# Opposition Brief — Neistein v. Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385020_1180%3A3

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1990
- **Citation:** 495 U.S. 905

## Text

Supreme Court, US,
FILED

APR 3 we
lOSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR

CLERK

q —_

No. 89-1406

IN THI

Supreme Court of the United States

OcTOBER TERM, 1989

BERNARD S. NEISTEIN,

Pe tif Oner,

ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY
COMMISSION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS,

Re sponde nt.

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari
To The Supreme Court Of Illinois

RESPONDENT’sS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

JAMES J. GROGAN
Counsel of Record

203 North Wabash Avenue

Suite 1900

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 346-0690

Attorne Y for Re sponde pit

Il.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

AN ILLINOIS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY
RULE PROHIBITING LOANS OR GIFTS TO A
JUDGE EXCEPT THOSE LOANS OR GIFTS
MADE AS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS DOES
NOT VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.

PETITIONER’ HAS FAILED TO INVOKE
FEDERAL JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO 28
USC §1257(a) AS TO HIS DUE PROCESS
CLAIM BECAUSE HE FAILED TO TIMELY
BRING HIS FEDERAL CLAIM TO THE
ATTENTION OF THE ILLINOIS SUPREME
COURT WITH FAIR PRECISION AND
BECAUSE HE FAILED TO PROMPTLY ASSERT
A CLAIM OF BIAS OR PREJUDICE IN THE
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
QUESTIONS PRESENTED... cc ccrcccsccveccvces 1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... cc ceccceveves iii-v
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND
STATUTES INVOLVED... cccccceccccvece vii-x1
INTRODUCTION... o-ccossuecvtiecessesenerenawes ee 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE... ccccseeccces L=1i2
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT... . 2 ececceveccveeves 12-14
ARGUMENT . cccncnsegessstnes Ste wen eee eee 14
Le An Illinois attorney disciplinary

rule prohibiting loans or gifts to a
judge except those loans or gifts
made as campaign contributions does
not violate the equal protection
clause of the United States
Constitution... ccssscassn uses eueeee 14

II. Petitioner has failed to invoke
federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28
USC §1257(a) as to his due process
claim because he failed to timely
bring his federal claim to the
attention of the Illinois Supreme
Court with fair precision and
because he failed to promptly assert
a claim of bias or prejudice in the
Illinois Supreme Court.......e-eeee- 20

CONCLUSION. ccccccsenesecseseesevesssese 27

11]

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases: Page
City of Rockford v. County

of Winnebago, 186 I11.App.3d 303,
Deere £1989)... wa wet wesc cces 25
Consolidated Turnpike Company v.

Norfolk and Ocean View Railway

Soret, £22406 U.o. 326 (1913)... c0 aa, 2
Duffield v. Charleston Area

Medical Center, Inc., 503 F.2d
Ey Sa Ye
E & E Hauling, Inc. v. Pollution

Control Board, 107 I1ll.2d 33, 481
I Ec tee cc ecccccees 25

eS Ge Ss ee ky 2 > 1

In re Corboy, et al., 124 I1ll.2d

29, S26 W.E.2d 694 (1988).......... 16, 1
In re Mitan, 75 I11.2d 118, 387

N.E.2d 278 (1979) cert.denied,
NE Ie re > 4
in Fe Hert, 63 Ilil.2da 20, 413

er CAPC Ul sesso ees seerecrscneess 16
In re Neistein, 132 I1l.2d 104,

eee Awe £aSOP) scone scesnsencesced to &

ases: Page

McGoldrick v. Campagnie
Generale, 309 U.S. 430 (1940).......... 20

New York ex rel. Bryant v
Ramer, 270 U.S. G3 CISZB) .ccckcananss 21

People v. Carlson, 79 I11.2d
7G8, 404 Hib.24 233 (1960) .ccccccvsvses 24

Street v. New York, 394 U.S.
Pe SAPs ss ae 08 8 6a OS ORS Seeks ee ee ne ee 21

Waste Management of Illinois
v. Pollution Control Board,
175 Ill.App.3d 1023, 530
ee ree ee ee ee 25

United States Constitution:

Vows QUNGEs GMONE. MIV, § Lecccrneass ~14

United States Statutes:

a Sa wee yet le. | | y eee 20

I1ll.Rev.Stat ch.

