The Illinois state board tasked with investigating misconduct accusations against judges has asked the state to take action against a Chicago appeals court judge who they allege attempted to influence a court action to benefit his nephew, and then allegedly lied about the incident to regulators investigating the allegations.
On April 14, the Judicial Inquiry Board filed a complaint with the Illinois Courts Commission against Illinois First District Appellate Justice Sheldon A. Harris.
The complaint focuses on allegations that Harris in 2016 improperly spoke with two other appellate justices on the First District court about an appeal they had heard in a case involving Harris’ nephew.
The complaint accuses Harris of attempting to improperly persuade his colleagues to reconsider their decision to dismiss the appeal brought by the younger Harris.
However, when investigators later opened an inquiry into the matter four years later, the Judicial Inquiry Board’s complaint asserts Justice Harris falsely denied talking with his colleagues about his nephew’s appeal.
The complaint asserts Justice Harris’ alleged actions violated four separate rules of judicial conduct, and “brought his judicial office into disrepute.”
Harris has served on the First District Appellate Court since 2010, when the Illinois Supreme Court appointed him to the post.
Previously, Harris had served as a judge on the Cook County Circuit Court for 10 years, building on a 25-year career as a personal injury lawyer in Chicago.
Harris won election to the First District Appellate Court in 2014.
In 2020, Harris attempted to win election to the Illinois Supreme Court, placing third in the Democratic Party primary race to eventual winner P. Scott Neville. According to published reports, Harris sunk at least $2 million of his own money into that race.
According to the Judicial Inquiry Board complaint, Harris’ attempt to win election to the state high court came at the same time he was also answering questions from the JIB about the allegations of judicial misconduct against him.
Earlier this spring, Harris announced he was retiring from office, setting up a race for his soon-to-be vacated seat on the First District court.
The First District Appellate Court, based in Chicago, exclusively hears appeals from cases decided and pending in Cook County Circuit Court.
According to the JIB complaint, Harris’ nephew, Jason Harris, who is an attorney, had been party to a case centered on what Jason Harris alleged was a “meritless stalking case against him.” In the case, courts had repeatedly denied Jason Harris’ attempts to secure sanctions against the lawyer he accused of bringing the “meritless” case against him.
The case eventually landed on appeal before First District justices Mary Anne Mason, Terrence Lavin and James Fitzgerald Smith.
The panel ruled Jason Harris did not adequately pursue his case before the appellate court, dismissing the case for want of prosecution. The appellate panel also rejected Jason Harris’ later requests to the panel to reconsider its decision.
Jason Harris is accused of no misconduct in the matter.
After the panel dismissed the case, however, the JIB complaint says Justice Harris had conversations with both justices Lavin and Mason about the matter. The complaint asserts Harris allegedly asked Lavin whether he believed the panel had been “too harsh” in its decision in his nephew’s case.
According to the complaint, Lavin allegedly also told Mason that Justice Harris had claimed to have spoken with former Illinois Supreme Court Justice Charles Freeman about the matter, as well.
According to the complaint, Mason met with Justice Harris after Harris’ alleged meeting with Lavin.
At the meeting with Harris, Mason allegedly asked him to explain “why his (earlier) conversation with Justice Lavin was not unethical.” According to the complaint, Harris allegedly confirmed “the reason he cared about the order was because it concerned his nephew and that otherwise he would not pay attention to orders entered on motions by another division.”
According to the complaint, Mason reassigned the case involving Jason Harris to a different appellate panel following her conversation with Justice Sheldon Harris.
The complaint does not specify how the matter was referred to the Judicial Inquiry Board.
According to a report published by Injustice Watch, however, Mason eventually shared a memo concerning the alleged incidents with bar associations conducting evaluations on candidates in the hotly contested race for Illinois Supreme Court.
According to the Injustice Watch report, this spurred assertions from a lawyer identified as a “legal advisor” to Justice Harris that Mason’s actions were influenced by politics, as she was believed to be backing a different candidate in the race.
That lawyer, identified in the Injustice Watch report as Warren Lupel, also disputed the account of Sheldon Harris’ alleged actions, provided to the JIB by Justice Mason.
Regardless of how the matter was referred to the JIB, according to the complaint, Harris later allegedly falsely told investigators he had not discussed his nephew when he discussed the case with his colleagues.
He allegedly also told the JIB that “the face his nephew … was involved was ‘incidental’ and didn’t concern him.”
“This testimony was false and (Harris) knew it was false when he made the statement,” the JIB complaint said.
Among other alleged rule violations, the complaint asserts Justice Harris’ conduct violated judicial conduct rules which forbid judges from allowing “the judge’s family, social or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment” and from using his office “to advance the private interests of others.”
Further, they assert Harris’ alleged actions violated a rule forbidding judges from initiating so-called “ex parte” conversations with other judges “outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding.”
The JIB further asserted Harris’ alleged false testimony before the Board amounted to misconduct that requires judges to “participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing … high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved.”
The complaint does not request the Courts Commission take a particular disciplinary action against Justice Harris, only that the Courts Commission “make such order … as the Commission may deem appropriate.”