2008 General Election: 16th Judicial Circuit, subcircuit 1

Fred Morelli, 67, a Republican, faces Jim Murphy, 57, a Democrat. This is a new judicial position created by a 2005 state law. The subcircuit includes portions of Aurora, North Aurora and Montgomery.

Fred Morelli
Why are you running for this office?
I am running for Circuit Judge because I have dedicated my entire forty-one plus year career to courtroom law and I want to serve as a judge again in order to utilize my extensive knowledge of the judicial system. Having served as a judge for five years and having appeared in front of hundreds of judges throughout the country, I have seen firsthand the best court room procedures and would be able to pick those procedures for use in my court room. I am running on my experience - both judicial and legal - as I strongly feel that EXPERIENCE COUNTS when electing a judge.

What in your legal background makes you more qualified for this position than your opponent?
First and foremost, I have been a judge before which makes me more qualified for this position than my opponent. I was appointed associate judge in 1976 for the 16th Judicial Circuit. The appointment was to fill the remaining five years of a six year term. I was the youngest judge in the state at the time.

While associate judge, I served in mental health court, traffic/misdemeanor court, family court, which included divorce and small claims/LM court. LM court was civil cases up to $50,000.00. While in small claim/LM court, I reduced the time between request for trial and trial from nine months to one day as a result of hard work and late hours. While I was a judge, I received an unprecedented 98% approval rating from the lawyers in a bar poll. At the end of the term in 1981, I chose not to apply for reappointment as I felt that I could do more in private practice and there were experiences and goals I wanted to achieve as a lawyer.

After leaving the bench, I re-opened my own office in the general practice of law. Since that time, I have represented clients in over 200 jury trials and more than 1,000 bench trials. I have practiced law in Federal Court from California to New York and from Texas to Wisconsin. I have done civil and criminal jury trials in both Federal and State Court. I have practiced law in virtually every county in Northern Illinois doing both civil and criminal trials. I have disposed of cases short of trial in all of these jurisdictions. I estimate I have appeared before over two hundred judges.

I have written and argued appeals in the Federal Appellate courts for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. I have written and argued appeals in the Illinois Appellate Court for the 2nd District in Elgin and the 3rd District in Ottawa. I have written and argued appeals in the Illinois Supreme Court on 6 occasions. I have filed briefs in the United States Supreme Court and one of my cases was accepted for decision even though I was not given an opportunity to argue. All in all I have over 50 appeals to my credit.

An interesting fact about my legal career is that I have employed in private practice or as head public defender seven lawyers who went on to become judges themselves. Current judges are prohibited from making endorsements of any candidate for elected office; however, retired judges are allowed to "endorse". I am honored to share my current list of endorsements from those have worked within the Illinois judicial system:
• Justice John L. Nickels, Illinois Supreme Court (Retired)
• Justice Francis Barth, Illinois First District Appellate Court (Retired)
• Honorable Gene L. Nottolini, Circuit Judge, 16th Judicial Circuit (Retired)
• Honorable James Edwards, Associate Judge, 16th Judicial Circuit (Retired)
• Honorable James Cadwell, Associate Judge, 16th Judicial Circuit (Retired)
• Honorable Duane Walters, Associate Judge, 18th Judicial Circuit (Retired)
• Honorable Sam L. Amirante, Associate Judge, Cook County (Retired)
• John A. Barsanti, Kane County State's Attorney
• Gary Johnson, Former Kane County State's Attorney
• Deborah Seyller, Kane County Circuit Clerk

Finally, I requested the Kane County Circuit Clerk run a report of my cases in Kane County in preparation for this campaign. I have had over 3,000 cases in Kane County alone since 1986 in every category of law from criminal felony to wrongful death to personal injury to probate etc. Based on our research into my opponent's record, we have found only 29 cases where his ARDC number was registered for court cases in Kane County. We were unable to identify any jury trials. It is important to note that the Clerk would not provide this information after filing a FOIA, therefore, this information is based solely on our research.

I am running for Circuit Judge based on my proven full-time legal experience as a judge and as a lawyer for over forty years. I have maintained throughout my campaign for the last sixteen months that this judicial race should not and is not about party affiliation - it is about experience. My campaign slogan is EXPERIENCE COUNTS. I am the only candidate with judicial experience plus over 36 years of full-time extensive courtroom experience.

What can you tell voters about the type of judge you would be?
I have a proven track record as a Judge. I was a Judge from 1976 to 1981. I left that position because there were many things I wanted to do in my law practice which included arguing cases before the Illinois Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. I've argued before the Illinois Supreme Court six times and had a case decided by the US Supreme Court.

If elected, I would be the same type of judge as before which was an efficient, hardworking judge whose goal has always been to treat both litigants and lawyers with courtesy and respect.

