1998-08: Winding Down Former Partnership Connections

DISCLAIMER:  This Opinion interprets the 1993 Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct, which was superseded on January 1, 2023, by the 2023 Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct.  This Opinion does not consider or address whether the 2023 Code affects the analysis or conclusion of the Opinion.  A table cross-referencing the 1993 Code to the 2023 Code can be found at  IJEC CORRELATION TABLE.

IJEC Opinion No. 1998-08

April 8, 1998

TOPIC

Winding down former partnership connections.

DIGEST

A judge need not require his former firm to remove his or her surname from the name of the firm if the judge's foreseeable tenure on the bench does not constitute a substantial period of time.

REFERENCES

Rule 7.5(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; Illinois Supreme Court Rules 65C(3) and 65F.

FACTS

A judge appointed by the Supreme Court will run for election to remain in that position. The election will occur in seven months. Prior to appointment, the judge had been in the partnership of Doe & Doe with the judge's spouse. The judge has terminated all connection with the partnership except that the name of the firm remains Doe & Doe. Nowhere on the firm name or the stationery is there an indication that one of the Does is a judge. The judge expects opposition in both the primary and the general election. If unsuccessful in the election, the judge expects to return to the partnership. The judge will not be hearing any cases from that firm.

QUESTION

Must the judge require the firm to cease using the name of Doe & Doe?

OPINION

Not immediately, under the facts presented. Rule 7.5(a) states:

A lawyer who assumes a judicial, legislative, or public executive or administrative post or office shall not permit the lawyer's name to remain in the name of a law firm or to be used in professional notices of the firm during any substantial period in which the lawyer is not actively and regularly practicing law as a member of the firm, and during such period other members of the firm shall not use the lawyer's name in the firm name or in professional notices of the firm. [Emphasis added]

Rule 65C(3) provides that:

As soon as the judge can do so, without serious financial detriment, the judge should divest himself or herself of investments and other financial interests that might require frequent disqualification.

Under the circumstances presented by the above facts, the judge could likely incur serious financial detriment if the firm name were changed, and the judge were unsuccessful in the impending election-. If the period of time remaining until the primary and general election is less than one year, and the judge is indeed facing strong opposition, it is the Committee's opinion that the judge's tenure on the bench does not constitute a substantial period of time. To hold otherwise would discourage qualified attorneys from accepting appointment to the bench, and would have a negative impact on the administration of justice.

However, Rule 65F provides that "A judge should not practice law". The judge should require that the judge's individual name be removed from the firm letterhead or office listing, to avoid the appearance that the judge is continuing to practice law. If the judge is successful in the election, the judge should immediately take steps to have his or her surname removed from the firm name.