No. 39797








         This report is submitted by the Special Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois appointed under and pursuant to the Order entered by this Court on June 17, 1969.


Appointment and Organization of Special Commission

         1. The Supreme Court of Illinois on June 17, 1969 entered an order under the caption of "People v. Isaacs, No. 39797" (herein called the "Order") referring to a motion (herein called the "Motion") filed with the Clerk of the Court on June 11, 1969 by one Sherman H. Skolnick and one Harriet Sherman requesting that the Court investigate its decision in People v. Isaacs, No. 39797 (37 Ill. 2d 205).

         2. In its Order, the Court, on its own motion, appointed a Special Commission (herein called the "Commission") to investigate the charges contained in the Motion insofar as they relate to the integrity of the judgment entered by the Court in People v Isaacs, No. 39797; and in said Order the Court provided for the method of selection of the Commission and for completion of the work of the Commission on or before August 1, 1969.

         3. On June 18, 1969, the day following the entry of the Order, the Court issued a statement in explanation of "the reasons why the Supreme Court did not convene the Illinois Courts Commission with respect to the charges attacking the integrity of the judgment entered in the case of People v. Isaacs." The Court in this statement, which was furnished to the members of the Commission and to the press and news media, said, among other things, that the Court regarded of paramount importance the fact that the confidence of the Bar and the public in the integrity of this Court not be further impaired.

         4. Under the authority contained in the Order, Henry L. Pitts selected Mason Bull of Morrison, Illinois to be a member of the Commission; Frank Greenberg selected Edwing C. Austin of Chicago, Illinois to be a member of the Commission; and Henry L. Pitts and Frank Greenberg, acting jointly, selected Daniel M. Schuyler, Sr. of Chicago, Illinois to be a member of the Commission.

         5. As evidenced by the Report on the Organization of the special Commission heretofore filed with the Clerk of the Court, all five commissioners so designated accepted appointment to serve as Commissioners under the authority contained in the Order and within the limitations therein set forth.

         6. The organization of the commission was completed and it held its first formal meeting, on Saturday, June 21, 1969.

         7. The Commission selected Frank Greenberg to serve as its Chairman and Henry L. Pitts to serve as its Vice Chairman.

         8. Promptly upon its organization, the Commission selected John Paul Stevens of Chicago, Illinois to serve as its counsel. With the consent and approval of the Commission, Mr. Stevens called to his assistance, to serve as assistant counsel, Jerome H. Torshen of Chicago, Illinois, and to serve as associate counsel Kenneth Manaster, William J. McNally, Nathaniel Sack and Joseph E. Coughlin.

         The Commission appointed James G. Nussbaum of Price Waterhouse & Co. as its accounting consultant.

         The Commission also engaged the services of such investigators and other staff as it deemed requisite for the carrying out of its investigation.

         9. All of the Commissioners, counsel to the Commission, and all of the members of the legal staff of the Commission serve without compensation. Mr. Nussbaum, as accounting consultant, serves without compensation.

         The members of the Commission and counsel have advanced from their own funds, subject to reimbursement by the Court in due course, expenses of the investigation.

         10. Through the courteous cooperation of Chief Judge John S. Boyle of the Circuit court of Cook County, Roy O. Gulley, Director of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, and Sheriff Joseph I. Woods of Cook County, the Commission was enabled to borrow a courtroom in the Civic Center Building in which to conduct its public hearings. The Chicago Bar Association and the Illinois State Bar Association have also furnished services and facilities to the work of the Commission.


Conduct of the Investigation

         11. The commission adopted Rules of Procedure, a copy of which is included in the record of the investigation. The rules provided, inter alia, for the designation of certain persons as "interested parties" in the investigation.

         12. Paragraph IV of the Commission's rules sate as follows:


        "(1) At any state of the proceedings of the Commission, any person who believes that he may be materially affected may apply to the Commission for leave to be designated an 'interested party.' The Commission, after due consideration and in its discretion, may grant or deny such application.

        "(2) An 'interested party' (so designated by the Commission) shall be entitled to be represented by counsel, to attend all en banc hearings of the Commission, to cross-examine witnesses and to adduce evidence on his behalf."

         13. Sherman H. Skolnick applied to the Commission for leave to be designated an "interested party." A copy of his application is part of the record of the investigation. His application was denied by the Commission.

         14. The Commission invited Justice Roy J. Solfisburg, Jr., Justice Ray I. Klingbiel, Theodore J. Isaacs and Robert M. Perbohner to apply for leave to be designated an "interested parties." Such applications were made orally on July 14, 1969 by Justice Solfisburg, Justice Klingbiel and Theodore J. Isaacs and their applications were granted by the Commission.

         15. Justice Solfisburg and Justice Klingbiel were represented in the public hearings held by the Commission by Mr. Lambert M. Ochsenschlager and Mr. William C. Murphy of Aurora.

         Mr. Albert E. Jenner, Jr. and Mr. Robert F. Hanley of Chicago, Illinois appeared for Theodore J. Isaacs. An earlier appearance by Mr. Harry J. Busch of Chicago, Illinois for Theodore J. Isaacs was withdrawn with the consent of the Commission.

         16. The Commission held public hearings for the taking of testimony and other evidence in Courtroom 1501 of the Civic Center Building on July 14, 15, 16, 1969 and on July 21, 22 and 23, 1969. Oral summations were presented by Mr. Stevens, as counsel to the Commission, and by Mr. Ochsenschlager and Mr. Murphy, on behalf of Justices Solfisburg and Klingbiel, on July 24, 1969 in open hearing. Leave was granted to counsel for Isaacs to submit a written summation and a copy of the statement presented by his counsel at 5:27 p.m. on July 29, 1969, together with a copy of a "Corrected and Amended" statement submitted as a substitute therefor at 4:00 p.m. on July 30, 1969, is being filed with the exhibits received by the Commission.

         17. In preparation for the public hearings, counsel to the Commission and the staff took the depositions of 26 prospective witnesses, and interviewed a large number of additional witnesses, or potential witnesses, and examined books, documents and records at the Civic Center Bank and elsewhere.

         18. In the course of the public hearings the Commission examined 21 witnesses and received over 100 exhibits. A list of the witnesses examined by the Commission is open hearing and a list of the exhibits received by the Commission appear in Appendix A and Appendix B to this Report.


The Record of the Investigation

         19. The record of the investigation consists of:

         (a) The documents and papers which are already on file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Illinois, in relation to the Commission, in the case captioned No. 39797.

         (b) The stenographic report (transcript) of the proceedings of the Commission at its public hearings, consisting of 1,778 pages. A copy of the stenographic report of proceedings has been filed with the Clerk of the Court concurrently with the filing of this Report.

         (c) The exhibits received in evidence by the Commission in the course of the public hearings. The exhibits as received have been filed with the Clerk of the Court concurrently with the filing of this Report.

         (d) The Rules of Procedure adopted by the Commission (Appendix D to this Report).

         (e) The application of Sherman H. Skolnick for leave to be designated as an "interested party" (Appendix D to this Report).

         (f) Copies of the Statements of Economic Interests filed by each of the present Justices of the Court with the Director of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts under the Governmental Ethics Act of 1967, for the years 1968 and 1969.

         (g) Copies of retained income tax returns of Justice Solfisburg and Justice Klingbiel voluntarily supplied by them at the request of the Commission.

         20. In accordance with the Order, the copies of the Statements of Economic Interests and the copies of retained income tax returns of Justice Solfisburg and Justice Klingbiel have not been made a part of the public record of the investigation but have been considered and examined by the Commission. In accordance with the Commission's interpretation of the Order, copies of these documents are not filed with this Report but will be made available by the Commission to the Court upon its request.


The Mandate of the Commission

         21. The Order appointing the Commission made reference to the Motion filed by Sherman H. Skolnick and Harriet Sherman on June 11, 1969 and the amendment filed on June 19, 1969.

         22. The Order appointing this Commission directed it "to investigate the charges contained in the [Motion] insofar as they relate to the integrity of the judgment" entered by the Court in the case of People v. Issacs.

         23. We have referred at paragraph 3 above to the statement issued by the Court on June 18, 1969. The Commission has regarded the statement as an explanation of the action taken by the Court in appointing the Special Commission under the Order of June 17, 1969. A copy of the statement appears as Appendix E to this Report.

         24. In accordance with our understanding of the mandate given to us by the Court, we have focused our investigation on those charges made in the Motion that can fairly be said to relate to the integrity of the judgment in the Isaacs case. We have construed the reference to the "integrity of the judgment in People v. Isaacs," as a method of differentiating those charges in the Motion that are germane to our investigation from other charges and allegations---largely of a "shotgun" variety---made by Mr. Skolnick and Mrs. Sherman.

         In the course of investigating the pertinent charges, other information came to our attention which we deemed to be equally relevant to the integrity of the judgment in People v. Isaacs and we have not hesitated to include such information in the Commission's investigation.