L20A., ARt.YV
Rule 7-110(a) (1987) (

: ks
) (amended 1988)...passim

Illinois Code of Professional
7-3

Responsibility Ec S £9 Os & heen a nen «+s i6
111L.Ann.Stat. ch. LIOA, Art.
committee comments

VIII, Rule 7-110
(Smith-Hurd 1980

I1ll.Rev.Stat. ch. 46, para.
9-1 to 9-27 987)

xT ar 7 A
ry ~ t
a¥ \ . » “2
T AT mre
he
A .i* mH AA eed
CTIDDUWT A-\TTD™ OF esrTTT TAIT TON COMAMOA
- - \ v - } { mee »
SUPREME SJURL VU ine VUNI1Bi SoLALEo
laalateheahe' mrmrernm, 1 c
Oc ORER EDM mencne|
Ww wi 4 4 , 4
TMlRMATAT \ ~ AarTmTeMmTA.y
Mt be Ak ¢ }
DL ININAAIN Oe iN & dda SYD
Pet iT 1OoOner
revs vs Vil iL,
a=
YVwe
AMMA TDAIIT VW HOA TOMDYDAMTAN
T ) ry oY ¢ C)
ALLIUBRNEY REGLOINRALILIUN
MNrTocrmrrnyrgry Mu AO\MAM TCO TON
lJ SCI PLINAK & CUPP OO LUN
~ TO erTrrrm ht ihihanbhe hen 1 oo lalate ela’ oe oi Pr? r1aA
» oo . r r { ) ‘a | ( >
4 A ddd OUPrPNA LIE (ASA SB 4 VU I ae SP SP & S| A 6 r
or. ~ s aA +
, y a | bal
re ‘ 4i\AN 44 6 .
i
sy Wem rTmnMTAnr rAYD remnrn AT honk = te alni mA TF
C) A dw d iv i 4 ‘

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
AND STATUTES INVOLVED

he Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution provides, in
pertinent part:

No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or

\/ a4

+ + 25 Axis — « ,

property, without due process of

~ ~ . ~ . ~

law; nor deny to any person
+ + — ae. — " +} r

jaithin its jurisdil lon ie equal
j

T ‘ KIC 'T ~ no Tt? g
e De C iN Ls amen . \ 4 F S 4. ¢
r y a.
\ 3 . y = ~— ) : ae ¢ + b -
opie 4 he so a | y r Li S&S J | —
t i
——_— ~ ~ q + 2 T
Yr) , € cr
S&S & & & igis Loqae 4 r > I }
: nan > + +a, ot 1 ——
RESPONSLIDLIILYy, DI LQCS .
P i
A -~} | - + -
ad lin-roD
al y ee ae Se | | Ol ALU LO aA 4A € ,
i 7
$Far } a mr a > ~ +
VLE A2WLGL r empioyee P .
r rrh anh - =nbtlaled=" - > mom -
Loans Wilt © a } JE r a mempoer
~ + hic fami 17 1V receive alal= ha
Wi itiLw }t Aiad y i y > avo A A A
4
Ri} 5 ( bof fi f th ‘i } oh 4
Rule 65(C) (4) oO ch ode of
7? 5 an | 7 CANA aot Oo a an +h -
ww LA ”7 aw A a 4. i MmAAUWNL , e CCep — Waa — a
| » |
"Oar Matim , CANnt ibution to
4 AW yer i ay ake a Xv J eg | J\'AL aVi L
i
+ }, mAaAmMmMnaItnAn Fiinn ~ + - o = | ~~ o
e i! pa nN a \a A A i. a \ A! eB! 1a S
t
ny on ~ ry + + co
UL SUC OLTELCEe
ij ) » A ond . r+ +
Tll.Rev. at. en A, At [I lle
-110(a amendeda 9282

Vill

The Illinois Disclosure of Campaign
Contributions and Expenditures Act
provides, in pertinent part:

§9-10. The treasurer of every
state political committee and the
treasurer of every political
committee shall file with the
Board, and the treasurer of every
local political committee shall
file with the county clerk,
reports of campaign contributions
and expenditures on forms to be
prescribed or approved by the
Board. The treasurer of every
political committee that acts as
both a state political committee
and a local political committee
shall file a copy of each report
with the county clerk.

