As early voting continues in Cook County this fall, voters are being asked by prominent legal organizations to vote "No" on sending five judges back to the bench - including three judges now embroiled in public scandal - based on varying combinations of concerns over the judges' honesty, their ability to effectively and fairly lead their courtrooms and their legal knowledge.
The Illinois State Bar Association, which speaks for attorneys throughout the state, and other legal organizations evaluating candidates for Cook County judge released their recommendations on the qualifications of the county's judicial candidates on the ballot this fall.
In all, voters are being asked whether to retain 78 judges on the Cook County Circuit Court. Voters are asked only to vote "Yes" or "No" for each judge.
For a judge to secure retention, at least 60% of voters must vote "Yes" for that judge. Judges retained would secure a new 6-year term on the bench,
The ISBA and other organizations generally recommended voting "Yes" on most judges seeking retention.
However, ISBA notably recommended voters vote "No" on retaining Cook County judges E. Kenneth Wright, Kathy Flanagan and Shannon O'Malley.
Those three judges have been the subject of controversy in recent months.
E. Kenneth Wright
Wright was a particularly noteworthy inclusion on the list.
Wright has practiced law in Illinois for 47 years and has served as a Cook County judge since 1994. The ISBA notes Wright has served as presiding judge over the county's First Municipal District since 2003. The district includes the city of Chicago, and the First Municipal District court oversees small claims civil courts, evictions, housing matters, felony preliminary hearings and cases related to misdemeanors.
While generally regarded well by his colleagues, Wright was recently identified in reporting by the Injustice Watch news publication as one of two Cook County judges currently seeking retention who may live outside of Cook County. If true, such residency problems could violate the Illinois state constitution, which requires judges to live within the governmental "unit which selects him" - in this case, Cook County.
The Injustice Watch report indicated that Wright claims a senior homestead property tax exemption for a home in Joliet in Will County. Injustice Watch noted Wright also claims two other residences in Chicago.
To claim a homestead exemption, however, a taxpayer must assert that the property is their primary residence.
The Chicago Council of Lawyers, another legal organization which also rates judicial candidate qualifications, said they raised those concerns with Judge Wright, and the judge proved to them he had "corrected his tax exemption status" to reflect he maintains the required residency in Cook County. The Chicago Council of Lawyers said they still believed Wright to be qualified.
The ISBA, however, said it could not similarly so quickly clear Wright of the cloud of controversy raised by Injustice Watch's reporting.
"The Committee has concerns regarding his (Wright's) level of candor concerning the recently identified residency and property tax homestead issues," the ISBA wrote in its evaluation. "The Illinois State Bar Association finds Judge E. Kenneth Wright Jr. not qualified for retention to the Circuit Court of Cook County..."
Shannon O'Malley, fka Philip Spiwak
The Injustice Watch report also claimed their reporters had found proof that Judge Shannon O'Malley also actually lived in suburban Aurora in Will County.
In that report, Injustice Watch said their reporters telephoned a number connected to the Aurora residence where O'Malley's wife answered the phone and told him, "It's the reporter."
O'Malley allegedly was then overheard telling his wife, "Don't tell her I live here" and reportedly refused to speak to Injustice Watch at that time.
Despite the possible constitutional concerns, and in contrast to its handling of Judge Wright, ISBA did not discuss O'Malley's potential residency issues in its evaluation of O'Malley.
However, ISBA still recommended a "No" vote to retain O'Malley this fall.
ISBA pointed to other concerns surrounding O'Malley, including past controversies.
O'Malley gained notoriety when he was first elected to the bench in 2018, when news reports noted O'Malley had legally changed his name from Philip Spiwak to Shannon O'Malley in 2012 in an apparent nakedly transparent bid to win election by playing on Cook County Democratic voters' historic preference for judges with Irish-sounding names.
Injustice Watch noted in their report that O'Malley's wife called him "Phil" when she spoke to him at the time reporters called to discuss his alleged residency issues.
In its evaluation, ISBA said its evaluation committee and attorneys providing input gave O'Malley "mixed reports on his legal knowledge, with some stating it was adequate but not great, and others describing it as inadequate."
They "also raised concerns over his courtroom management skills, which, at time, causes cases to be delayed for long periods of time. The Illinois State Bar Association finds Judge Shannon O'Malley not qualified for retention..."
The Chicago Council of Lawyers similarly found O'Malley "not qualified." That group also noted his name change and concerns over his courtroom management, which they noted has real-world consequences for people, including children, involved in cases he oversees.
"... There are many complaints about his courtroom management, which has not improved in his years on the bench. Delays in his courtroom can mean that a child remains in a group home, psychiatric hospital, or other placement longer than necessary," the Chicago Council of Lawyers wrote in its evaluation of O'Malley.
In the CBA's most recent evaluations, the group lists recommendations on Wright and O'Malley as "pending." It doesn't provide any further explanation. However, the abrupt change followed the Injustice Watch residency issues report.
Another prominent judge could also face a difficult road to retaining her seat on the Cook County bench this fall.
Kathy M. Flanagan
Along with Wright and O'Malley, ISBA also recommended voters vote "No" to retain Cook County Judge Kathy M. Flanagan.
Flanagan came under scrutiny earlier this year, when the Cook County Circuit Court's top judges asked a state judicial misconduct board to look into accusations against Flanagan stemming from an incident in her courtroom in which an attorney claimed a bailiff, reportedly at the judge's direction, had removed him from the courtroom and handcuffed him to a chair in a non-public hallway after the attorney questioned the judge's handling of a case.
Flanagan was the presiding judge over Cook County's Law Division, which handles personal injury lawsuits and certain other kinds of civil matters.
Flanagan has served as a judge in Cook County since 1988.