         25. We deem the Commission's function to be investigatory and not adjudicatory. Therefore we do not intend that this Report be interpreted as a determination of the rights or liabilities of any person. However, we consider that the thrust of the charges we have been called upon to investigate is that Justice Solfisburg and/or Justice Klingbiel were guilty of such acts of impropriety, or gave such an appearance of impropriety, as to create a substantial doubt of their impartiality, fairness and integrity in the decision in the Isaacs case; and that their conduct was such as to seriously compromise the confidence of the public in the integrity of the decision. In that sense, the integrity of the judgment in the Isaacs case is inseparable from the question of whether Justice Solfisburg and/or Justice Klingbiel have so conducted themselves as to raise substantial doubt of their own impartiality, fairness and integrity in participating in the decision.


The Determination to Hold Public Hearings

         26. The Commission, understanding the importance of the fact that the confidence of the Bar and the public in the integrity of the Court should "not be further impaired," determined that its function could properly be discharged only by the taking of testimony and evidence in the public hearings, and it made this determination in accordance with the discretion given to it in this Court's Order of June 17, 1969.

         27. Several days prior to the date (July 14, 1969) scheduled for the opening of the public hearings, Theodore J. Isaacs filed a motion with the Court stating, in essence, that the Commission had no right to hold public hearings and asking that the Court direct the Commission to maintain its investigation as confidential. The Commission responded to Isaacs' motion and respectfully asked that its discretion in the matter of holding public hearings should not be interfered with by the Court. The Court entered an order dismissing the motion of Theodore J. Isaacs.

         27-A. On July 28, 1969, counsel for Justices Solfisburg and Klingbiel filed with the Court a "Motion for clarification of prior court order and for instructions to Special Commission," asking that the Court inform the Special Commission "to avoid conclusions and the recommendation of sanctions;" and that the Court order the Commission "to keep its findings confidential until a complaint, if any, is filed in this cause." The Commission responded with a brief answer. On July 29, 1969, the Court denied the motion in a minute order. The Commission has informed the Court that it never has had any intention of releasing its report to anyone except by filing it as directed in the Order of June 17, 1969.


Findings of Fact

         28. Except as the Commission has examined and considered the Statements of Economic Interests filed by the Justices of the Supreme Court and the copies of retained income tax returns of Justice Solfisburg and Justice Klingbiel (and except for certain biographical data contained in Section A), this Report is based entirely upon the testimony and evidence, oral and written,taken and received in the course of its public hearings.

         The Commission makes the following findings of fact:

Section A. The Principals in the Investigation

         (1) Theodore J. Isaacs of Chicago, Illinois is an attorney at law and a member of the firm of Burton, Isaacs, Bockelman & Miller, with offices at 111 West Washington Street, Chicago, Illinois. He is 57 years of age. He was admitted to the Bar in Illinois in 1934. Mr. Isaacs served as campaign manager in the successful campaign of Otto Kerner for the office of Governor of Illinois in 1960. Mr. Isaacs served as Director of Revenue of Illinois from January or February of 1961 until September 1963.

         (2) Robert M. Perbohner, a former resident of Chicago, who has maintained his residence at the Faust Hotel in Rockford, Illinois in recent years, is 69 years of age. He has participated in political activities since the 1920's when he was associated with William Hale Thompson, a Republican, and is presently serving as a member of the Illinois Commerce Commission pursuant to appointment by Governor Otto Kerner. He is not a lawyer. He is presently convalescing from a hip operation performed in early June, 1969, in Woodruff, Wisconsin.

         (3) Robert E. Dolph was a member of the Illinois Commerce Commission at the time of his death in June 1968, at the age of 51. He was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1940 and served as campaign manager for Justice Solfisburg in 1960. He was a resident of Aurora, Illinois. He was appointed to the Illinois Commerce Commission in August, 1963 by Governor Otto Kerner and reappointed for a five-year term in 1968.

         (4) Roy J. Solfisburg, Jr. of Aurora, Illinois is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Illinois. He is 53 years of age and was admitted to the Bar in Illinois in 1940. He was elected to the Supreme Court from the Sixth District (an area now included in the Second District) in June, 1960.

         (5) Ray I. Klingbiel of Moline, Illinois has served as a Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court since July 24, 1953. He previously served as city attorney of Moline for 12 years and as Mayor of East Moline for 6 years. He was most recently elected to the Court on November 5, 1966. He is 68 years of age.

Section B. The Judgment in People v. Isaacs

         (6) On December 16, 1964, certain indictments were returned by the Sangamon County Grand Jury against Theodore J. Isaacs, et al., in Case No. 3549-64. These indictments were nolle prossed on April 28, 1965 (Tr. 1282).

         (7) On April 29, 1965 certain indictments were returned by the Sangamon County Grand Jury against Theodore J. Isaacs and John J. Lang in Case No. 1249-65 (Tr.1282).

         (8) On November 12, 1965 the Circuit Court of Sangamon County entered an order sustaining motions to dismiss the indictments of both defendants Isaacs and Lang. On December 9, 1965 a Notice of Appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court from the order of the Circuit Court of Sangamon County was filed by the State's Attorney of the County (Ex.1).

         (9) On February 7, 1966 the appeal was docketed in the Illinois Supreme Court as Case No. 39797 (People v. Isaacs, et al.) (Ex. 4).

         (10) On September 15, 1966 oral argument was heard by the Supreme Court in the Isaacs case (Ex. 4).

         (11) On September 15, 1966, following the oral argument, an impression vote was taken by the members of the Court. The results, according to the agenda book of Justice House, were as follows (Tr.31,134):

Underwood   -   "?"
Solfisburg   -   "Affirm" (the action taken by the lower court)
House   -   "Affirm"
Klingbiel   -   "Affirm"
Schaefer   -   "Reverse?" (the action taken by the lower court)

         (12) Justice Hershey was present at the oral argument but did not vote. The impression vote is intended only as a preliminary indication of the views of the members of the Court following the oral argument (and in most cases before any real study is given to the briefs or record in the case) and is not meant to be binding upon any of the Justices. The writing of the opinion in the Isaacs case was assigned to Justice Underwood pursuant to the normal rotation which is used by the Court in the assignment of the writing of opinions (Tr. 40, 138).

         (13) Justice Underwood's opinion was not prepared in time for it to be discussed at the November, 1966 term (Tr. 40, 138).

         (14) Justice Underwood's opinion was discussed at the January, 1967 term (which began on January 9, 1967) and was rejected by a 4 to 2 vote (Tr. 48, 139, 831). The Underwood opinion would have required both defendants Isaacs and Lang to stand trial as to Counts V, XI, XXVI-XXIX and XXXI-XXXIV of the indictment (Ex.12).

         Justices Ward and Kluczynski originally joined the Court at the January, 1967 term. The briefs and abstracts, and a recording of the oral argument, in the Isaacs case were made available to them. Justice Ward disqualified himself from the Isaacs case since he had been the State's Attorney for Cook County and had done work in that capacity relating to the Isaacs case.

         Justice Kluczynski passed when the first vote was taken on the Underwood opinion. When that vote turned out to be 3 against adoption of the Underwood opinion and 2 in favor of adoption of the Underwood opinion, Justice Kluczynski voted against the adoption of the Underwood opinion, making the vote 4 to 2 and thus rejecting the opinion (Tr. 831).

         The vote was as follows (Tr. 48, 831):

Ward   -   Not participating
Kluczynski   -   Against (adoption of Underwood opinion)
Underwood   -   For (adoption of Underwood opinion)
Solfisburg   -   Against
House   -   Against
Klingbiel   -   Against
Schaefer   -   For

         (15) Under the normal rotation system the drafting of a new opinion in the Isaacs case would have fallen to Justice House. The drafting of the new opnion was, however, assigned to Justice Klingbiel, who was next after Justice House in the rotation (Tr. 57, 147). While no satisfactory explanation appears as to why the opinion was assigned to Justice Klingbiel out of the normal order of rotation, we do not attribute any particular significance to this circumstance.

         (16) Justice Klingbiel's opinion was adopted by a 4 to 2 vote at the March, 1967 term (which began on March 13, 1967) (Ex. 2). The vote was as follows:

Ward   -   Not participating
Kluczynski   -   For (adoption of Klingbiel opinion)
Underwood   -   Against (adoption of Klingbiel opinion)
Solfisburg   -   For
House   -   For
Klingbiel   -   For
Schaefer   -   Against

         The Klingbiel opinion required defendant Lang to stand trial as to Counts XXVI-XXIX and XXXI-XXXIV and affirmed in all other respects the quashing by the Sangamon County Circuit Court of the other Counts of the indictment (Ex. 2).

