Illinois Targets Protected Opinions

The Illinois Administrator recently filed an Amended Complaint alleging that an attorney had knowingly or recklessly violated Rule 8.2(a) by making false statements about judges, including this allegation against the former Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court

Respondent’s statement…that Chief Justice Anne Burke hates Jewish people was false or she made it with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.

Respondent knew at the time that she made the statement…that Chief Justice Anne Burke hates Jewish people that it was false or that she made it with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.

Respondent’s statement…that Chief Justice Anne Burke “laid her plan to destroy” Respondent’s career was false or she made it with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.

Respondent knew at the time that she made the statement…that Chief Justice Anne Burke “laid her plan to destroy” Respondent’s career that it was false or that she made it with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.

And

Respondent’s statement…that the Illinois Supreme Court is engaging in behavior of the Third Reich or Nazis was false or she made it with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.

Further

Respondent’s statement…that the ARDC and Illinois Supreme Court have a history of permitting harassment of women until they commit suicide or leave the bar was false or she made it with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.

Respondent’s statement…that the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that no attorney in Illinois has any first amendment rights and that any opinion expressed by an attorney about a judge will subject that attorney to immediate discipline was false or she made it with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.

Respondent’s statement…that the Illinois Supreme Court has a hit list of attorneys they want to target because they are whistleblowers or political opponents was false or she made it with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity

These and other statements were allegedly made on Respondent’s X (formerly Twitter) and Linkedin pages.

And, in my view, the charged above statements involve opinions that are protected by the First Amendment. 

Even if judges and bar administrators find the opinions unfounded or offensive.

ABC 7 noted the suicide of a female attorney facing disciplinary charges.

I am most assuredly not a fan of Rule 8.2(a) which provides

(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.

Illinois has, in my view, been overly aggressive in prosecuting attorneys under the rule.

An Amended Answer was filed on the following day and takes the offensive

On January 17, 2023 the Illinois Supreme Court entered an Order without disclosing its Conflict of Interest to Respondent. Specifically the Illinois Supreme Court had an affirmative duty to disclose its conflict of interest(s) specifically that Chief Justice Anne Burke’s spouse Ed Burke had made hateful comments against Illinois Jewish Attorneys while extorting them. He was found guilty of 13 of 14 federal criminal public corruption charges and the federal judge ruled his anti Semitic tropes could be played at his corruption trial. During Burke’s public corruption trial, the mainstream media reported that Chief Justice Burke had allegedly been caught laughing at her husband [sic] Jewish tropes. Whether that an accurate media report, it does not matter. The Justice and this Court had a duty to disclose the conflict and they did not. The conflict is mandatory under the Rules, not discretionary. The Court’s failure to disclose this conflict was intentional and it was done because this Court had a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the matter. In fact, it appears that the Court’s anti Semitic hate and self dealing have controlled it decisions throughout this case to such an extent that Respondent has been denied and shall be denied the right to a fair hearing. No attorney in Illinois can receive a fair hearing where one Chief Justice’s husband spews Jew hate while extorting husband while the other Chief Justice failed to follow court policy and act properly upon receiving a report of threat by a judge against a female attorney. Moreover, a reasonable inquiry would have shown the Judge in fact was harassing Ms. Lowery with baseless bar complaints which was entirely consistent with his November 20, 2018 threat. Next, Ms. Lowery completed all of the Illinois Supreme Court professionalism seminars offered in Illinois. When Ms. Lowery presented the Certificates to the Administrator, he retaliated against her and made her take additional courses in ARDC ethics which went directly against the Hearing Board Chairs Order. The Chair was female. Next Commission Rules prohibit the recitation of prior discipline until same is established after Hearing. The Administrator has included this paragraph in this Complaint for the sole purpose of doing an end run around Commission Rules in order to further retaliate against Respondent.

Heaven forbid the Amended Answer draws another round of charges.

The order referenced above suspended Respondent for 30 days for comments about a judge.

Ms. Lowery, who was licensed in 2000, was suspended for 30 days and required to successfully complete the ARDC Professionalism Seminar within one year. She knowingly or recklessly made a false statement impugning the integrity of a judge and made false statements to the ARDC during her sworn statement. The suspension is effective on February 7, 2023.

The United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois reported on the above-referenced conviction

Evidence at the six-week trial in U.S. District Court in Chicago revealed that Burke corruptly solicited work for his private law firm from companies involved in redevelopment projects at the Old Main Post Office in downtown Chicago and a Burger King restaurant on the city’s Southwest Side.  Burke also corruptly attempted to assist Cui with a development on the city’s Northwest Side shortly after Cui told Burke that he would hire Burke’s private law firm, Klafter & Burke, for legal work.  Klafter & Burke specialized in seeking property tax reductions for corporate clients.

The evidence further revealed that Burke threatened to oppose an admission fee increase at the Field Museum in Chicago because the museum failed to respond to Burke’s inquiry about obtaining an internship at the museum for a child of Burke’s friend.

Cui was convicted of steering the private legal work to Burke in an effort to influence and reward him in connection with permitting and tax increment financing for Cui’s development.

The corruption schemes occurred in 2016, 2017, and 2018, while Burke was Alderman of the 14th Ward and Chairman of the Chicago City Council’s Finance Committee.  Burke served in the City Council from 1969 until earlier this year.

In fact, the anti-semetic comments of the former Chief Justice’s spouse were widely reported at his trial.

A federal judge has ruled that former Alderman Ed Burke’s comments on wiretaps about Jewish lawyers can be heard by the jury at his upcoming corruption trial.

Burke’s attorneys had argued to exclude those recordings, in which he allegedly spoke about the Jewish heritage of the developer of the Old Post Office.

His legal team said the jury might find them to be quote “particularly distasteful” and unfairly hold it against him. But, the judge disagreed.

Burke is standing trial on federal corruption charges that he used his power in public office to make money at his private law firm.

(Mike Frisch)