patt.qxd
In 1990 Jerry Meites resurrected the judicial evaluation committee (I think it had met last in the 1960s). Letters were sent to all IVI-IPO members who were attorneys, inviting them to join the committee or, if unable to attend meetings, to submit in writing any information they had about judicial candidates. Although given the option of anonymity, most members signed their responses. Invitations were not extended to nonattorneys, although any member who knew of the existence of the committee was allowed to serve. I was a member in 1990 and 1992.
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
Anyone who has information about a judicial candidate can bring it to the committee, to the board, or in the case of subcircuits, to the membership. The standing rule governing the judicial committee does not forbid the consideration of opinions; it does forbid the reporting of such opinions as fact. It is unfair and unjust to allow hearsay to be anonymously distributed and deprive candidates of the opportunity to question their accusers and defend themselves against the charges. The board recognized this and restored the process IVI-IPO followed in 1992, adding the extended peer review improvements of 1994.