         (17) On April 12, 1967 the State's Attorney for Sangamon County filed a petition for rehearing with respect to Count X of the indictment (Ex. 10). The Underwood and Klingbiel opinions did not differ as to the disposition of Count X (Ex. 12. 2). The petition for rehearing was denied on May 16, 1967, and the mandate issue on May 27, 1967 (Ex. 3, Ex.5). The Justices voted on the petition for rehearing as follows:

Ward   -   Not participating
Kluczynski   -   Against rehearing
Underwood   -   For rehearing
Solfisburg   -   Against rehearing
House   -   Against rehearing
Klingbiel   -   Against rehearing
Schaefer   -   For rehearing

         (18) Justice Schaefer prepared a dissenting opinion (at least in part) to the majority opinion in People v. Isaacs (Tr. 186; Ex.16). The dissent concludes that Counts VI and VII (denominated by the parties as "the detailed Section 75 Counts") should not have been quashed. This dissenting opinion was never completed or filed (Tr.187). Neither Justice Underwood nor Justice Schaefer indicated their dissent when the opinion was published (Tr. 187).

         (19) It is not uncommon for Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court to fail to note their dissent to opinions against which they voted. The impression is thus given to the Bar and the public that an opinion was unanimous when in fact it may have been adopted by a divided court (Tr. 189).

Section C. The Civic Center Bank and Trust Company

         (20) In 1964 a group of persons conceived the idea of organizing a bank in the Old Town area of Chicago. This group consisted principally of David X. Meyers, Edward P. Meyers, Ronald Landsman and Martin Gordon. Some time in the latter part of 1964 or the early part of 1965, this group (which has sometimes been called in the testimony the antecedent group ) decided that the proposed bank should have its banking quarters in a building at the northeast corner of LaSalle and Randolph Streets in Chicago, Illinois, adjacent to the Sherman Hotel and immediately across the street from the Civic Center Building (Tr. 1387, 1390).

         (21) In March or April of 1965 this antecedent group came to Theodore J. Isaacs for help in organizing the proposed bank and obtaining a charter from the Department of Financial Institutions of the State of Illinois under the Illinois Banking Act. Isaacs had never had any experience in organizing a bank or in the field of banking law, and he disclosed this fact to the members of the antecedent group who called upon him. Isaacs was nonetheless engaged to act as counsel for the group in the proceedings which would be necessary for the organization of the bank, the obtaining of a state charter, and obtaining the necessary approval by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Tr. 1389, 1390-91).

         (22) Isaacs consulted with a number of persons, including officers of The First National Bank of Chicago and an attorney or attorneys experienced in the banking field. He then went to the Department of Financial Institutions of the State of Illinois, headed by Joseph E. Knight (who had served with Isaacs in the cabinet of Governor Otto Kerner), in an effort---which proved successful---to obtain a charter for the bank. The charter was issued to a group of persons who had been formed by the "antecedent group" to act as the "organizing group" for the bank. The antecedent group, the organizing group, and Isaacs continued to have repeated contacts in the necessary work of organizing the bank and obtaining a state charter and the approval of the FDIC (Tr. 1391, 1402).

         The bank which was thus organized and chartered is the Civic Center Bank and Trust Company in Chicago, Illinois and is hereinafter, for convenience, sometimes referred to by the symbol "CCB".

         (23) Although Isaacs has never been a director of CCB, he was unquestionably an influential and important person in the organization of the bank and has continued to be so. He did not limit his activity in the management of the bank to purely legal services (Tr. 481, 503-04, 532, 1099, 1104, 1301-08, 1339-40, 1391-1402, 1405-06, 1461; Ex. 26-A - 16-I, 33-B, 33-D, 78, 81, 114,116-119).

         (24) In July of 1965 an application to organize the Civic Center Bank and Trust Company was filed with the Office of the Department of Financial Institutions of the State of Illinois (Tr. 1389).

         (25) On December 16, 1965 a meeting of subscribers to CCB stock was held, at which a proposed Board of Directors was selected. Following the meeting of subscribers, a meeting of the members of the prospective board of Directors took place. Theodore J. Isaacs was appointed "for an indefinite period" as general counsel for the bank. He acted as Secretary of the Board and sat with the Board at a number of its meetings (Tr. 1103-04, 1107, 1178; Ex. 115).

         (26) Isaacs has acted as de facto "Secretary" of CCB since its inception, although there is no indication in the bank records of his appointment or election to this position (Tr.1179-80,1339-40, 1461).

         (27) On January 21, 1966, Joseph E. Knight, the Director of Financial Institutions, issued a charter to CCB authorizing its operation on the basis of the issuance of $1,000,000 of capital stock, consisting of 100,000 shares at a par value of $10 per share, with a $500,000 surplus and a $500,000 reserve account (Tr. 2713; Ex. 26-A-26-I).

         (28) On January 21, 1966 a meeting of the Board of Directors of CCB was held in the Directors' Room of The First National Bank of Chicago. Isaacs was present at and acted as Secretary of the meeting (Tr. 1082; Ex. 26-A-26-I).

         (29) The eight page of the minutes of the January 21 meeting is missing from the bank's copy of the minute books (Tr. 227-29, 1011; E. 26-G - 26-H). The bank was unable to supply any information as to the contents of the missing page and none of the witnesses connected with the bank gave a satisfactory explanation of why the page was missing.

         (30) On the ninth and tenth pages of the January 21 minutes the following reports by Isaacs as "Acting Cashier" appear:

         "The Acting Cashier then reported that he had concluded a clearance loan with The First National Bank of Chicago in the amount of approximately $300,000.00, which loan represented outstanding shares that had not yet been issued to the public. These shares are to be held in reserve to foster new accounts and will be dispensed to new business accounts from time to time until such time as they are sold. As these shares are picked up from this date henceforth, there will be interest charges to be added to the $20.00 per share cost.

         "The Acting Cashier also indicated that as a result of careful handling and avoiding the even remote possibility of having the ownership of this bank fall into the hands of one or two individuals, the bank is now owned by approximately 500 stockholders, all of whom should be of great assistance to the bank's Directors and Officers in establishing an excellent beginning." (Ex. 26-H - 26-I)

         (31) The term "clearance loan" used in the minutes of January 21, 1966 is not a term of art in the banking business (Tr. 998-991). The nature of the loan made to Isaacs by The First National Bank of Chicago was in reality this:

         (a) Isaacs undertook to borrow, upon his own credit and the collateral represented by share of CCB stock issued to him (at the rate of one share of stock, as collateral, for each $20 of the loan), a sum of $304,500. That was the initial amount of the loan and it was to be collateralized by 15,225 shares of the stock of CCB (Tr. 247,280-81).

         (b) the proceeds of the $304,500 loan to Isaacs was to be paid into the account maintained by CCB with The First National Bank of Chicago as payment (at the rate of $20 per share) for 15,225 shares of CCB stock to be issued to Isaacs (Tr.1121).

         (c) In order to qualify for its charter, CCB and Isaacs were both required, in law, to regard (i) the issuance of the 15,225 shares to Isaacs as an outfight sale of the shares to Isaacs, and (ii) the proceeds of the loan, when deposited to the credit of CCB, as an unconditional and absolute payment of the purchase price of the shares sold to Isaacs (Tr. 356-57, 1003; Ill. Re . Stat., Ch. 16-1/2, §113).

         (d) Upon receipt of a credit equivalent to the proceeds of the loan made to Isaacs by The First National Bank of Chicago, CCB would then have on deposit the full 2 million dollars required as a condition to the granting of its charter and would show as issued and outstanding the full 100,000 shares of stock sold by it.

         (e) CCB was not obligated to repay the loan made to Isaacs and there is no documentary evidence that there were any other guarantors or indemnitor in respect of the indebtedness of Isaacs to The First National Bank of Chicago. The only reference in the bank's minute books to the loan from The First National Bank of Chicago to Isaacs is the report made by Isaacs as "Acting Cashier" at the January 21, 1966 meeting of the Board of Directors of CCB (Tr. 233-34,275-76, 1039, 1421).

         (32) Almost immediately after the loan of $304,500 to Isaacs by The First National Bank of Chicago was arranged, the amount of the loan was reduced to $257,000 by a remittance to The First National Bank of Chicago, by CCB for the account of Isaacs, of $47,500. This $47,500 represented payments received by CCB on previously outstanding subscriptions to its stock (Tr. 279-80; Ex. 32, 33-C).

         (33) The reduction in the amount of the Isaacs loan served also to reduce the amount of collateral pledged for the repayment of the loan. Following the reduction of the loan on January 26, 1966, 12,850 shares were issued in the name of Isaacs by the Civic Center Bank in the form of two stock certificates. One stock certificate, No. 249, was for 9,999 shares; the second stock certificate, No. 250, was for 2,851 shares. Both certificates were pledged to The First National Bank of Chicago by Isaacs (Tr. 280, 1123-24).

