A lawyer at a top Chicago law firm was handcuffed to a chair after a judge ordered him removed from her courtroom last month, touching off an inquiry by the state’s judicial oversight agency.
Cook County Chief Judge Timothy Evans signed an order Friday referring misconduct accusations against Judge Kathy Flanagan to the Judicial Inquiry Board, which will decide whether to file charges. Flanagan is the acting presiding judge of the Law Division.
Flanagan will remain on the bench in the meantime, unlike other recent cases in which a judge was removed from his duties after allegations were sent to the board.
The order was issued after an executive committee of judges met twice in recent weeks to hear the accusations by the lawyer, Brad Schneiderman from the firm of Johnson & Bell, as well as Flanagan’s response.
Flanagan defended her actions to the executive committee, saying they were in line with her training to deescalate heated courtroom situations, which she said are common, according to a transcript of the proceedings.
‘That’s it, take him!’
The incident occurred May 7 during a hearing at the Daley Center, according to a sheriff’s office report and a transcript of the hearing obtained by the Sun-Times.
Schneiderman was making an argument for a client when Flanagan told him to “stop talking” and then ordered the attorneys before her to “step back,” according to the sheriff’s report. Schneiderman was walking toward the courtroom gallery, “speaking in a muttering manner before stopping halfway to the gallery and turning back toward the bench,” a courtroom deputy wrote.
Flanagan then yelled, “That’s it, take him!” according to the deputy, who took Schneiderman to a back hallway and ordered him to sit in a chair, then handcuffed him to it.
The deputy told members of the executive committee last week Schneiderman was handcuffed for security reasons and “that is just protocol that we handcuff somebody that we are … holding in custody,” according to a transcript of the hearing.
When sheriff’s deputies later presented Flanagan with a remand order to officially take Schneiderman into custody, the judge declined and instead spoke to the lawyer for several minutes before telling deputies, “Let him go,” according to the sheriff’s report.
Schneiderman then returned to the courtroom, bringing a court reporter to take notes of the hearing. According to the transcript, Schneiderman complained Flanagan had not allowed him to make arguments on the motion before she granted it.
“Instead, the court asked me if I had reached any type of agreement with the plaintiff’s counsel,” Schneiderman said. “I said I had not. The plaintiff’s counsel did not say anything, and the court then simply granted the plaintiff’s motion without any presentation of the actual merits of the motion.”
Schneiderman said he had asked to be allowed to explain his client’s position, and “I was not given that opportunity.”
In 17 years in practice, Schneiderman said, “I have not had an issue with a judge, male or female, nonetheless your honor surprisingly accused me of being sexist and ordered me taken back in chambers in front of a crowded courtroom without even entertaining the motion on the merits.
“The plaintiff’s counsel then entered an order without me reviewing the content, and the motion has still not been adequately presented to the court,” Schneiderman said.
“Are you finished?” Flanagan responded, according to the transcript.
Flanagan accused Schneiderman of making statements that “are not accurate in any way, shape or form, so we’re done.” The judge told Schneiderman to give her a copy of the court reporter’s transcript and the hearing soon ended.
The executive committee of judges has also referred Schneiderman’s conduct to the state’s Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, which regulates lawyers in the state. An official complaint has not appeared on the commission’s website.
Schneiderman declined requests from the Sun-Times for comment.
Judicial temperament in question
Several people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said they thought Flanagan was wrong to order Schneiderman held in custody without first finding him in contempt, saying it amounted to unlawfully detaining him.
They also said it was wrong for the judge to not allow an attorney to be heard on a motion in their case.
Appearing before the executive committee of judges, Flanagan didn’t hold Schneiderman in contempt and claimed “at no time did I ask that he be taken into custody.” But she said she didn’t want the deputy to move him to the hallway, “which would only give him a further forum to continue his disruptive behavior.”
Flanagan has been a judge since 1988 and has been a supervising judge of the Law Division since 2011. She has developed a reputation for being extremely knowledgeable of the law but has also been criticized by attorneys and her colleagues for her demeanor and behavior on the bench.
In a 2012 evaluation report of judges seeking retention, the Chicago Council of Lawyers called her “not qualified,” citing her temperament. Other law groups rated her as qualified, and the Illinois State Bar Association recommended her for retention the same year.
In its finding, the council said: “With regard to fairness and legal ability, Judge Flanagan is generally considered intelligent, with a good grasp of the law, and appropriate diligence,” and said she was described as “very fair” and “always prepared.
“However, a substantial number of respondents had a negative impression of Judge Flanagan’s judicial temperament,” the council said. “She was called ‘hostile,’ ‘imperious,’ ‘rude’ and ‘discourteous.’ She was frequently described as impatient or inflexible. A number of attorneys believe these qualities negatively affected her ability to manage her courtroom efficiently. However, even some respondents who were highly critical of her temper noted that she is ‘bright’ and ‘truly cares’ about the outcomes in her courtroom.”
In response to the review, Flanagan told Injustice Watch, a Chicago news organization, that she “is strict with lawyers who do not get things done on time because it is bad for the system,” but said she rarely raises her voice and is “exceptionally cordial with the litigants who do not have lawyers.”
Flanagan is currently up for retention.
