.png)
Paging American Bar Association: Have you seen IL Surpeme Court Justice E Rochford?
- Sigiloso1776
- Mar 8
- 8 min read
Updated: Mar 11
I have written many articles on Illinois Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Rochford and her behavior before and after being sworn in as a State Supreme Court Justice. Those can be found here:
Cliff notes: Justice Rochford and Justice O’Brien ran for two open Illinois Supreme Court seats in 2022. They were bankrolled by the Governor of Illinois, J.B. Pritzker (who skirted his own campaign finance law to donate double the amount allowed to each candidate), the Senate President’s PAC, House Speaker Welch, and also were endorsed/bankrolled by gun control groups, specifically Everytown For Gun Safety/Moms Demand Action (endorsed by others as well, but financially supported by Everytown/MDA). The Illinois Gun Ban took effect 1/1/23, and when the case Caulkins V Pritzker was before the ILSC, all of the main defendants had helped these two justices get their seats financially. They refused to recuse. They both also insisted in their refusals to recuse they could be impartial (especially Rochford) even though they were supported by gun control groups. They court eventually ruled 4-3 in favor of the state, thus upholding the ban, with Rochford authoring the majority opinion. O’Brien dissented, but because the law didn’t go far enough.
Now, for more background, please click the articles above. Here, we are going to make the case for a referral to the BAR over Justice Rochford’s “misconduct”, especially since it was her “yes” vote that made the law stick (the IL constitution states that to overturn a lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court must have a 4 vote majority). So, in terms of Judicial Ethics, here are the American BAR association’s judicial Cannons:
Now, we have to keep in mind that things are subjective, so there needs to be concrete examples. To add to that, the US Surpeme Court has already ruled on when judges should recuse from cases. This was a liberal majority opinion and the case was Caperton V Massey.
As argued in the ABA amicus curie briefs, on June 8, 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution required the recusal of the West Virginia Supreme Court justice who was elected with the help of more than $3 million in contributions from a coal mining executive.
Then ABA President Tommy Wells applauded the Supreme Court’s ruling that judges should withdraw from considering cases before them when contributions to their election campaigns by parties to those cases influenced the outcome of the judge’s election, creating a “serious risk of actual bias.” In his June 8, 2009 press release, Mr. Wells stated “the ABA Standing Committee on Judicial Independence, working through its Judicial Disqualification Project, will continue to refine those and other factors into a series of guidelines for courts to assess whether contributions to judges’ campaigns implicate the due process rights of parties appearing before them. This evaluative process is one way to restore the public confidence in our courts so critical to preserving our government of laws.”
Now with that in mind, think of how much worse it is that the 3 leaders of other two branches of state government (Executive and Legislative) contributed a significant portion of both candidates’ overall donations to their campaigns. Then add in the financial contributions from Everytown/Moms Demand Action on top of that. It’s WORSE than what happened in the Caperton VB Massey case in terms of bias and conflicts of interest with Justice Rochford (and O’Brien, just the evidence w/Rochford is far more concrete). So, back to the ABA judicial canons:
Canon 1:
A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Justice Rochford was sworn onto the Illinois Supreme Court on 12/5/22. She from that point on was a seated Justice.
Two days later, she attended a lobbying event for the newly introduced Illinois Assault Weapon Ban, which she would later rule on and be the deciding vote on to uphold, with the cheers of the group that backed and bankrolled her and put on this event. She never disclosed she attended.
Flyer handed out at the event
A state senator (Mary Edly-Allen) who confirms Rochford was in attendance, and further describes what the event was about (in addition to what former Buffalo Grove, IL Mayor Elliot Hartstein says above). It is confirmed it was an event specifically for the gun control group Moms Demand Action
The group’s Facebook page even had the event photo (Rochford not pictured, did she purposely omit herself?).
On August 11, the ruling came out. Rochford gave the lobbying group their victory. Money well spent?
Further, the former Buffalo Grove mayor (as seen above with Rochford at the lobbying event on 12/7/22) is seen here after the bill was sent to Pritzker’s desk, implying that Rochford was cozy with someone who was important in getting this bill to where it was lobbying wise. This is subjective, but highlights again a conflict of interest w/Rochford being at that event.
To raise more eyebrows, Everytown/Moms Demand Action held their national event in Chicago just as Rochford/the IL Supreme Court released the ruling a day before Pritzker received the group’s award for being “Lawmaker of the Year”, to where he credits Everytown (Moms Demand) for getting the law to his desk.
Canon 2:
A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.
See above Canon. She was already sworn in and should not have attended a lobbying event for a bill that was making it’s way through the IL House. One argument could be made that in her order of recusal refusal, she tried to scorn the plantiffs for refusal request, all well knowing she did what she did.
And from another group with the same goals as Moms Demand Action, which again, brings her integrity into mind.
And also, speaking of competence, take a look at what Rochford did when she was a real estate attorney (click article for image sources below):
One of her clients sued her for legal malpractice. She lost the case.
Rochford then appealed that court’s opinion to the very court she is now a justice on, the Illinois Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied her appeal.