         (34) While in legal effect and to all outward appearances Isaacs became the owner of the 12,850 shares and became the sole obligor on the loan made to him by The First National Bank, Isaacs testified that he: (a) regarded himself as having undertaken the borrowing from The First national Bank of Chicago as an accommodation to the organizing group of CCB; (b) considered it his moral obligation to consult with CCB or the organizing group in effecting a disposition of shares of stock out of the 12,850 share block which had been issued in his name; (c) believe that if he got in trouble with the loan he would be bailed out by one or more of the members of the organizing group. There are, however, no papers, documents or other records to indicate the basis for this state of mind (Tr. 375-76, 471-76, 497, 532-33, 1039, 1301-08, 1417-23, 1427-29, 1435-37).

         (35) The modus operandi in disposing of the 12,850 shares of stock issued to Isaacs (in legal effect, the "resale" of the shares by Isaacs) is not spelled out in any of the records maintained by the bank or by Isaacs. It is, however, abundantly clear that Isaacs and a number of other persons who were members of the organizing group or importantly associated with the bank did, in practice, have a right to make a disposition of shares held by Isaacs, and that it was the general intention of the bank and the members of the organizing group, as well as of Isaacs, that the 12,850 shares would be resold to persons who would be in a position to help the bank or who, for other reasons, might be favored by Isaacs and the other persons who, de facto, controlled the disposition of this block of 12,850 shares (Tr. 219-20, 224-25, 277, 291-92, 467, 509, 533, 1016, 1153-55, 1165,1437-38,1467).

         (36) The 12,850 shares held as collateral by The First National Bank were the shares referred to in Isaacs' January 21 report to the Board of Directors as shares to be held "in reserve to foster new accounts" and to be sold at $20 per share plus interest from January 21. These 12,850 shares were all that remained of the 100,000 share original issue (Tr. 280-81; Ex.32).

         (37) The original issue of stock of the bank was heavily oversubscribed (Tr. 549, 557-59, 1521).

         (38) As shares from the 12,850 share block held by Isaacs were resold to other.persons, the payments for the shares were applied to reduce the balance of The First National Bank loan. The purchasers typically made their payments to CCB and the bank deposited these payments to the credit of its own account with The First National Bank of Chicago (Tr. 373, 382, 399-400, 1128-29; Ex. 35).

         (39) By July 20, 1966 the unpaid balance of The First National Bank loan had been reduced to approximately $19,000. On July 20, 1966 Isaacs borrowed $19,309.13 from CCB and this amount was applied on the same day to the repayment of the remaining balance of The First National Bank loan. After July 20, 1966 the proceeds from the resale of the remaining shares in the 12,850 share block were applied in payment of the loan made to Isaacs by CCB (Tr. 374; Ex.36).

         (a) On six different occasions from March to October, 1966, certificates were issued by CCB to purchasers out of the 12,850 share block (Tr.550).

         (b) Certificates 249 and 250 held at The First National were replaced by other certificates for smaller quantities of shares as sales of shares occurred (Tr. 379-80, 543-44, 551-52; Ex. 34).

         (40) As the 12,850 shares were sold, a handwritten list was maintained by Mrs. Jane M. Kegley, "Pro-Cashier" of CCB during almost all of 1966. This list showed the name and address of the shareholder, the number of shares issued to that person, and the amount paid for the shares and for interest, and the remaining unsold balance of the 12,850 shares (Tr. 292-97, 465-69; Ex. 25-A-25-D).

         (a) The list also indicated whether the payment was by cash or check, and if by check, the date of the check (Tr. 305).

         (b) Mrs. Kegley drew up the actual certificates issued to these purchasers, and Harry Mertz, Cashier at that time, and Harold H. Stout, President, signed them (Tr. 380-81).

         (41) It was an established policy of the "organizing group" of CCB that no director of the bank should be permitted to acquire, directly or indirectly, more than 1,500 shares of the stock and that no other person should be permitted to acquire, directly or indirectly, more than 1,000 shares of the stock. These limitations applied to both the original subscribers and the persons who purchased out of the 12,850 share block held by Isaacs (Tr. 508-09, 1089, 1411).

         (42) The 12,850 shares were not sold or issued on the basis of any subscribers list or other formal procedure by which shares had been reserved (Tr. 219-20, 224-25, 277, 291-92, 467, 1016, 1165, 1437-38, 1467).

         (a) A number of organizers and officers of the bank undertook to make contacts with persons who might become customers of the bank with the added incentive of being allowed to buy stock (Tr. 509, 533, 1016, 1153-55).

         (b) With minor exceptions, all of the sales out of the 12,850 shares can be traced to the solicitation efforts of one of the following individuals:

        (i) Theodore J. Isaacs
        (ii) David X. Meyers
        (iii) Leo A. Distenfield
        (iv) Bailey K. Howard
        (v) Hugh M. Driscoll
        (vi) Harold H. Stout     (Tr. 497, 532-35)

         (c) These shares were to be sold to persons who it was hoped would become customers of the bank or would otherwise be able to assist it (Tr. 1006, 1042, 1134-35).

         (d) Isaacs had an apparent legal right to direct the issuance of shares to selected purchasers without the approval of consent of any other official or organizer of the bank. No other person had any authority evidenced by written documents with respect to the disposition of these shares (Tr. 1018, 1422-33)

         (e) Isaacs directed the issuance of shares out of the 12,850 to certain purchasers without the approval or consent of any other official or organizer of the bank (Tr. 471-76, 497, 532-33, 1301-08, 1435-37, 1422-23, 1427-29).

         (f) Isaacs' signature was necessary for any transfer of shares (Tr. 1017, 1057, 1068, 1426, 1502).

         (g) There is no evidence that the persons who bought out of the 12,850 shares had in any way previously committed themselves to do so (Tr. 467).

         (43) Approximately 100 persons acquired shares out of the block of 12,850 shares. Eighty-four of these persons purchased 100 shares or less. Only the following five people purchased more than 500 shares: Harold Stout (1,400); Edward Meyers (1,500); Bernard Ernstein (1,000); Justice Solfisburg (700); and Howard Hansen (600). Stout was the President of the bank, Meyers was an organizer of the bank, and Ernstein was an associate of Meyers. Both Hansen and Justice Solfisburg received his shares in the name of a revocable trust set up by him for this purpose, and Hansen was a nominee for either Joseph E. Knight or Knight's mother (ex. 25-A-25-D; Tr. 482,492-494, 502-504,506).

         (44) During 1966 an active market in CCB stock raised its price as high as $27 per share (Tr. 521-23, 554-55, 1012).

         (a) On April 21, 1966 the Board of Directors was advised that Langill & Co. quoted the stock at $27 as of March 31, 1966 (Tr. 459; Ex. 78).

         (b) Numerous individuals who purchased the stock on the original subscription or from the 12,850 shares were not allowed to purchase as much as they originally requested (Tr. 549, 557-59, 1161).

         (c) Some individuals and brokers were informed as early as February, 1966 that no more stock was available for sale (Tr. 548, 1003, 1042).

         (45) CCB opened for business on June 28, 1966 (Tr. 511, 522).

         (46) The shares of CCB stock which were acquired by Justice Solfisburg and Justice Klingbiel came from the 12,850 share block held by Isaacs for resale to selected purchasers (Ex. 25).

Section D. Acquisition and Sales of 700 Shares of CCB Stock
by Justice Solfisburg

         (47) On June 16, 1966, 700 shares of the stock of CCB were issued, and subsequently delivered, to the Old Second National Bank of Aurora as Trustee under its Trust No. 931. The 700 shares were represented by seven certificates each for 100 shares, numbered 696 to 702 inclusive. These shares were purchased, and were beneficially owned, by Justice Solfisburg, who was the settlor of Trust 931 (Tr. 300-10, 610; Ex. 20-A-20-GG, 25-C).

         (48) Justice Solfisburg paid $14,000 for the 700 shares of stock thus acquired by him, at the rate of $20 per share, and in addition thereto made a payment of $350 to CCB as "interest" on the $14,000 for the period from January 21, 1966 to the date of payment (Ex. 25-C, 39-A-39-AA, 40-A-40-AA).

         (49) The payment of the purchase price for the 700 shares by Justice Solfisburg was made in the form of a check for $14,000 drawn by him on May 27, 1966 on his account at the St. Charles National Bank and made payable to the order of CCB. Payment of the $350 "interest" was made by Justice Solfisburg by a check for $350 drawn by him on May 27, 1966 on his account at the Old Second National Bank of Aurora and made payable to CCB. The two checks were delivered to CCB some time after May 27, 1966 but were not deposited by CCB to the credit of its account with The First National Bank of Chicago until June 13, 1966 (Ex. 25-C, 39-A-39-AA, 40-A-40-AA).

