Conflict of interest
The Illinois Supreme Court June 8 rate that a conflict of interest exists when special assistant Attorneys General are defense attorneys in criminal cases. However, the high court sanctioned possible conflicts of interest when the attorney adequately informs the client and the client waives the right to undivided loyalty. Four of the state's five appellate courts were split on the issue while the fifth was undecided.

The ruling upheld a Fourth District Appellate Court reversal of a Menard County Circuit Court conviction in a felony marijuana case (People v. Fife). Fife never questioned his attorney's loyalty, but he appealed on grounds she failed to adequately inform him she also was a special assistant attorney general in workmen's compensation cases. After a circuit court hearing on a possible conflict of interst (though no record exists of a decision), the appellate court ordered a new trial.

Attorney General William J. Scott argued that since special assistant attorneys general are limited to specific civil cases, there is little chance of a conflict of interest when they are defense attorneys in criminal cases. But Fife argued that criminal clients have a constitutional right to undivided loyalty.

Delivering the court's opinion, Justice William G. Clark said clients do not need to show attorneys are prejudiced to appeal on

28/ October 1979/ Illinois Issues

conflict of interest grounds. "We are concerned about the possible, perhaps subliminal pressure . . . from the Attorney General's office, but we believe that problem is nullified or significantly lessened by complete and effective disclosure, by effective knowledgeable waiver...''Justice Clark said.

The high court said the ruling also applies to law firms in general, when one member is a special assistant attorney general and another is a defense attorney in a criminal case. The court was aware Scott already had tightened the ethics code for his staff. He now allows special assistant attorneys general to act as defense attorneys in criminal cases only when attorneys inform clients, in writing, of a possible conflict of interest, and clients waive the right to undivided loyalty, in writing.

Nomination challenges
The Illinois Supreme Court ruled August I that nomination challenges are not valid if made after the general election. The ruling overturned a Sangamon County Circuit Court injunction, issued January 3, to prevent the Illinois State Board of Elections from certifying Stephen Spomer as the winning candidate for resident circuit court judge in Alexander County.

The case, Clinton Thursdon v. The State Board of Elections, stemmed from a challenge by the Democratic candidate, Robert Lansden, but he filed the challenge against Spomer, a Republican, after Spomer had won the November 1978 general election. Lansden charged Spomer's nomination was unconstitutional. He alleged Alexander County Republican Central Committee violated election code provisions allowing nomination by primary elections or petitions. For lack of a candidate in the March 1978 primary election, the committee nominated Spomer in July. When the circuit court prevented the board from declaring Spomer the winner, he was allowed to appeal directly to the high court. Lansden died before the litigation was resolved.

The opinion apparently dismissed Lansden's challenge as a last-ditch effort to discredit an opponent. The high court did not rule on whether the nomination was unconstitutional or whether an injunction barring certification would have been in order had the challenge been made earlier. Delivering the court's opinion, Justice Howard C. Ryan said Lansden lost the right to challenge Spomer's nomination because Lansden waited until after the general election to make it. The late challenge was unfair to the candidate and misleading to voters, Justice Ryan said. An earlier challenge, if successful, would have allowed the candidate to withdraw, keeping his former job and saving the cost of the campaign, and allowed voters to make an informed choice.

Circuit Court

Junket suit against legislators
Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge Simon Friedman refused August 28 to grant a permanent injunction against the state in the taxpayers' so-called "junket suit." That freed the state to spend an estimated $90,000 in taxpayers' money to reimburse legislators for a west coast conference July 23-27.

The heart of the case centers on the constitutionality of the law allowing House and Senate leaders to approve such trips. The case will not be heard before mid-October, if then. Since the state is free to reimburse legislators now, the court may find the propriety of spending taxpayers money a moot question later. One legislator has refused to file a voucher, however, in an effort to force a ruling on the legitimacy of the expenses.

The suit, filed by the Coalition for Political Honesty, a statewide watchdog group headed by Patrick Quinn, names Senate President Philip J. Rock (D., Oak Park), House Speaker William Redmond (D., Bensenville), state Comptroller Roland Burris and state Treasurer Jerry Cosentino, all instrumental in the reimbursement process.

The coalition initially filed the suit in DuPage County, where Circuit Court Judge Robert Nolan issued a 10-day temporary restraining order against the state August 3, extending it indefinitely August 9. However Nolan also granted legislators a change of venue, moving the case from Wheaton to Springfield August 9. He refused to reconsider the move August 28. Friedman said he refused to grant a permanent injunction against the state because the coalition didn't prove it was likely to win the case.

Illinois sent the largest out-of-state delegation to the fifth annual National Conference of State Legislators July 23-27 in San Francisco, with 113 members compared to California's 145 and New York's 78. Illinois sent 65 to Denver last year and 47 to Detroit the year before.

The coalition attorney, Thomas Quinn, argued that most legislators went to take a vacation, not work for taxpayers; less expensive casette tape recordings of the proceedings were easily available; and the cost for those who now want reimbursement will run taxpayers about $90,000. (Some legislators paid their own way.)

The coalition says taxpayers have a right to challenge the constitutionality of the law because it arbitrarily allows House and Senate leaders to approve such trips.

The attorney for the legislators, former House majority leader Gerald Shea, argued that the conference is an educational seminar, an annual event, and attracted more legislators this year because it was timed after the General Assembly had adjourned for the summer.

Legislators say taxpayers should challenge House and Senate leaders at the ballot box, not in court.

The suit, if successful, would set a precedent legislators see as dangerous: any taxpayer could challenge any government official's expenses.

U. S. District Court

Illinois interstate airline laws unconstitutional
U.S. District Judge J. Waldo Ackerman ruled August 16 that Illinois laws regulating rates, routes and services of interstate airlines are unconstitutional. The decision came in the case of Coleman Air Transport Corp. v. the Illinois Aeronautics Board, in which the IAB was challenged for its efforts to prevent Coleman from launching a run from Rockford to Peoria. The U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board intervened on Coleman's behalf.

Judge Ackerman ruled that the federal Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 preempts Illinois laws which regulate rates, routes and service of interstate airlines subject to the 1958 federal Aviation Act.

October 1979/ Illinois Issues/ 29