Evaluations of Candidates for the Federal Bench

In May 1997 the Council issued a report to Senator Carol Moseley-Braun and Senator Richard Durbin which included our evaluation reports of the six candidates chosen by the Senators' merit selection panel to be the finalists for selection as the next federal district court judges in the Northern District. Jeffrey D. Colman and Rebecca R. Pallmeyer were recommended by the Senators to the President. Judge Pallmeyer was confirmed by the Senate and is now a District Judge. The following is the Council's evaluations of Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

Rebecca R. Pallmeyer -- Qualified

United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, 42, is a 1979 graduate of the University of Chicago Law School. Upon graduation, she served as a clerk to Justice Rosalie Wahl of the Minnesota Supreme Court. She then worked as an associate from 1980 to 1985 at the Chicago law firm of Hopkins & Sutter, where she concentrated on commercial litigation. From 1985 to 1991, she served as an Administrative Law Judge with the Illinois Human Rights Commission, where she presided over bench trials of generally short duration involving claims of discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Toward the end of her tenure with the Commission, she served as the Commission's first motions judge and was Chief Administrative Law Judge for a short period. While at the Commission, she was instrumental in developing reforms to improve the caliber of opinions issued by the Administrative Law Judges. She was named a United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Illinois in 1991.

Magistrate Judge Pallmeyer has drawn praise for her skills and work ethic. As a Magistrate Judge, she has tried and settled complex securities, commercial, and patent cases. Lawyers and judges have advised us that she has brought an impressive level of energy to the bench. While the Council has received a few reports claiming that she can be indecisive in her rulings, most practitioners find that Magistrate Judge Pallmeyer renders sound oral rulings and issues prompt, well-written opinions, particularly in time-critical matters like preliminary injunctions. Lawyers report that she is well-prepared for trial, controls her courtroom, understands the rules of evidence and the role of a judge, and provides firm and fair guidance to the lawyers and parties who appear before her. By all accounts, Magistrate Judge Pallmeyer is highly organized, exceedingly diligent, very hard-working, and has excellent judicial temperament and legal ability. Some respondents questioned whether Magistrate Judge Pallmeyer has had sufficient legal experience to deal with the varied demands and practical legal problems of a District Court judge. We do not give weight to this question.

The Council believes that Magistrate Judge Pallmeyer has performed her current assignment at a high level of excellence and despite her relative youth, has demonstrated that she possesses the skills we believe are essential to performing the challenging duties of a District Court judge. Accordingly, the Council finds that Magistrate Judge Pallmeyer is qualified for appointment to the District Court.

In May 1998 the Council issued a report to Senator Carol Moseley-Braun and Senator Richard Durbin which included our evaluation reports of the three candidates chosen by the Senators' merit selection panel to be the finalist for selection as the next federal district court judge in the Northern District. Hon. William J. Hibbler and Matthew F. Kennelly were recommended by the Senators to the President for two vacancies on the District Court for the Northern District. The following are the Council's evaluations of Judge William J. Hibbler and Matthew F. Kennelly.

 

William J. Hibbler --Not Qualified

William J. Hibbler, 51, is a 1973 graduate of the DePaul University Law School. Following law school, he served as an Assistant State=s Attorney in Cook County from 1973 to 1977. In 1977, Judge Hibbler went into private practice in a small Chicago firm, where he engaged in the general practice of law until 1981, when he returned to the State=s Attorney=s Office. He served as a felony trial attorney from 1981 to 1983 in the Markham courthouse. From 1983 to 1985, he supervised attorneys handling preliminary hearings in various branch courts, and served as a felony trial supervisor in 1985 and 1986.

Judge Hibbler was appointed to an Associate Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois in 1986. From 1986 to 1988 he served in the First Municipal District. From 1988 until early 1995, he was assigned to the Criminal Division as a felony trial judge. In February 1995, he was appointed the Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Justice Division of the Juvenile Court, and has served in that position to the present time, primarily administering the business of that division and supervising 16 judges. Judge Hibbler also periodically presides over a court call.