         (50) Justice Solfisburg, in his testimony before the Commission, described the circumstances of his purchase of the 700 shares of CCB stock substantially as follows:

         (a) Some time in the September term or the November term of the Supreme Court in 1965 Justice Solfisburg had a conversation with Perbohner and Dolph in Dolph's apartment in Springfield, Illinois. On that occasion Perbohner and Dolph informed Justice Solfisburg that they could afford him an opportunity to purchase shares of stock of a new bank which was being organized (the Civic Center Bank and Trust Co.) at the subscription price of $20 per share. Justice Sofisburg told Perbohner/Dolph that he desired to acquire 700 shares of the stock. Perbohner/Dolph then told Justice Solfisburg that they would "protect" him on the purchase of the shares -- that in other words he, Justice Solfisburg, would be "counted in" (Tr. 610-612, 625, 708-10, 712).

         (b) Justice Solfisburg did not at any time sign or send to the Bank a subscription agreement for the 700 shares (Tr. 612).

         (c) At the time of the conversation with Perbohner/Dolph in which Justice Solfisburg said that he desired to purchase the 700 shares, he knew that he would have to borrow the purchase price but his state of mind was that when he was called on for the money, he would then "figure out where [he] was going to borrow it." (Tr. 612-13).

         (d) Justice Solfisburg on the occasion of that conversation with Perbohner/Dolph made no inquiry as to who was associated with the bank or who it was that Perbohner/Dolph would rely upon in "protecting" Justice Solfisburg on his acquisition of the shares. He never thereafter, at least until subsequent to his actual acquisition of the shares, made any inquiry as to the location of the bank in Chicago, the prospects of the bank, the persons who were the organizers of the bank, the persons who would be the directors or other shareholders of the bank. His testimony is that he made no inquiry of any kind to ascertain whether the investment of $14,000 in the stock of CCB was a good one. His explanation of this lack of inquiry was that he had a conviction that the original issue of a bank stock never goes down; that he has "only seen them go up" (in value) (Tr. 612, 614-17, 699-700).

         (e) Specifically, Justice Solfisburg said that he had no knowledge of any kind that Theodore J. Isaacs had any connection with CCB, and having made no inquiry about the bank, the association of Isaacs did not come to his attention (Tr.616-17,700).

         (f) Some time in May of 1966, shortly before May 27, 1966, Justice Solfisburg was informed by Perbohner/Dolph that he should get his money in for the purchase of the 700 shares of CCB stock. On or about May 27, 1966 Justice Solfisburg went to the St. Charles National Bank and arranged to borrow $14,000. The proceeds of the loan were credited to Justice Solfisburg's account at the St. Charles National Bank and he then wrote his check to the order of CCB (Tr. 614, 617-620).

         (g) Justice Solfisburg testified that the $14,000 check, together with the $350 check, was enclosed with a letter instructing CCB to issue the 700 shares in the form of seven certificates for 100 shares each in the name of Justice Solfisburg, and to deliver the certificates to his home (Tr. 625-26; Ex. 86).

         (h) Some time after May 27, 1966 or the date on which Justice Solfisburg transmitted his payment for the shares to CCB, he changed his mind as to the form in which he desired the stock certificates to be issued. On or about June 15, 1966 Justice Solfisburg, as settlor, created a wholly revocable trust with the Old Second National Bank of Aurora designated as Trust No. 931. The trust, being wholly revocable, had no gift or income tax consequences and it provided that both the principal and income of the trust might be withdrawn at any time by Justice Solfisburg (Tr. 628-30; Ex.94).

         (51) Justice Solfisburg was unable to supply any evidence as to how the information that the 700 shares of stock should be issued in the name of Trust No. 931 instead of his own name was communicated to CCB. Mrs. Kegley, however, received her instructions to issue the 700 shares to Trust 931 from Isaacs or Isaacs office. On June 16, 1966, CCB issued the 700 shares in the name of Trust No. 931. with no indication on the stock certificate as to the person who was the beneficial owner or the person who was the settlor under the Trust (Tr. 481-82, 492-96, 502-04).

         (52) Trust No. 931 was the only revocable trust ever created by Justice Solfisburg as settlor. No assets other than the 700 shares of CCB stock (or the proceeds of the sale of such shares) were ever conveyed or transferred to the Trust. As the 700 shares of stock were sold by Justice Solfisburg in the name of the Trust, the proceeds of each sale were withdrawn from the Trust by Justice Solfisburg promptly after each sale was completed, except as to a balance of $100 which he permitted to remain in the Trust (Tr. 629-30, 651, 664-66, 723; Ex. 94, 124).

         (53) When Justice Solfisburg borrowed $14,000 from the St. Charles National Bank for the purpose of making payment of the purchase price of the 700 shares of stock he thereby increased his outstanding loan balance from $11,000 to $25,000. On or about June 4, 1966, Justice Solfisburg applied for the maximum available loans on four life insurance policies with Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company owned by him and the proceeds of these loans were applied by him to reduce his loan balance at the St. Charles National Bank. These loans on Justice Solfisburg's insurance policies were the first loans which he had ever made against the policies. It is Justice Solfisburg's testimony that at the time of making the loans on his insurance policies he had still not made an inquiry or investigation to determine whether the stock of CCB was a desirable investment. (Tr. 620-24, 678, 720, 742-43; Ex. 88-93).

         (54) On the same day that the 700 shares of CCB stock were issued in the name of the Old Second National Bank of Aurora under Trust No. 931, 100 shares of CCB stock, represented by certificate No. 703, were issued to Old Second National Bank of Aurora under its Trust No. 932. These shares had been purchased, and were beneficially owned, by Robert Dolph. Notwithstanding that the certificate for the shares purchased by Dolph was issued in the name of Trust No. 932, no such trust was ever created by Dolph (Ex. 21, 105-A-105-Q)

         (55) On or about the same day that CCB shares were issued to Trust No. 931 and Trust No. 932, certificates for 200 shares were issued to M. R. Davison, the president and a director of the St. Charles National Bank from which Justice Solfisburg had borrowed the $14,000 and of which Justice Solfisburg was also a director (Tr. 594; Ex. 22-A-22-DD).

         (56) The only function served by Trust No. 931 and the issuance of the 700 shares in the name of the Trust was to conceal Justice Solfisburg's acquisition and ownership of said shares.

         (57) The use of purported Trust No. 932 as the registered owner of Dolph's stock served no purpose other than to conceal the ownership of that stock.

         (58) Isaacs is a partner in the law firm of Burton, Isaacs, Bockelman & Miller and was a partner (or associate) of its predecessor firm (or association), Burton, Isaacs, Dixon & Winn (Tr. 840). Said law firm performed legal services for Financial Security Life Insurance Company from early 1963 to the latter part of 1967 (Tr. 840, 1269). Said services included preparation of agreements to enable permits to be procured from the Department of Insurance for the issuance of stock to be issued pursuant to stock option agreements, discussions and negotiations concerning a proposed merger with another insurance company, and research and other work concerning possible qualification of the stock of the company for sale to the public (Tr. 841, 842).

         (59) Justice Solfisburg was one of the incorporators of Financial Security Life Insurance Company, served as Chairman of the Board of Directors prior to 1962, as a Director until 1964, and continued to be a large shareholder of the company until late in 1967 (Tr. 598). In 1965 and 1966 he attended meetings of the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee, and sometimes presided at such meetings. He also participated in management decisions in 1965 and 1966 (Tr. 967-970; Ex.108).

         (60) Justice Solfisburg knew that the Isaacs firm performed legal services for Financial Security Life Insurance Company (Tr. 566, 601-02, 634, 844, 849; Ex.108).

         (61) Justice Solfisburg and Lawrence J. Flynn were close friends, neighbors and business associates. Justice Solfisburg and Flynn frequently discussed investments and participated jointly in investments; including Financial Security Life Insurance Company. Flynn has an office in Aurora in the same building as Justice Solfisburg and an office in Chicago in the same building as Isaacs. Justice Solfisburg offered Flynn a fifty percent participation in Justice Solfisburg's proposed purchase of shares of CCB stock, shortly after Justice Solfisburg's conversation about the stock with Perbohner/Dolph. Flynn declined this offer (Tr. 567-573, 843-846, 849, 1252).

         (62) Flynn knew of Isaacs' association with the bank as it was being formed (Tr. 569-570). In view of the size of Justice Solfisburg's investment in CCB stock, his close relationship with Flynn, his discussion with Flynn of the anticipated purchase of stock, and the fact that Isaacs' association with CCB was known to Flynn, Justice Solfisburg had ample opportunity to learn of Isaacs' association with the bank at the time he acquired the shares (Tr.569-570).

         (63) Justice Solfisburg did not become a customer of the bank or assist it in any way prior to or subsequent to his purchase of stock in June, 1966 (Tr. 656-657, 1016-1016, 1018, 1456). Neither Isaacs, Justice Solfisburg, nor any representative of CCB has offered any satisfactory explanation for the allocation of 700 shares out of the 12,850 reserved shares to Justice Solfisburg or why he should have been accorded this preferential treatment.