I1l.Rev.Stat;: ch. 46, para. 9-10 (1987).

§9-17. All statements and
reports filed under this Article
with the Board or county clerk
shall be available for
examination and copying by the
public at all reasonable times.
Such person examining a statement
or report must first fill out a
form prepared by the Board
identifying the examiner by name,
occupation, address and telephone
number, and listing the date of
examination and reason for such
examination. The Board shall
supply such forms to the county
clerks annually and_ replenish
such forms upon request. The
Board or county clerk, as the

case may be, shall promptly
notify each political committee
required to file a statement or
report under this Article of each
instance of an examination of its
statement or report by sending it
a duplicate original of the
identification form filled out by
the person examining its report.

I1l.Rev.Stat. ch. 46, para. 9-17 (1987

~

Supreme Court Rule 65(C) (4) provides:

(4) Neither a judg nor a
member of his family residing in
his household should accept a
gift, bequest, favor, or loan
from anyone except as follows:

(a) a judge may accept a
gift incident to a public
testimonial to him; books

supplied by publishers on a
complimentary basis for official
use; or an invitation to the
judge and his spouse to attend a
bar-related function or activity
devoted to the improvement of the
law, the legal system, or the
administration of justice;

(b) a judge or member of
his family residing in his
household may accept ordinary
social hospitality; a gift,

bequest, favor or loan from a
relative; a wedding or engagement
girtt? loan from a lending

institution in its regular course
of business on the same terms
generally available to persons

who are not judges; ora
scholarship or fellowship awarded
on the same terms applied to
other applicants;

(Cc) a judge or a member of
his family residing in his
household may accept any other
gift, bequest, favor, or loan
only if the donor is not a party
or other person whose interests
have come or are likely to come
before him, including lawyers who
practice or have practiced before
the judge.

1.Rev.Stat. ch. 110A, AX « : i Rule
(C) (4) (1987).

Title 28, Section 1257(a) of the United
tates Code provides:

Final judgments or decrees
rendered by the highest court of
a State in which a decision could
be had, may be reviewed by the
Supreme Court by writ of
certiorari where the validity of
a treaty or statute of the United
States is drawn in question or
where the validity of a statute
of any State is drawn in question
on the ground of its being
repugnant to the Constitution,
treaties, or law of the United
States, or where any title,
right, privilege, or immunity is
specially set up or claimed under
the Constitution or the treaties

Xl

or statutes of, or any commission
held or authority exercised
under, the United States.

28 U.S.C. §1257(a) (1986).

a

INTRODUCTION

For the sake of brevity, Respondent
will not include sections in this brief
relating to the opinion below and
jurisdiction. Respondent will address in

Argument those portions of Petitioner's

brief which Respondent considers

inaccurate or-inadequate.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner Bernard S. Neistein was
licensed to practice law in Illinois, in
1937. After his admission, Petitioner

entered general sole practice in Chicago.

es fee ce In 1956, he established a
partnership with Irvin F. Richman.
(Adm. Ex. 4 at 39). They have practiced

law together since then.
During 1980, the firm which
Petitioner and Richman founded in 1956

had grown to include approximately

+)
f£i1F+oCEeENnN atrrnrneve (T|+ . 4 a Jac
ie ’ i y i= 6 oF . i wa.
i

brnaun -~e bhatt &€ i mn e > ,etain Dichman
known at tha time as Neistein, Richman,
TT 5 :) a7 aa + 6 \ aad

LJ jc 7,rYry > no oath a’ { a 2 ats!
nausil nger arma LVUII . > a © 4 oO} « 4 .