One example of my willingness to apply common sense and hard work to the job would be a case that I presided over involving a dispute between a homeowner and builder regarding whether or not roof paper was laid under the shingles.
Both sides argued their case--the homeowner was adamant that there was no paper under his shingles and the builder testified that they indeed laid the paper.
I decided that there was only one way to determine the truth--go see the roof with both parties present.

I ordered all parties to follow me to the house, I climbed a ladder and I lifted some shingles. I found the truth--no paper. Case closed. I could have just relied on the testimony, but I chose to go the extra mile. This common sense approach was evident in my courtroom and I believe that I earned a great deal of respect for my fairness.

Are judicial advisory polls (such as one conducted by the Illinois State Bar Association) a good barometer of how qualified you are for the office? Why or why not?
The judicial advisory polls can serve as a good barometer so long as one looks carefully at the numbers, the methodology and finally the weight of such polls within the legal community.

For example, I will explain my findings of the Illinois State Bar Association poll from the February 2008 primary. It is important to note the full results of this poll. Although there were a total of 352 ballots returned for the 16th Judicial Circuit poll, there is a vast difference between the universes of respondents who actually knew the candidates well enough to even answer all of the questions for the candidates.

After receiving my results, my campaign asked the ISBA for the results of all of the candidates at which time we were given the same report that the media receives. Unfortunately, this information does not give an accurate portrayal of the full universe of survey participants and the actual results. This report only provides the percentages for each of the eight questions which fails to demonstrate how many individuals actually responded - "yes", "no" or "no opinion".

Upon further inquiry, the ISBA did agree to provide us with the actual numbers of all respondents for question number one only, but not the comprehensive results that would have indicated exactly how many people responded to each question rather than just the percentages.

The report provided the results of the primary question on the ballot which is as follows:

Do you have sufficient knowledge as to the qualifications of this candidate for judicial office to give a fair, informed opinion as to those qualifications? i. Morelli - 223 yes; 96 no; 33 no opinion 63% yes; 28% no; 9% no opinion) ii. Murphy - 128 yes; 178 no; 46 no opinion (36% yes; 51% no; 13% no opinion)

These numbers are significant as more people responded yes to each of my eight questions, than even know who my opponent is. I believe this is a testament to my forty plus years working in the courts.

In addition to the ISBA, there is another well-known nationally recognized lawyer review - The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings service, which evaluates lawyers and law firms in the United States and Canada. This review is based on the confidential opinions of members of the Bar and the Judiciary, including both those who are rated and those who are not.

I achieved the highest possible peer review rating (AV) from The Martindale-Hubbell in January 1991 for ethics and legal ability and have maintained this rating ever since. The Martindale and Hubbell AV® certification mark is a significant rating accomplishment - a testament to the fact that lawyer's peers rank me at the highest level of professional excellence. A lawyer must be admitted to the bar for 10 years or more to receive an AV rating. A lawyer achieves an AV rating based on his or her knowledge and skill derived from extensive experience. The standard of excellence is determined by other lawyers practicing in that particular area.

I received this accolade in 1991; however, it was not until the last few weeks that our opponent even received a rating based on our periodic review of the website.

Have you ever had complaints filed against you with the state's Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission? Explain. How should your record - whether or not you have been the subject of a complaint - be considered by voters in deciding whether to cast a ballot in your favor?
Yes, I have had complaints filed against me and I received a thirty day suspension of my law license in 2005. The suspension circumstances are very complicated and lasted over twelve years. It is important to note that I had only received a censure from a unanimous hearing panel on this complaint; however, the ARDC appealed that verdict and a lengthy appeal process ensued. The review panel voted two to one for a thirty day suspension. After twelve years of expensive time consuming litigation I chose to take the suspension rather than put my family through any more of the situation. This suspension was for an allegation of conflict of interest in a criminal case. The claimed conflict was alleged to have occurred in1993. The second allegation was that I spoke to an individual who was represented by another lawyer. On the first allegation, I feel I did nothing wrong; however, I admit to my mistake on the second allegation. All of this is public information and is available to view on the ARDC website.

I have represented over twelve thousand individuals in my career. When one has represented as many people as I have over the years, it is inevitable that one would get a complaint or even multiple complaints filed against him/her. It is well known that criminal law practitioners receive the highest number of complaints and mostly from those clients who are not happy with the outcome of the case, i.e. the client is now incarcerated for their wrongdoing. Please do not take this information as an excuse of what happened to me; however, it is important to recognize the type of legal work environment that I have been involved in for the last forty years and the increased likelihood for complaints to arise.

Overall, I believe that this experience has provided me with great insight of what it is like to be falsely accused and pursued by an entity with unlimited resources and to endure over twelve years of litigation.

Jim Murphy
Why are you running for this office?I care about people and public service. I see this subcircuit judgeship as a logical extension of my career in law and public service. In my law practice and at Aurora Township, I have worked with and for our community's senior citizens, at risk youth and families, the poor and the homeless. My ideal courtroom assignment would be hearing and deciding cases involving some of those vulnerable citizens. In any courtroom assignment, I want to do my best to use my background and experience to give everyone a fair shake and fair hearing, without regard to their financial or social status.