         (64) On December 19, 1966 Justice Solfisburg received from the Old Second National Bank as Trustee under Trust 931, a notice of annual meeting of CCB stockholders signed by Theodore J. Isaacs as Secretary. Upon receipt of the notice, Justice Solfisburg authorized the bank to sign a proxy authorizing five persons, including two associates in the Isaacs law firm (whose names were incorporated in the notice), to act as its proxy at the annual stockholders' meeting. One of these associates was Bockelman, who, with Justice Solfisburg's knowledge, had done work for Financial Security Life Insurance Company (Tr. 634-7, 844, 849, 1500; Ex. 95-95-A).

         (65) On May 25, 1967, Justice Solfisburg personally obtained the following documents from the Old Second National Bank of Aurora:

         (a) CCB Certificates 696, 697 and 698, each of which had been endorsed in blank by the Old Second National Bank of Aurora on May 23, 1967 (Ex. 20-A-20-CC; Tr. 639).

         (b) Original of a letter dated May 23, 1967 from Old Second National Bank of Aurora to the Civic Center Bank authorizing the sale of Certificates 696, 697 and 698 at their market value (Ex. 19-H).

         (c) Copies of corporate resolutions of the Old Second National Bank of Aurora of May 23, 1967 (Ex. 19-I).

         (66) On May 25, 1967, in Justice Solfisburg's office in Aurora, Illinois, Justice Solfisburg asked Flynn to deliver an envelope containing the above described documents to Chicago, Illinois (Tr. 578).

         (67) At about 8:45 A.M. on May 26, 1967, Flynn delivered the envelope containing the certificates and other instruments to Isaacs' office at 111 West Washington Street, Chicago, Illinois (Tr. 579-80).

         (68) Between the time when Justice Solfisburg handed him the envelope and the time of its delivery to Isaacs' office, Flynn did not examine the contents of the envelope (Tr. 588-89).

         (69) At the time he delivered the envelope to Isaacs' office Flynn received a receipt signed on behalf of Isaacs by his secretary, Blanche Zenger, which reads as follows:

         "Received of OLD SECOND NATIONAL BANK of Aurora, Illinois, Trustee under Trust #931, three hundred (300) shares of common stock of CIVIC CENTER BANK AND TRUST CO. as described in letter of said Bank dated May 23, 1967, for sale purposes.

By /sgd/ Blanche Zenger"

         (70) That receipt was not prepared in Isaacs' office. It was prepared on a typewriter which was unlike any machine used in Isaacs' office and it was the regular practice of Isaacs' secretary to use his middle initial "J" on all instruments prepared for signature by or on behalf of Isaacs (Tr. 1329-1330).

         (71) Flynn testified that Justice Solfisburg requested him to deliver the envelope to the Civic Center Bank and give it to Mr. Stout, President (Tr. 584). The Commission does not credit this testimony. The following circumstances suggest that Justice Solfisburg requested Flynn to deliver the envelope to Isaacs' office:

         (a) The envelope contained a stock certificates endorsed in blank which had a value of at least $7,200. It is improbable that an attorney who had been asked to deliver an envelope containing such certificates to a specific individual at the Civic Center Bank would, on his own initiative, deliver them elsewhere.

         (b) Justice Solfisburg knew that Isaacs and Flynn had offices in the same building (Tr. 583-585, 677). He also knew that the Civic Center Bank was located approximately two blocks away from Flynn's office (Tr. 627). Flynn was not compensated by Justice Solfisburg for making this delivery. It is more probable that Justice Solfisburg would request a senior practicing attorney to deliver an envelope to another office in his own building than to request him to walk four blocks to make such a delivery.

         (c) The receipt which was signed on behalf of Isaacs at 8:45 A.M., on May 26, 1967, was prepared prior to that time.

         (d) Flynn obtained the signed receipt from Isaacs' office in order to be in a position to answer a possible inquiry by Justice Solfisburg to Flynn which Flynn described in the following words:

         "What if he told me he never got it and he says I never brought it up to Isaacs?" (Tr. 582).

         (e) Flynn testified that he did not advise Justice Solfisburg of the delivery of the certificates to Isaacs' office. His explanation of the reason for not giving such advice to Justice Solfisburg indicates that his original instructions contemplated that his delivery would be to Isaacs' office. Flynn testified:

         "Question: Did you report back to Justice Solfisburg after you had performed this function for him?

         "Answer: He never asked me and I don't think I ever told him. He just took it for granted that if he asked me to do it, and being in the same building, I would do it." (Emphasis supplied.) (Tr. 585)

         (f) The fact that Justice Solfisburg intended the delivery of the certificates for 300 shares of Civic Center Bank stock to be made by way of Isaacs' office provides a reasonable explanation for his use of the services of a personal courier rather than the U.S. mails the day after the mandate issued in the case of People v. Isaacs.

         (g) Justice Solfisburg's demeanor on the witness stand during questioning about his use of a personal courier to effect the delivery of the certificates is consistent with this interpretation of the facts (Tr. 687-94, 698-99).

         (72) The purchasers of the 300 shares were C. E. McKittrick, James J. Pelts and Ronald A. Landsman, each of whom bought 100 shares under certificates 1023, 1024 and 1025, respectively, issued June 7, 1967 (Tr. 331, 340).

         (73) Prior to May 26, 1967 Isaacs had communicated with Pelts and offered the stock at a price of $24 per share. Pelts wrote a letter to Stout on May 26, with a check for $2,400 enclosed for the stock "per my conversation with Ted Isaacs" (Tr. 343, Ex. 23-C).

         (74) McKittrick paid $24 per share for his 100 shares on May 22 and Landsman authorized payment on May 24.

         (a) McKittrick had earlier attended an Executive Committee meeting on May 15 at which Stout announced the availability of 200 shares at $25 per share (Tr. 345-49, 1163-64). No similar announcement appears elsewhere in the corporate minutes.

         (b) Landsman authorized a $2,400 charge on his savings account at the bank to pay for the stock.

         (75) On May 26, 1967 Isaacs drew a personal check for $300 which was used on June 1, 1967 as part of the payment of $7,500 to Justice Solfisburg for 300 shares (Tr. 340-42).

         (76) In early 1968, Justice Solfisburg initiated the first of a series of telephone conversations regarding assistance Isaacs could render Justice Solfisburg's son in his attempt to enter the Illinois National Guard (Tr. 658-61, 673, 1261-66).

         (77) In March 1968, Justice Solfisburg sold an additional 200 shares of Civic Center Bank stock at a price of $27 per share. As in May, 1967, Justice Solfisburg picked up the certificates for these shares from the Old Second National Bank of Aurora, and Flynn delivered them to Isaacs' office (Tr. 674-675; Ex. 125). Justice Solfisburg acknowledged that he may have talked to Isaacs about this sale (Tr. 674-675).

         (77)-A. On November 29, 1968, Justice Solfisburg sold his remaining 200 shares to Harry Black, a Vice President of CCB, for $27 per share. These certificates were delivered to the bank by registered mail (Ex. 126).

Section E. The Acquisition of 100 Shares of CCB Stock by
Justice Klingbiel

         (78) On October 11, 1966, Isaacs in effect repurchased from himself the last remaining 100 shares of the 12,850 share block which he had held for resale as explained in Section B of these findings. On that day he drew a check for $2,081.84 to the order of CCB and by this means paid in full the balance of the loan of approximately $19,000 which he had procured from the bank (Finding 39) (Ex. 25-D, 36, 44-A).

         (79) Upon Isaacs' instructions a certificate for the 100 shares was issued by the bank in the name of Robert M. Perbohner (Tr. 1300-08). The stock certificate, No. 854, was delivered by the bank to Isaacs (Tr. 1494-95), who delivered it to Perbohner. The same certificate was subsequently delivered by Perbohner to Dolph and by Dolph to Justice Klingbiel (Tr. 324-25; Ex. 28-A-28-AA). At the time the certificate was delivered to Justice Klingbiel during the November, 1966 term of the Court, Perbohner had already endorsed the certificate in blank, with his signature witnessed by Dolph, making the certificate fully negotiable (Tr. 769).

         (80) Isaacs' name was typed on the appropriate line of the bank's stock ledger sheets as the recipient of the 100 shares represented by certificate 854; however, his name was lined out by hand and Perbohner's was written in by Mrs. Kegley (Tr. 298-99, 329-30, 511). Mrs. Kegley does not recall the reason for this change in the stock ledger sheets (Tr. 324).

         (81) In November, 1966, shortly after his reelection to the Court on November 5, 1966 and during the pendency before the Supreme Court of the Isaacs case, Justice Klingbiel attended a dinner party at Dolph's apartment in Springfield. On the occasion of this dinner party, Dolph had a conversation with Justice Klingbiel in a bedroom of the apartment. It is not entirely clear whether Perbohner was present during the conversation (Tr. 763-64).