While the Cook County Circuit Court's Executive Committee did not discuss details concerning Flanagan's alleged misconduct, a transcript obtained by the Cook County Record revealed that Flanagan ordered bailiff's to "take" the attorney, identified as Brad Schneiderman, following an exchange between Flanagan and Schneiderman in court.
After the bailiff took Schneiderman to a back hallway, he was reportedly handcuffed to a chair. The judge then came back and instructed the bailiff to release him.
Schneiderman filed a complaint with court administrators about his treatment by Flanagan that day.
Flanagan denied ordering deputies to take Schneiderman into custody or to handcuff him, saying she was "unaware that he was handcuffed" until she went into the back hallway to speak with Schneiderman and the bailiff.
She reportedly told the Executive Committee she has continuously battled "lies about this incident" as she attempts to mitigate the damage it has caused to her "35-plus year judicial career."
The ISBA evaluation does not specifically reference the complaint against her.
However, the evaluation says the committee recommended a "No" vote against Flanagan because committee members and attorneys "raised concerns about her temperament and demeanor, stating they had seen her act unprofessionally, impatiently and temperamentally."
ISBA said it found Flanagan "not qualified for retention" to the Cook County Circuit Court.
The Chicago Council of Lawyers similarly said it found Flanagan "not qualified" for retention.
"... A majority of those (attorneys) interviewed report that they have observed Judge Flanagan acting temperamentally, unprofessionally, and impatiently, with some noting that her behavior has become more erratic recently. She reportedly does not allow attorneys to argue their positions fully; refuses to accept case management orders that take into account unique circumstances of particular cases; schedules trials without regard to attorneys’ existing trial conflicts; imposes unduly severe consequences for failure to comply with rules; and, in general, lacks flexibility for matters outside of attorneys’ control.
"While Judge Flanagan may have a well-intentioned desire to move cases along and clear backlogs within the Law Division, its manifestation as impatience, unprofessionalism, and disrespect to attorneys is a serious concern to the Council. This is particularly so given that these concerns have been raised for years, but Judge Flanagan does not appear to have successfully addressed them," the Chicago Council of Lawyers wrote.
The Chicago Bar Association, however, found Flanagan "qualified" for retention.
Other judges of concern
In addition to those three, ISBA and other legal organizations also recommended voters not support two other judges seeking retention this fall.
These included:
- Judge Ieshia E. Gray. The Chicago Council of Lawyers said attorneys they interviewed raised concerns about Gray's "work ethic" and her reported mistreatment of lawyers "after they presented positions with which she disagreed."
And, about Gray, ISBA's evaluation said "a majority" of attorneys they interviewed "did have concerns over her temperament, diligence and work ethic."
Both organizations rated Gray "not qualified" for retention.
The Chicago Bar Association found her qualified.
- Judge Lisa Ann Marino. The Chicago Council of Lawyers evaluation said: "Many respondents raised concerns about Judge Marino’s legal ability, character, temperament, and diligence.
"...Complaints include repeated legal errors, anti-defendant bias, shouting from the bench, unpreparedness, and arriving late to the bench or taking excessive time to make decisions.
"Given the breadth and volume of these concerns, the Council finds her Not Qualified forretention to the Circuit Court."
The ISBA similarly rated her "not qualified." Its evaluation said: "A majority (of attorneys surveyed) did raise concerns over her courtroom management skills and with the extent of her legal knowledge and ability."
And the Chicago Bar Association also recommended a "No" vote to retain Marino on the bench.
At least one other judge subject to controversy was recommended for retention by all of the various judicial ratings groups.
Cook County Circuit Judge Regina Scannicchio, who leads Cook County's family law division, received positive reviews from all of the various agencies.
However, in recent years, judges in the county's divorce courts under her supervision have come under public scrutiny for jailing men involved in divorce proceedings amid disputes over their ability to pay hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to their ex-wives and their ex-wives' lawyers.
One man, for instance, identified as Steve Fanady, has been left in Cook County Jail for two years, a decade after the divorce case was resolved, as Cook County Judge Michael Forti and state appellate judges have, to this point, refused his repeated entreaties to be released, and despite findings that his ex-wife had misled the court concerning the actual worth of stock Forti said he must pay to his ex-wife.
Similarly, Cook County Judge Abbey Fishman Romanek has ordered River Forest developer Frank "Marty" Paris to jail on several occasions, amid disputes over that man's ability to pay his ex-wife and her lawyers.
Both Scannicchio and Romanek have also been individually sued for their handling of divorce matters.
Judicial reform advocate Edward "Coach" Weinhaus sued Scannicchio and the Illinois Judges Association in April, claiming Scannicchio had conspired with the IJA to prevail upon other judges to violate Weinhaus' rights to due process in court, shutting down Weinhaus' efforts to challenge sanctions entered by Scannicchio against him in his divorce case. According to that complaint, the appeals documented numerous "ethical lapses" by Scannicchio.
A federal judge twice tossed Weinhaus' lawsuit swiftly, saying it improperly seeks to use federal courts to undo a state court's decision.
Weinhaus has appealed, and the case remains pending.
A lawsuit has also been lodged against Romanek in recent days through the judicial reform organization known as Children of the Court on behalf of Paris' adult son, Conor Paris, accusing Romanek of allegedly unconstitutionally refusing to allow Conor Paris to observe a recent court hearing via Zoom involving his parents' divorce case.
That lawsuit also accuses Scannnicchio of allegedly ignoring communications from Children of the Court to work with them to facilitate courtroom observation and separate meetings with adult children of couples undergoing divorce proceedings in Cook County.
Weinhaus serves as executive director of Children of the Court, and is listed as an attorney representing the group and Conor Paris in the lawsuit against Romanek.