,

an | — rh 4 } |
ees hich had been a professiona

corporation since the early 1970's, was
. — + + = =~ + - } 7 Ya urh-e
composed of four main shareholders who
ib all-Te.| + ~ > ~~ mm “6 = ee
acted as senior partners. (Tr. 29, 110).

The firm's business has been

oncentrated in the area of real estate

;

| . -

commercial law and banking matters. The

~ ~11Ir OD an + +ho rnY ae 4
aVuL © oz lo Lk LaGaL.aige if

fy YY » + i i i a > +ho on =
{ yy
L-eCocvent Lk le ee ee ee be me gh: rlia tice y
4 1
T Tr, acIAann ry F¢ the Care , + (7 ¢ i hon wr ¢ Lk
s a» Vv —_ mt ad S & sae — 4 ae ee ~—/"7\ALR WY - J
a) \ , o- A A
~ — e Am Ca, ~
sunty. Adm.Ex. 4 at 40).
4
ae 1Q2 r + an Y he r t Y~ YY
1 1 , Sus lone? i 1 ee La
é ‘ 3 -+hHO ctr C T N¢é rer c
A ‘ pe be st b st
io. mV + (f+ ar + } T > L
4 , 4 ru 1 ’
’ - ,
4 2 * 4 pa ry "4 we t
r >» Y he r y > + -
+ - =
? ‘ . - 4 mW & .

ew

a6
D
ct
4 «
ct

oner received a protit o f
$325,000.00 or $345,000.00 from the sale
(Tr. 123).

Petitioner first met Judge Reginald

. Holzer, a judge of the Circuit Court

of Cook County, Illinois

,oOKkNn 8 Doti+ 3 x } - > ]
: c ) } Nn a r ~ - 7
LyvoOwU &s« rPCLLTIONeL: never pecame a social
+> nan en + wr _ im > | Ty . a
Bic LOCTIC Ol riolizcer. ‘es age J Sp ne never
ersona] lay AY peared before wal oer rn ANU
p iLiovuil ee A} } C A ) LUL mn ize! ail any

i cy “Ac (T+ : Dat ~ 31272 a
pending case. [ee ers Between 1978 and
19QoR9 memherc Cr) F Petitioner's law f rm
a ay i i 4 i i ds eo a 4 4 4 a ae
»_nr\rY pared 1c ors nic ) n+ A 2 ante alan hHnoFtfnro

b> b Pa A P| JA A 4A 4 A 4 » ” FP
Wanlvyvar ,_;, - bh e eon a , + r- fe ~ + Q@latat'a
4 a ae 4 - — a _ 4 A * 4 + — 4 .
or ,_mHe «us ,K 14 cCacpapcdc {Mnmmn) arin annd

Aaa y 4 4 z — A — » pf > ae 2 - aA 4 4

4 r
a on ey - w - i
AnSwer a pal . aAiaij-e
+ -+ho na aha 1 o*7¢ nr - lw ia + &
AL CNeE ena Ji izes % FS early Las LIO P
d
T esi ei nn moat in _. 1h Tilnrat & +},
Petitioner met Holzer ina hallway of the
1
Moaer+wtr - - nop cre Twrivgvar -~A 1A
LVvViG enter, Chicago. Holzer told
T ~ 5+ 4 = +h ~ yn Lian? A -- —halt= } + ae)
rectclicvcioner A ne wanted tO Speak Oo Him
7 5
na LIO)) qq "SAAN roa mmhHhan —‘b oa ie a ala -
>| A WUULU mw UUII Lelie 1140 = . ae 4 i
+ + y ) >
A A + i S OracitLice
+ ~ . . mar + -
= > «©
+ A 4 ~ 4 + Hat rnr
A 4 pe Liat
-~ A + 7
I t t ¢ é D ee a
> > a an ry +
c A» ‘ \ >
trat excepted t
é ; y >
pe 4

1]

recommendation of the Review Board.
Petitioner excepted to both the findings
and recommendation of the Review Board.