The new subcircuits are really designed to encourage candidates for office who are more representative of the people who make up the smaller area of the subcircuit. In effect, the subcircuit judge is the "hometown" judge. This subcircuit covers Kane County portions of Aurora, North Aurora, and Montgomery. The candidate is required to reside within the subcircuit to qualify for this judgeship, and once elected he or she must continue to reside in the subcircuit. I see myself as the "hometown candidate" to be your "hometown judge."

I have lived in Aurora all my life, gone to Aurora schools, raised my children here, maintained my law office here for 26 years, and as Aurora Township supervisor I have represented the people of Aurora, North Aurora, Montgomery, and unincorporated areas for now almost 12 years. I am committed to this area and I believe the judge position would allow me to continue to represent and even improve our quality of life in this community.

What in your legal background makes you more qualified for this position than your opponent?My law practice has involved mostly civil cases, including civil litigation, personal injury, contracts, real estate, wills, trusts, probate, guardianships, employment law, municipal law, construction law and family law. My practice is what used to be referred to as a "general practice," without specialization in any one area as is more common today.

In my practice, I have at various times, represented people on both sides of the fence, for instance, both tenants and landlords, both employees and employers, both union and management. A judge has to have the patience and disposition to hear both sides of the story, and not be predisposed to favor one side or the other.

I feel that my broad background and experience would serve the judicial system and the community better than that of my opponent, who has concentrated his practice in representing criminal defendants.

I believe my commitment to Aurora, my living in the same town as my clients and keeping my law office in Aurora for 26 years makes me the "hometown" candidate, as discussed above. I did not just move into town last year to qualify to run for judge in this subcircuit. I am here to stay.

What can you tell voters about the type of judge you would be?I would follow the US and Illinois constitutions and US and Illinois statutes, as well as judicial precedent. I would give the parties a fair hearing, according to appropriate rules of procedure, and I would consider the evidence and follow the law in making a decision. In my law and public service career(s), I strive to be a good advocate and representative for my clients and a caring township official. As a judge, I will continue to be courteous and caring, and I will give my complete attention to both sides prior to deciding cases.

Are judicial advisory polls (such as one conducted by the Illinois State Bar Association) a good barometer of how qualified you are for the office? Why or why not?I believe the attorneys' advisory poll is a good barometer, assuming that a good cross section of attorneys know the candidates being rated, and that they actually respond to the survey. Who would know better who might be a good judge than the attorneys who have worked with us and have observed us during the years we have been in practice. It is actually the obligation of attorneys to inform the voting public about which of the candidates they might or might not recommend.

In my case, a good cross section of attorneys responded, and I received high marks in all categories.

The latest judicial advisory poll was circulated to 1363 attorneys in the 16th Circuit (Kane, Kendall and DeKalb Counties). 352 attorneys responded to the survey. 128 of the 352 attorneys had enough knowledge to answer the survey about me and my qualifications and experience.

As stated above, I received very good marks, all of which exceed, or compare favorably with, my Republican opponent's. The survey actually rated all 6 candidates (5 Democrats, 1 Republican) in the February primary, and I received the top overall rating of all 6, including my Republican opponent.

The survey also asked about seven specific categories, including integrity, impartiality, legal ability, temperament, court management, health, and sensitivity to diversity and bias. All of those categories are important in evaluating judge candidates and again, I received very good marks.

I believe one specific category--integrity--is of paramount importance to the judicial system and the public's confidence in the system. In that category, 94.44% of the respondents agreed that I would "adhere to the high standards of integrity and ethical conduct required of the office." I invite everyone to compare my results with those of my opponent by visiting the ISBA website and viewing the entire survey at http://www.illinoisbar.org/judicialevaluations/16circuit.html.

Have you ever had complaints filed against you with the state's Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission? Explain. How should your record - whether or not you have been the subject of a complaint - be considered by voters in deciding whether to cast a ballot in your favor? No. I have an excellent track record. I maintain ethical practices and I am up front and honest with both my clients and with the opposing parties and lawyers. I have tried to follow in the footsteps of local lawyers who have been mentors to younger lawyers throughout the years. My mentors include my father, J.Robert Murphy, and my uncle, William C. Murphy, both of whom are still in active practice in their 80's. My attorney-mentors have shown me that good practice and good relationships among attorneys, clients, and the courts, are based on trust.

Attorneys sometimes get complaints from clients because of lack of communication or unfair charges for services. I maintain good communications with my clients, by keeping them informed of the progress of their cases. I am very fair with my clients in billing them. As mentioned above, my fellow attorneys who rated me in the recent judicial advisory poll gave me high marks in integrity, impartiality and fairness. The voters should consider integrity and honesty as crucial characteristics when deciding which candidate should get their vote.