In re PHILIP H. CORBOY, Attorney, Respondent. — In re PATRICK ALAN TUITE, Attorney, Respondent. — In re WILLIAM D. MADDUX, Attorney, Respondent. — In re WILLIAM JAMES HARTE, Attorney, Respondent. — In re JAMES ROBERT MADLER, Attorney, Respondent. — In re SAMUEL V.P. BANKS, Attorney, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Illinois.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Opinion filed June 20, 1988.
Rehearing denied October 3, 1988.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Daniel Drake, of Springfield, and Mary M. Klatt and James J. Grogan, of Chicago, for the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.
John Powers Crowley, James R. Streicker, Matthew F. Kennelly and Margaret L. Paris, of Cotsirilos, Crowley, Stephenson, Tighe & Streicker, Ltd., of Chicago, for respondent Philip H. Corboy.
Louis B. Garippo, of Louis B. Garippo, Ltd., of Chicago, for respondent Patrick Alan Tuite.
William J. Sneckenberg & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago (William J. Sneckenberg, of counsel), for respondent William D. Maddux.
James P. Chapman & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago, for respondent William James Harte.
Jeffrey A. Kripton, Ltd., of Chicago, for respondent James Robert Madler.
George J. Murtaugh, Jr., of Chicago, and William J. Martin, of William J. Martin, Ltd., of Oak Park, for respondent Samuel V.P. Banks.
George M. Elsener and Brian L. Crowe, both of Chicago, for amicus curiae Illinois Trial Lawyers Association.
Peter B. Freeman, of Chicago, and Robert F. Hanley, of Denver Colorado, for amici curiae Judah Best et al.
Sue Augustus, of Chicago, for amicus curiae Illinois Judges Association.
Francis D. Morrissey and Thomas F. Bridgman, both of Chicago, for amici curiae Richard William Austin et al.
Malcolm C. Rich, of Chicago, for amicus curiae Chicago Council of Lawyers.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Respondents discharged.
PER CURIAM:
These cases involve attorneys who were each charged with violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility by reason of having made a gift or a loan to a judge. While we initially heard each of these cases separately, we have, on our own motion, consolidated them to consider in one opinion the common legal issues raised by all of these cases. The crucial common question is one of first impression in this court: What conduct...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