         (82) During the conversation referred to in the previous finding, Dolph handed to Justice Klingbiel certificate No. 854 for 100 shares of the stock of CCB. Justice Klingbiel testified that Dolph gave the stock to him as a "campaign contribution" and told him that the stock had sold for $20 per share. Justice Klingbiel said that he replied to Dolph, "Oh, goodness, I don't think I spent that much money on my campaign." Prior to receiving this certificate for CCB stock from Dolph, Justice Klingbiel had already received campaign contributions amounting to approximately $6,500. His campaign expenditures amounted to approximately $2,000 (Tr. 764-66).

         (83) Justice Klingbiel testified that in the conversation with Dolph on the occasion of his being handed the stock certificate No. 854 he made no inquiry of Dolph or of Perbohner as to how they had acquired the shares; he made no inquiry as to the location in Chicago of the Civic Center Bank or as to who was associated with the bank or as to any other information pertaining to the bank or his shares of stock. Justice Klingbiel testified that he never at any time thereafter made any such inquiries (Tr. 768-69).

         (84) Whether or not the transaction is characterized as a "campaign contribution," the delivery of the negotiable stock certificate for 100 shares of CCB stock by Dolph to Justice Klingbiel was in fact a gift, since by Justice Klingbiel's testimony he had already received campaign contributions far in excess of his campaign expenditures.

         (85) The gift of CCB stock was the only gift of stock Justice Klingbiel has ever received (Tr. 769).

         (86) When Justice Klingbiel rejoined the other guests at the Dolph dinner party (after emerging from the bedroom conversation with Dolph) he made no mention of the transaction which Dolph had just concluded with him (Tr. 771-72).

         (87) Justice Klingbiel did not recall that he ever mentioned the receipt of the gift from Dolph/Perbohner to anybody (with the possible exception of his wife) at any time prior to the events of May, 1969 which resulted in this investigation (Tr. 772).

         (88) Justice Klingbiel did not report his ownership of CCB stock on the statement of economic interest he filed with the Illinois Supreme Court, although in the case of other securities he did report ownership of items valued at less than $5,000 (Tr. 772).

         (89) Other facts related to this transaction include the following:

         (a) Perbohner and Justice Klingbiel had more than a casual acquaintance but had never been in any business ventures together. (Tr. 760). Justice Klingbiel and Dolph were close friends.

         (b) Perbohner and Dolph were members of the Illinois Commerce Commission which is and was a frequent litigant before the Illinois Supreme Court.

         (c) When Justice Klingbiel received modest gifts from Perbohner or Dolph, he acknowledged such gifts with a letter of gratitude (Tr. 761-762, 777-778; Ex. 99-102).

         (d) If he did not in fact already know it, Justice Klingbiel could readily have learned that Isaacs was closely associated with, and an important figure in, the Civic Center Bank upon making even a casual inquiry about the bank.

         (90) Although the stock certificate No. 854 was received by Justice Klingbiel from Dolph in November, 1966, he made no disposition of that certificate for a period of almost a year and a half thereafter. Some time after November, 1966, Justice Klingbiel inserted on the reverse side of the stock certificate, as the date of transfer by Perbohner, "January 2, 1968" (Tr. 769-770).

         (91) Justice Klingbiel testified that in the latter part of August, 1968 he delivered certificate No. 854 to an attorney named George Bieber for surrender to the Civic Center Bank. No letter of direction was written to the Civic Center Bank by Justice Klingbiel. Justice Klingbiel never received a report from Bieber as to whether he had delivered the shares to the bank (Tr. 770, 776-777). On or about September 5, 1968 the bank issued a new certificate to Justice Klingbiel's grandchildren, Anne and Thomas Simpson. Certificate No. 854 was then canceled. Prior to this time Justice Klingbiel had never made a gift to his grandchildren of a value of $1,000 or more (Tr. 756).

         (92) Justice Klingbiel testified that the idea or "notion" of giving the 100 shares of Civic Center Bank stock to his daughter or to his grandchildren arose in his mind some time in 1967 (Tr. 776). He did not, however, take any action for the transfer of the shares out of the name of Robert M. Perbohner until the latter part of August, 1968 (Tr. 776-777). Justice Klingbiel acknowledged that there was no completed gift for legal purposes or for income tax purposes or for any other purposes to his grandchildren prior to the date that the shares were registered in the name of the grandchildren (Tr. 798-799). He gave no satisfactory explanation for the rather extraordinary fact that he retained the shares in negotiable form, registered in the name of Robert M. Perbohner, for a period of eighteen months after acquiring the certificate.

         (93) In May, 1969, Justice Klingbiel made false statements to members of the press about the nature of his acquisition of the CCB shares. A week or two prior to the May term of the Supreme Court in 1969 Justice Klingbiel told a reporter for the New York Times that he had purchased the 100 shares. Shortly thereafter, on or about May 20, 1969, Justice Klingbiel told Robert J. Seltzner, a reporter for the Daily Calumet, that he had purchased the shares in question from Robert Perbohner and said that the purchase was made about the time the bank was organized in January, 1966. In June, 1966, while he was in Morocco, Justice Klingbiel told Nicodemus, a reporter for the Chicago Daily News, that he had purchased the shares from Perbohner, and in a conversation with Nicodemus the next day he said that he had received the shares as a campaign contribution (Tr. 793, 798, 1527).

         (94) Following Justice Klingbiel's conversation with the reporter for the New York Times, he gave Justice Kluczynski to understand that he had acquired the 100 shares of CCB stock by purchase (Tr. 783-84, 823-24, 827).

         (95) In May or June, 1969 Perbohner and Isaacs each made false statements to the press about the nature of that transaction between Dolph and Justice Klingbiel and the character of the gift of the 100 shares of CCB stock by Perbohner/Dolph to Justice Klingbiel (Tr. 1241-42, 1536, 1566).

         (96) Robert M. Perbohner was a central figure in the transactions pursuant to which Justices Klingbiel and Solfisburg acquired Civic Center Bank stock while the litigation in People v. Isaacs was pending. Perbohner, notwithstanding the recent operation on his hip, was, in the opinion of his attending physician, competent to testify in this investigation. He was instructed and advised by his counsel not to answer a number of questions, truthful answers to which would greatly have aided this investigation, and he did refuse to answer such questions. (Tr. 912-913, 864-904).


The Duty and Obligation of the
Justices of The Supreme Court

         (97) We now consider our findings of fact against the background of legal precedent and the canons of judicial ethics which describe the standard of conduct required of justices of our highest courts.

         (98) We may conveniently take as a point of departure, the following summary of the duty and obligation of judges which appears in the headnote to Formal Opinion 322 of the Standing Committee on Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association issued on May 18, 1969:

All judges, of the lowest as well as the highest courts, must in all their personal business and social intercourse act not only in a manner that is lawful and proper but one which gives the impression and appearance to the public that it is proper. Appearance of impropriety is to be determined from all facts and circumstances and will vary depending on all facts, including matters beyond the judge's control. A judge must order his life so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

         (99) The Canons of Ethics adopted by the Illinois Judicial Conference in 1964 which have particular relevance for purposes of this report include:

Canon #4(1) -- Avoidance of Impropriety.
A judge's official conduct should be free from impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; he should avoid infractions of law; and his personal behavior, not only upon the Bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach.

Canon #13(2) -- Self Interest and Freedom from Influence.
A judge should neither perform nor take part in any judicial act in which his personal interests or those of a relative are involved. He should not allow any person to influence him improperly or enjoy his favor; he should not be affected by the kinship, rank, position or influence of any litigant or other person; and he should not convey the impression by his conduct that he can be so influenced or affected.

Canon #24(3) -- Business Promotions and Solicitations for Charity.
A judge should not give ground for reasonable suspicion that he is using the power or prestige of his office to persuade or coerce others to patronize or contribute to the success of either business or charitable enterprises. He should not enter into any business or business relationship which in the normal course of events might reasonably be expected to bring his personal interest into conflict with the impartial performance of his official duties. He should not solicit or permit any clerk, bailiff or attache of his office to solicit for charities or private enterprises.

Canon #25(4) -- Personal Investments and Relations. A judge should abstain from making personal investments in enterprises involved in matters before him. He should not use information coming to him in his judicial capacity for the purpose of financial gain to himself or others. He should refrain from all relationships which would prejudice or reasonably appear to prejudice his judgment.

Canon #30(5) -- Gifts and Favors.
A judge should not accept presents or favors from litigants, lawyers practicing before him, or others whose causes are likely to be submitted to him for judgment.

Canon #31(6) -- Social Relations.
A judge should be particularly careful to avoid any action that tends reasonably to arouse the suspicion that his social or business relations or friendships influence his judicial conduct.