On Octonper 3, i988, tne Ceurt
allowed the Administrator's petition for
leave to file exceptions and the
Petitioner's exceptions.

On October a3, 1989, after
considering briefs and oral arguments,
the Supreme Court of Illinois issued an
order suspending both Petitioner and his
partner from the practice of law for a

period of 30 months.

T 20 5 .
On November 17, 1989, Petitioner
filed a Petition for Rehearing ith the
Supt e Court of Illinois.

~ r Cc
( ~ ‘ar ™ b - a >, -~hHho Cc = ae ™
Le i S € € , ») i L ie — La reme
Glatt + + T 7 _ = en t+hea noririnn
7 kA L oa —/ 2 AN aha L - ‘ eat itWJiie
‘e
ad ~ >» } 4 i a > , —~
€ € 4 ’ 4 , | 4 4 er

=

Supreme Court of Illinois so as to permit
Petitioner time to seek review in the
Supreme Court of the United States.

On December 19, 1989, the Supreme
Court of Illinois issued an order staying
the mandate.

On March 2, 1990, Petitioner filed
his Petition for Writ of Certiorari to
the Illinois Supreme Court with the Clerk
of the United States Supreme Court.

On March 2, 1990, Petitioner served
Respondent with copies of his Petition
for Writ of Certiorari filed with the

Supreme Court of the United States.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The Petition for Writ of Certiorari
to the Supreme Court of Illinois should

be denied for the following reasons:

—13—

First, Disciplinary Rule 7-110(a)
does not violate the equal protection
clause of the United States Constitution.
The policy objective of Rule 7-110(a) is
to preserve an independent and impartial
judiciary. Rule 7-110(a) reasonably
prohibits non-campaign loans or gifts to
a judge, because they are not regulated
or disclosed. Rule 7-110(a) allows
campaign loans or gifts to a judge,
because they are regulated and disclosed.
Thus, Rule 7-110(a) bears a rational
relationship to the objective of
preserving an impartial judiciary.

Second, as to his due process clain,
Petitioner has failed to invoke the
jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28
U.8.C.. § i2ss7(a}. Petitioner failed to
timely and adequately present his due
process claim to the Supreme Court of

Illinois. Further, Petitioner failed to

raise his claim of bias or prejudice in

the original proceeding. Thus,

Petitionér NaS waived his right to raise

the issue of recusal.

ARGUMENT

I. AN ILLINOIS ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY
RULE PROHIBITING LOANS OR GIFTS TO A
JUDGE EXCEPT THOSE LOANS OR GIFTS
MADE AS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS DOES
NOT VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.

The Equal Protection Clause of the
United States Constitution guarantees
that similar people will be treated
equally by the laws. U.S. CONST. amend.
ELV, Gis In order to have any law
reviewed under the equal protection
clause, one must be able to show that the
regulation unlawfully classifies a person

in some way.

Petitioner fails to establish either

that Rule 7-110(a) classifies persons in

=e)

terms of their ability to exercise a
fundamental right or establishes a
suspect classification based upon race,
national origin, alienage, illegitimacy
or gender. Thus, Rule 7-110(a) is proper
if it bears any rational relationship to
the end sought to be achieved by the
State of Illinois.

The States have a compelling
interest in the practice of professions

Within their boundaries. Goldfarb v.

Varese. State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 792

(1975). The interest of the States in
regulating lawyers is especially great
because lawyers are essential to the
primary governmental function of
administering justice, and have

historically been "officers of the

sourts.™ Sosmrere, €23 U.S. 773, T32

(1975).

= ee

State courts also have the inherent
authority to regulate the admission to
the practice of law and the discipline of
attorneys who have been admitted to

practice before it. Goldfarb, 421 U.S.