That case is used for both state and federal court rulings regarding legal malpractice.
These facts and examples highlight her actions as a Justice. Problems go back to when she was a practicing real estate attorney. In fact, it’s actually used by real estate attorney sources as to what NOT to do when attorneys close.
While these two cases show the trouble attorneys can get into when they sign documents without a client's express authority, a 2006 Illinois appellate court case, Tuchowski v Rochford (368 Ill App 3d 441, 857 NE2d 829, 306 Ill Dec 430 (1st D Ill App 2006), illustrates the problems with not having a client know what is being signed at closing. Although Tuchowski was present at the closing of a property she was selling, she later sued her attorney for malpractice because she claimed the attorney rushed her through the closing and did not properly explain what she was signing. The court found in favor of Tuchowski, reasoning, "The trier of fact might find that Tuchowski's reliance on her attorney provided reasonable grounds for failing to read the documents she signed at the closing." Tuchowski, 368 Ill App at 446. If clients can win malpractice cases against attorneys who rush through closing, it is not hard to imagine the penalty for an attorney who signs documents at closing without the client's presence.
Conclusion
There are some narrow circumstances when an attorney's signature can be substituted for a client's, such as the Real Estate Transfer Declaration, but in general, attorneys should be wary of this practice. The way for an attorney to get legal protection is to get a power of attorney from the client. If clients cannot go to closing due to other obligations, or simply do not want to be bothered, power of attorney is the proper way for an attorney to sign documents for them.
Canon 3:
A judge shall conduct the judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office.
Again, see Canon 1, but there is additional evidence that Justice Rochford makes poor choices considering the role she has. In addition to the lobbying event she attended for Moms Demand Action in 2022, Justice Rochford was the keynote speaker for the Lake County Democratic Women Political Action Commitee’s gala. It was a fundraiser for the PAC/party. This article by Rich Miller (a Democrat ally) did some damage control, but was still harsh and real regarding her actions.
Among other things, sitting Illinois judges are prohibited by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 4.1 from making “speeches on behalf of a political organization” or soliciting funds for a political organization or candidate, except when they’re up for election or retention.
So, you might ask, what the heck was Illinois Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Rochford thinking when she decided to accept an invitation to be the keynote speaker at the Lake County Democratic Women’s annual fundraising gala on Sept. 9?
The registered political action committee is one of the most influential independent countywide campaign groups of its kind in all of Illinois, having helped recruit, train and then elect dozens of local candidates over the years (including Rochford herself).
The Lake County Democratic Party even advertised the event, but later deleted it once word got out about Rochford speaking and the obvious conflict of interest it presented having a Supreme Court Justice be the keynote speaker at a political party fundraiser.
Here is the image of the Lake County Democratic Women endorsing Rochford in 2022.
In short, multiple instances of partaking in and displaying polticial bias in activities in her personal life while being a justice on the high court.
Canon 4:
A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.
Now let’s look at her campaign activity. All is documented in the articles in the beginning of this, but let’s focus on her activity with Moms Demand Action. We don’t need to focus on her campaigning with the defendants in the gun ban case, as campaigning with a lobbying/activist group shreds little doubt that she agrees with their positions, and therefor can be viewed as biased, especially in her case based on her behavior as a sitting justice.
Moms Demand Action celebrated the victory of Rochford and O’Brien in 2022.
Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund and Everytown for Gun Safety Illinois Spent More Than $700,000 in Illinois and Michigan this Election to Support State Supreme Court Candidates
SPRINGFIELD — Everytown for Gun Safety Illinois and Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, and its grassroots networks, Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action, declared a major victory today as voters elected Elizabeth Rochford (District 2) and Mary O’Brien (District 3) to the Illinois Supreme Court.
“The dangerous rulings coming from the U.S. Supreme Court make it all the more important that we elect state judges like Elizabeth Rochford and Mary O’Brien, who respect the people’s right to protect themselves from gun violence,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. “The gun safety movement’s success hinges in part on electing judges who understand that the Second Amendment and common-sense gun laws go hand in hand.”
“We are at a critical juncture in the history of this nation and our judicial system plays a key role in how we will keep our families and communities safe,” said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action. “Illinois has made incredible progress on gun safety, and with the election of Judges Elizabeth Rochford and Mary O’Brien to the Supreme Court of Illinois, Illinoisans have ensured their judicial branch will provide fair and impartial rulings on these laws.”
During the campaign, Rochford didn’t shy away from the cameras with the group.
Here’s Elliot again from Canon 1:
All of those are campaigning, but this can be seen as an absolute endorsement of the group and their goals. As silly as this looks, it raises doubt of being unbiased, especially with all the evidence presented.
Her biased attitude and actions towards this lobbying group continued from her campaign into her new role as a Illinois Supreme Court Justice.
With all of this evidence, it is appropriate for action to be taken against Rochford. The Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board received multiple complaints, but predictably, brushed them aside. To whom must blatant injustice be reported to for action to be taken? Now factor in the state Judicial Canons as well.
I reat my case for action to be taken against Justice Rochford due to her activities before and after being seated as an Illinois Supreme Court Justice.
Comments