Judge Hibbler received uniformly positive comments from respondents for his work as a prosecutor and as a judge. Respondents uniformly praise his performance as a trial judge. He also was highly praised for his intellect, integrity, temperament, work ethic and diligence. Many respondents commented that Judge Hibbler was fair and even-handed towards both sides in criminal cases, despite the fact that most of his practice was spent as a prosecutor, and that he maintains good control over his courtroom under stressful circumstances. We also received information that Judge Hibbler has shown a willingness to change his mind, which we believe to be an admirable quality. Judge Hibbler also receives special praise for his work as the Presiding Judge in Juvenile Court, with respondents uniformly lauding his administrative skills and his ability to reform that traditionally problem-laden division.

Judge Hibbler has demonstrated many fine qualities and performed at a high level as a criminal and juvenile court judge, and therefore presents a difficult case for us. We intentionally set an extremely high standard because of how extraordinarily difficult a federal judgeship is and the fact that it is a lifetime appointment. As discussed above, our standards require that candidates have demonstrated that they are outstanding with respect to each of our categories. The legal ability category requires the candidate to have demonstrated, among other things, the ability to apply complex areas of the law. Another category requires extensive litigation experience in which the candidate has demonstrated his or her excellence in cases involving Asophisticated or complicated legal issues and analysis, preferably in federal court. While we recognize that state court criminal law and juvenile justice certainly can and do present complex issues, we believe that a federal docket presents a far more challenging array of complex issues, both civil and criminal.

Despite Judge Hibbler's obvious strengths as a prosecutor and state court judge in the criminal and juvenile justice systems, the Council is concerned about the limited breadth of his professional background and, in particular, his lack of litigation experience in complex matters and his lack of legal writing experience. We note that Judge Hibbler has had little federal court experience and the limited exposure he has had to civil work in his short-term tenure in private practice appears to have involved fairly routine matters. We also note that Judge Hibbler has not provided us with any written opinions or orders to evaluate, and the two briefs he provided as writing samples involved relatively simple criminal law issues. Accordingly, we have been unable to measure his legal scholarship or analyze in a tangible way his analytical abilities on complex matters. We find this issue significant because legal writing is a fundamental and important aspect of the job of a federal district court judge.

Accordingly, we have concluded, on balance, that Judge Hibbler=s narrowly focused legal background and limited legal writing experience have not allowed him the opportunity to demonstrate that he satisfies the extremely strict standards, requiring extensive experience and demonstrated excellence in complex matters, that we impose on all candidates for lifetime appointment to the federal bench. The Council therefore finds Judge Hibbler not qualified at this time, but encourages him to reapply for a vacancy in the future after he has a greater opportunity to demonstrate his excellence in more varied contexts.

 

Matthew F. Kennelly -- Qualified

Matthew F. Kennelly, 41, is a 1981 graduate of the Harvard Law School. Following law school Mr. Kennelly served briefly as an associate at Latham & Watkins doing civil commercial litigation. He then served for two years as a Law Clerk to U.S. District Judge Prentice H. Marshall. From 1984 to the present, Mr. Kennelly has practiced with Cotsirilos, Stephenson, Tighe & Streiker, Ltd., where he specializes in criminal and commercial civil litigation. He is active in many civic activities, including the Lawyers' Committee for Better Housing where he served as president of the board of directors for eight years. He has received numerous awards for his pro bono participation in the defense of Rolando Cruz.

Mr. Kennelly has handled a wide variety of complex civil and criminal cases as a practitioner. As we found in our 1997 evaluation, he is uniformly considered to have an exceptional intellect and received high marks from everyone we interviewed for his legal ability on

complex matters, his trial skills, and his judgment. He also has strong legal writing skills, which further demonstrate his legal writing and scholarship. His adversaries consistently praise him for his professionalism. His integrity, intelligence, and fairness are unquestioned. He is considered to be exceptionally hard-working.

We also have received numerous comments about the maturity and poise that Mr. Kennelly exhibits during even complex litigation matters. During his evaluation interview, we were particularly impressed with the thoughtfulness of his answers on a variety of subjects relating to the role and responsibilities of a federal district judge.

His devotion to public interest matters is admirable and, in general, is considered to be an excellent practitioner. He has the experiences and ability to be an outstanding U.S. District Judge. We find him qualified.