773, 789 (i975). The supervision of
attorney conduct is one of the most
crucial functions of the Supreme Court of

Illinois. See In re Neff, 83 I11.2d 20,

25, 413 N.E.2d 1282, 1284 (1980).
The policy objective of Rule
7-110(a) is to preserve an independent

and impartial judiciary. In re Corboy,

et al., 124 I11.2d 29, 37-38, 528 N.E.2d
694, 697 (1988); See Illinois Code of
Professional Responsibility EC 7-34
(1970). It is a prophylactic rule
designed not only to forestall lawyers
from seeking to exercise improper

influence over the judiciary, but also to

eliminate even the appearance of improper

=. oe

influence. In re cCorboy, et al., 124

I11.2d 29, 38, 528 N.E.2a 694, 697
(1988).

Non-campaign loans or gifts, such as
those made by Petitioner, are prohibited
because they are not regulated and are
not disclosed to the public nor to other

attorneys. In re Neistein, 132 I11l.2d

104, 112-113, 547 N.E.2d 198, 202 (1989).
Such loans or gifts create an appearance
of impropriety and denigrate the
integrity of the legal system in the eyes
of the public. Further, the clandestine
nature of non-campaign loans or debts
facilitates the opportunity for attorneys
to seek to influence members of the

judiciary.

ontiiin

In contrast, the Supreme Court of
Illinois determined it was reasonable to
provide an exception concerning gifts and
loans made to a designated judicial
campaign § fund. See, I11]1.Rev.Stat. ch.
L1OA, Art. VIit, Rule 7-110(a)
(1980) (amended 1988). Loans or gifts
to candidates or their committees must be
reported pursuant to the Disclosure of
Campaign Contributions and Expenditures
Act. I11.Rev.Stat. ch. 46, para. 9-1 to

9-27 (1987). As the Illinois Supreme

1/

The drafters of Rule 7-110(a)
recognized that lawyers should not be
second-class citizens, and constitutional
problems might be raised by a regulation
restricting lawyer contributions to
political campaigns. I11.Ann.Stat. ch.
110A, Art. VIII, Rule 7-110, committee
comments (Smith-Hurd 1980).

—19—

Court noted, campaign loans or gifts are
publicly disclosed, thereby preserving
the policy objective of Rule 7-110(a) of
Maintaining an impartial judiciary. In

re Neistein, 132 I1l1.2d 104, 112-113, 547

N.E.2d 198, 202 (1989).

The Supreme Court of Illinois seeks
to maintain an independent and impartial
judiciary. Disciplinary Rule 7-110(a) is
rationally related to that objective.
Thus, Petitioner fails to establish that
Disciplinary Rule 7-110(a) violates the
equal protection clause of the United

States Constitution.

SS
II. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO INVOKE

FEDERAL JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO 28

USC §1257(a) AS TO HIS DUE PROCESS

CLAIM BECAUSE HE FAILED TO TIMELY

BRING HIS FEDERAL CLAIM TO THE

ATTENTION OF THE ILLINOIS SUPREME

COURT WITH FAIR PRECISION AND

BECAUSE HE FAILED TO PROMPTLY ASSERT

A CLAIM OF BIAS OR PREJUDICE IN THE

ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT.

Petitioner is required to
demonstrate that this Court has
jurisdiction to review the judgment of
the Supreme Court of Illinois.
Petitioner has failed to do so.

This Court cannot consider a federal
claim unless a Petitioner either raised
the issue in the state court or the state

court considered and resolved the federal

claim. McGoldrick Vv. Compaqnie

Generale, 309 U.S. 430, 434 (1940). When

the highest state court has failed to
pass upon a federal question, it will be
assumed that the omission was due to want

of proper presentation in the state

courts, unless the aggrieved party in

oe

this Court can affirmatively show the

contrary. Street v. New York, 394 U.S.

576, 582 (1969). A Petitioner must show
that the federal claim was brought to the

attention of the state court with fair

precision and in due time. New York ex
rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63,
67 (1928).

Petitioner failed to timely bring
his due process claim to the attention of
the Illinois Supreme Court, with any
degree of precision. On February 2,
1989, he filed a brief and appendix in
the Supreme ‘Court of Illinois.
Petitioner raised no due process claim in

that brief.

