Federal Judicial Evaluations

Past Federal Judicial Evaluations

Chicago Council of Lawyers Releases Evaluation of U.S. District Judges in Chicago (2006)

The Chicago Council of Lawyers (April 6, 2006) released a 25-page report detailing its evaluation of United States District Judges in Chicago. 

Carrie Huff, President of the Council, explained the Council’s motivation in evaluating the federal judiciary: “Federal judges, unlike other public officials, tend to do their work largely outside of the public’s purview, attracting attention and critical commentary only when they preside over a high profile case or render a decision of great public importance.  The vast majority of a federal judge’s actions are never reviewed by a higher court and are only rarely the subject of public attention or scrutiny.  Because the position of federal judge is rightly afforded great deference and respect by lawyers and others, candid feedback to sitting judges can be all too rare.  The Chicago Council of Lawyers seeks to fill this gap by periodically providing candid and detailed commentary on, and feedback to, those men and women who hold lifetime appointments to the federal district court.  The Council’s judicial evaluations are motivated by a desire to improve the quality of justice in Chicago by offering the candid views of federal court practitioners to the judges themselves, as well as to the public officials who will be making future judicial selections.”

Michael Early and Peter Steinmeyer, Co-Chairs of the Council’s Federal Judicial Evaluation Committee, said, “We are very pleased to report that the active federal bar in Chicago believes there are many excellent and very good district judges sitting in the Northern District of Illinois.  Although there are certainly judges who are held in lower regard than others, the Council received few complaints of bias or lack of impartiality, and absolutely no suggestions or hints of dishonesty, corruption, impropriety, or blanket disregard of the law by any of the judges evaluated.  It is also worth noting that the bar’s overall estimation of a judge’s performance appears to be unrelated to the judge’s reputed ideological leanings or to the party affiliation of the President who nominated the judge to the federal bench.  There are highly-regarded judges of all political persuasions in this district, as well as judges of all persuasions whose performance is less highly regarded.”

This is the first time since 1991 (when the Council last evaluated the federal district judges) that any bar association has publicly evaluated the federal district judges in Chicago.  The Council is not aware of any other bar association in the country that has undertaken a comprehensive, public evaluation of sitting federal district judges. 

The Council’s evaluation was conducted by a group of more than 50 lawyers and reflects the views of more than 1,000 lawyers with active federal court practices in Chicago. 

The evaluation of each judge was based on the results of a 30-question written survey and personal interviews with at least 40 lawyers who had substantial recent experience before that judge.   The Council’s written survey requested information regarding the amount and nature of the respondent’s experience in federal court, then posed specific questions about each judge’s legal ability, integrity, temperament, decisiveness, and diligence.  It was mailed to 3,250 members of the Federal Trial Bar selected at random by the Clerk’s Office, as well as to all Assistant United States Attorneys in the Chicago Office and all staff lawyers practicing with the Federal Defender’s Office in Chicago.  The Council also conducted personal interviews of more than 800 lawyers  Each interview included questions regarding the judge’s legal ability, quality of written opinions, decisiveness, diligence, integrity, judicial temperament, fairness, respect for the rule of law, and independence from political and institutional influences. 

Ms. Huff and Messrs. Early and Steinmeyer are grateful to all who assisted with this important project:  “We would like to publicly express our appreciation to the more than 1,000 active members of the federal bar who gave us their candid views about these judges and to the volunteer investigators and members of the Council’s Federal Judicial Evaluation Committee, who worked very hard to make sure that the Council’s Report is an accurate and fair reflection of the views expressed by those federal practitioners.  We would especially like to thank the Council’s Executive Director, Malcolm Rich, who spent countless hours shepherding this important project to completion.” 

View the 2006 Federal Judicial Evaluation Report

The following is a description of the Council’s evaluation of Federal District Judges,
Magistrate Judges, and Bankruptcy Judges released in 1991.

Included are 1993 evaluations of federal judicial candidates confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 1994.

Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

• Evaluation Methodology
• Federal District Court Judges for the Northern District of Illinois
• Federal Magistrate Judges for the Northern District of Illinois
• Federal Bankruptcy Judges for the Northern District of Illinois
• Candidates for the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
  Council evaluations of William J. Hibbler, Matthew F. Kennelly and Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, who have been nominated by Illinois Senators Carol Moseley-Braun and Richard Durbin to serve on the federal bench for the Northern District of Illinois.

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

• The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, 1994, Evaluations of the Court and the Judges
• Council Statement before the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeal