario graphically describing the abduction of two “Jewish females,” a “mother and pre-bat mitzvah daughter,” and the rape of the fictional daughter by “Guy Black, aka ‘Meatman,’ a moniker bestowed on Guy because of his physical endowment.” (Adm. Ex. 3). Respondent testified that the purpose of the rape scenario was “shock” and “attention.” (Tr. 143). He “wanted to demonstrate the appearance of impropriety.” (Tr. 145). He described the rape victim as Jewish because if he had described her as a black girl, Judge Porter “would not have been moved.” (Tr. 148).

Respondent also made the following statement:

What better way to emasculate a cadre of African-American and Hispanic male defendants than to have them prosecuted by white women at the direction of a pseudo black woman guided by a Jewish man, and under the presiding control of a white judge, who in turn meets in private with the Jewish man in promoting the goals of the pseudo black woman?

(Adm. Ex. 3). Respondent testified that “pseudo black woman guided by a Jewish man” was a reference to Cook County State’s Attorney Kimberly Foxx and attorney Sussman. (Tr. 151).

Respondent was held in contempt and disqualified

Following the contempt order, Judge Linn disqualified Respondent from representing Anthony. That order was reversed on appeal, and the case was transferred to Judge Ursula Walowski.

Order reversing disqualification linked here. 

Also

At some point prior to April 26, 2021, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office sought an order of protection against Respondent. Judge Levander Smith granted the petition and entered an order of protection that prohibited Respondent from entering the George N. Leighton Criminal Courthouse. The order was later modified to allow Respondent to enter the courthouse if he was accompanied by Cook County Sheriff’s deputies. (Tr. 169). Neither the petition for order of protection nor the order of protection was made part of the record in this case.

Respondent then filed a motion with the Illinois Supreme Court that stated, in part

There exists in Cook County extremely diabolical prejudice against Mr. Jackson in this case against his lawyer of choice, former decorated Department of Justice Attorney George Jackson III, by Cook County Judges (primarily Criminal Court Judges Porter, Linn, Walowski and Walowski’s various replacements, along with the woefully intellectually challenged Honorable Judge Levander Smith of domestic violence court).
***
There is no way that Cook County Circuit Court Judges would dare sit a jew or an anglo in jail for 6.5 years awaiting trial.
***
Without exception, every single Judge that Mr. Jackson and his Attorney have appeared before at the Criminal Courthouse and before the exceptionally low intellect Judge Levander Smith and other domestic violence court judges, has engaged in conduct to inappropriately prolong Mr. Jackson’s stay in jail, in violation of his Speedy Trial rights.

He questioned Judge Walowski’s integrity at a videoconference status hearing and then sought a change of venue

In addition, Respondent made the following remarks about two female prosecutors, in a section of his motion entitled “Modern-Day Emmett Till”:

The white woman is entirely unattractive in general and her white woman traditional features sorely unattractive to Attorney George Jackson III in particular, though thankfully she lacks the feminine hygiene slight body odor of her former co-prosecutor, which we mention because that ever present odor, though slight, turned off Attorney Jackson to the specter of servicing any of the white women in that courtroom. The white woman is barely breasted. She has classic white person faint inward lips, which on experience are horrible to kiss. She has a drafting board flat behind, which is a complete turn-off to Black Men like Attorney Jackson … Attorney Jackson considers her to be funny looking with wide and high hips. She has a long facial structure, similar to that character in the Scream movies.

This led to two orders of contempt.

Aggravation

Respondent’s multiple inappropriate remarks about Jewish persons went beyond embarrassing or burdening third persons. His language demonstrated a pattern of hostility toward Jews.

Mitigation in addition to an absence of any prior discipline

Attorney Michael Ettinger practices in the area of criminal defense. He has worked on criminal matters with Respondent when Respondent was an assistant U.S. Attorney. Ettinger testified that Respondent had an excellent reputation and was respectful and honest. Ettinger did not review the disciplinary complaint against Respondent and was not familiar with the statements at issue. He acknowledged that it has been some time since he considered Respondent’s reputation in the legal community. In 1989, the Court suspended Ettinger’s law license two years for his involvement in a scheme to bribe a police officer in order to dispose of a criminal case.

Sanction

Based on Respondent’s recalcitrant refusal to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his behavior, we do not have confidence in his ability to comply with professional standards in the future. Where such doubts are present, it is appropriate to continue a suspension until further order of the Court.

…we recommend that Respondent, George Jackson, III, be suspended for three years and until further order of the Court.

Respondent had served as an Assistant United states Attorney from 1990 to 2006. (Mike Frisch)