= =

On April 7, 1989, Petitioner filed a
reply brief and an appendix, in the
Supreme Court of Illinois. There,
Petitioner again failed to adequately
present his due process issue to the

Supreme Court of Illinois. @

2/

In a footnote found on page eighteen
of his twenty-four page reply brief,
Petitioner asserted as follows:

Depending upon what justices
participate in the decision of this case,
there may also be due process issues
under the U.S. Constitution, Art. XIVI1,
Sec. 1, and Illinois Constitution,. Art.
1, Sec. 2. Due Process requires a fair,
impartial, and unbiased tribunal.
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 25
L.Ed.2d 287, 90 S.Ct. 1011 (1970); In re
Murchinson, 349 U.S. 133, 75 S.Ct. 623
(1955); Collura v. Board of Police
Commissioners, 113 Ill.2d 361, 498 N.E.2d
1148, 1151 (1986). (Pet. Reply Br. at 18
n.9).

The language employed by Petitioner does
not constitute an adequate articulation
of a federal issue.

—23-—

Petitioner first articulated a
federal due process claim with any degree
of specification in his petition for
rehearing after the judgment of the
Supreme Court of Illinois. (Pet.Br. 13).

Raising a federal question for the
first time in a petition for rehearing
addressed to the highest state court is,
however, generally insufficient to invoke
federal jurisdiction unless the court
actually entertains the petition and
expressly decides the question.

Consolidated Turnpike Company v. Norfolk

and Ocean View Railway Company, 228 U.S.

326, 334 (1913). As the Illinois Supreme
Court denied the petition in the instant

case without entertaining the federal

question, the general rule precludes
review by this Court. To constitute a
reviewable judgment under such

circumstances, the order denying the

—24—

petition for rehearing must be more than
a cursory recitation that the petition
has been fully or maturely considered and

is accordingly denied. Consolidated

Turnpike, 228 U.S. 326, 333-334 (1913).

Further, Petitioner clearly does not
fit within any exception to this general
rule. Thus, Petitioner has failed to
invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.

In the alternative, Petitioner
waived his right to raise the issue of
recusal. The discipline of attorneys is

in the nature of an original proceeding.

In re Mitan, 75 I1l1.2d 118, 123-124, 387

N.E.2d 278, 280 (1979) cert.denied, 444

U.S. 916 (1979). Under Illinois law, a
failure to object at the original
proceeding generally constitutes a waiver
of the right to raise the issue on

appeal. People _v. Carlson, 79 I1l.2d

564, 576-577, 404 N.E.2d 233, 239 (1980).

—~25—

One must promptly assert a claim of
bias or partiality of a judge in order to

warrant disqualification. E & E Hauling,

Inc. v. Pollution Control Board., 107

Ill.2d 33, 38, 481 N.E.2d 664, 666 (1985)

(quoting Duffield v. Charleston Area

Medical Center, Inc., 503 F.2d 512, 515

(4th Cir. 1974). It would not be proper
to allow a party to withhold a claim of
bias until he first seeks a ruling ina
matter and then permit him to assert it
after he receives an unfavorable ruling.

City of Rockford v. County of Winnebago,

186 Ill.App.3d 303, 313, 542 N.E.2a 423,

431 (1989) (citing Waste Management of

Illinois v. Pollution Control Board, 175

Ill.App.3d 1023, 1039-1040, 530 N.E.2a
682, 695 (1988).

Petitioner did not request recusal
nor raise the issue of bias or

impartiality until his petition for

—26—

rehearing. Petitioner was aware of the
alleged disqualifying circumstances
before he first sought a ruling in the
Illinois Supreme Court. Thus, Petitioner
cannot here claim a lack of due process
based on an alleged biased or impartial

judiciary.

—?7—

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,
Respondent respectfully submits the
Petition for Writ of Certiorari be

denied.

Respectfully submitted,

am

_

an

- =
en. vs ae ie ro °
“rat a aati v4

rs
—_

James J. Grogan

203 North Wabash Avenue
Suite 1900

Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 346-0690

Attorney for Respondent

Dana Cook Baer, J.D., DePaul University
College of Law, assisted in the
preparation of this brief.

bernard1/dmk

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385020_1180%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.