         (100) The preamble to the Canons of Judicial Ethics adopted by the Illinois Judicial Conference states that these canons alone shall be applicable and shall refer to all judges of trial courts, courts of review, and to all appointed magistrates. The preamble goes on to state:

        "The assumption of the office of judge casts upon the incumbent duties in respect to his personal conduct which concern his relation to the state and its inhabitants, the litigants before him, the principles of law, the practitioners of law in his court, and the witnesses, jurors and attendants who aid him in the administration of its functions. In every particular his conduct should be above reproach."

         (101) We are confident that the Court shares with us an acceptance of the statement made in Formal Opinion 322 of the American Bar Association that the relevant canons apply to judges at all levels and "probably, as they relate to appearances of impropriety, apply with greater strictness to the judges of higher courts, for the conduct of judges of higher courts sets the tone for the whole judiciary."

         (102) The canons to which we have referred are not abstract statements of ethical considerations but are firmly grounded in the long history of Anglo-American jurisprudence. The fundamental need to which these canons are addressed is that the Bench, the Bar and the public shall have absolute confidence in the impartiality, fairness and integrity of the members of the judiciary and in the judgments and decisions of the courts which govern the lives of our citizens.

         (103) In the words of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Public Commission v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451, 466 (1952), "The guiding consideration is that the administration of justice should reasonably appear to be disinterested as well as to be so in fact."

         (104) Our courts have constantly reminded us that it is just as important that a judge avoid the appearance of impropriety as that he avoid actual impropriety. For what we are dealing with is the confidence of the public, which is as easily affected by reasonable suspicion or doubt of unfairness, partiality or lack of integrity, as by the actual improprieties of which a judge may be guilty. Thus, the New York courts have said that, "The State is bound to furnish to every litigant not only an impartial judge, but one who has not, by any act of his, justified a doubt of his impartiality." Moers v. Gilbert, 175 Misc. 733, 737, 25 N.Y.S. 2d 114, 118, aff'd. 261 App. Div. 957, 27 N.Y.S. 2d 425, 426 (1941).

         "Not only is it the duty of a judge to render a righteous judgment, but it is of transcendent importance to the litigants and the public generally that there should not be the slightest suspicion as to his fairness and integrity. Caesar demanded that his wife should not only be virtuous, but beyond suspicion. The people should not exact less from the judiciary, the most powerful branch of our government." People ex rel. Union Bag & Paper Corporation v. Gilbert, 143 Misc. 287, 288-289, 256 N.Y.S. 442, 444, affirmed 236 App. Div. 873, 260 N.Y.S. 939 (1932).

         (105) Mr. Justice Shaw of our own Illinois Supreme Court, speaking of the Canons of Judicial Ethics in In Re Harriss, 346 Ill. 290 at 293 (1936), said:

        "These were all succinctly summed up by St. Paul centuries ago when he advised the Thessalonians to abstain from all appearance of evil."

         (106) We do not regard these canons as quaint moral precepts, derived from an out-moded age of innocence. They are intensely practical and necessary statements as to the conduct required of judges. We could include in this Report many pages of quotations of the same tenor--that the appearance of impropriety must be avoided as completely as actual impropriety. The principle is so well established, however, that we deem further quotations unnecessary.

         (107) There is nothing which is in our judgment so fundamental to the maintenance of a government based upon the Rule of Law, as the need of the public to understand that the decisions of our courts, often unpopular and seemingly contrary to prevailing public sentiment, are impartially and fairly arrived at and that the judges responsible for the decisions are above reproach. Adherence to the principles expressed in the canons seems to us particularly necessary in an age when authority is increasingly threatened and the traditional concepts of law and order are under attack.

         (108) We consider it entirely fair and proper, then, that we view the facts in this record in the context of what we are told by the canons of our own Illinois Judicial Conference is the duty and the obligation of a judge.


Conclusions of the Commission

         (109) While it may be argued that the conclusions of the Commission need be supported only by a preponderance of the evidence or need accord only with the manifest weight of the evidence, we have imposed upon ourselves, for purposes of this Report, the requirement that our conclusions must be based upon clear and convincing evidence--a standard more rigorous than that which would normally prevail in a civil case. We think that this standard is consonant with the grave charges which have been made against Justice Solfisburg, Justice Klingbiel, Mr. Isaacs and Mr. Perbohner. This requirement as to clear and convincing evidence does not mean, however, that we are called upon to ignore the significance of deliberate concealment as a badge of guilt; not the demeanor of various witnesses; nor the credibility of their testimony from the standpoint of normal human experience.

". . . there may be such inherent improbability in the testimony of a witness that neither court nor jury are required to give it credence, even in the absence of any conflicting or contradictory evidence." (Schueler v. Blomstrand, 394 Ill. 600; People v. Davis, 269 Ill. 257.) The uncontradicted testimony of interested witnesses to an improbable fact does not require acceptance of their testimony. Courts are not required to believe an unreasonable story, even though it is not contradicted, merely because it has been sworn to by a witness on the trial of a case (People v. LeMorte, 289 Ill. 11)..

        --Tepper v. Campo, 398 Ill. 496, 505 (1948)

         (110) We do not believe that any elaboration of our findings of fact is required to demonstrate conclusively that the conduct of Justice Solfisburg and Justice Klingbiel presents precisely the appearance of impropriety to which Canon 4 is addressed. The appearance of impropriety is so substantial and pervasive in the case of both Justices that they must, without more, be held clearly to have violated the Canons of Ethics of the Illinois Judicial Conference.

         (111) We do not believe that either Justice Solfisburg or Justice Klingbiel is an innocent victim of circumstance. The appearance of impropriety, as is evidenced from our findings of fact, has resulted from acts and conduct in which Justice Solfisburg and Justice Klingbiel were knowing and willing participants. We agree with the observation in Formal Opinion 322 of the American Bar Association that even when the appearance of impropriety comes from beyond the judge's control, "his obligation is greater to refrain from acts contributing to that appearance."

         (112) The record in this investigation not only evidences the appearance of impropriety against which Canons 4 and 31 are directed, but establishes, by clear and convincing proof, certain positive acts of impropriety on the part of Justice Klingbiel and Justice Solfisburg which are violative of the Canons of Ethics of the Illinois Judicial Conference.

         (112)-(a) Justice Klingbiel knowingly accepted a substantial gift (the 100 share of CCB stock worth at least $2,000) from Perbohner and/or Dolph. Perbohner and Dolph were both members of the Illinois Commerce Commission. At the time of the gift the Illinois Commerce Commission was a litigant in at least three cases which were pending before the Court. We consider that there is such identity of interest between that Commission and its members that the acceptance of a gift from members of the Commission is not significantly different from the acceptance of a gift from any litigant.

         (112)-(b) The character of the transaction as a gift is not changed by relating it to Justice Klingbiel's campaign for retention in the November, 1966 election. He admitted that when he was given the stock certificate the election was over and he already had collected more than three times as much in contributions as he had spent. He could not reasonably have been building up a reserve for expenses in any subsequent campaign for retention which could not come until the expiration of his 10-year term of office. The acceptance of a gift of this amount and under the circumstances related to Justice Klingbiel was an act of impropriety (ABA Opinion 226 (1941)).

         (112)-(c) Justice Klingbiel violated the Canons of Ethics of the Illinois Judicial Conference by engaging in a pattern of concealment of his acquisition and ownership of the shares, in furtherance of which he told untruths to newspaper men who inquired of him about the transaction, and led his fellow Justice Kluczynski to believe that he had in fact purchased the shares rather than received them as a gift.

         (112)-(d) At a time when he knew Isaacs was litigant before the Court in a case that had attracted much public attention, Justice Solfisburg accepted a valuable favor which he knew, or in fulfilling the obligation of one in his position to avoid impropriety and appearance of impropriety could readily have determined, was attributable in substantial measure to the influence of Isaacs.

         Justice Solfisburg manifested his awareness that he was to be the recipient of preferential treatment by his testimony that he considered himself as a subscriber to the original issue of the bank stock and he was expecting Dolph and Perbohner to "protect" him by seeing that he got the 700 shares he wanted (Tr. 612, 647) even though he never signed a subscription agreement.

         (112)-(e) We believe that a strong inference could be drawn from this record that Justice Solfisburg knew, at the time he acquired the 700 shares of CCB stock, that he was afforded the opportunity to make this purchase (which he obviously regarded as affordable and potentially profitable one) through the influence of Isaacs, who was at the time a litigant before the Supreme Court. We believe it to be established:

--that Isaacs was a prime mover in the organization of the bank;

--that Isaacs exercised influence in the distribution of the stock of the bank;

--that Perbohner and Dolph and Isaacs were quite well known to each other;

--that Perbohner was anxious to assist Isaacs in the successful defense of the charges on which he had been indicted;

--that Justice Solfisburg was treated as if he had been an original subscriber to the stock of the bank when in fact he had never entered a subscription, either in person or by an agent;

--that Justice Solfisburg discussed his proposed acquisition of the shares with Flynn, who was acquainted with the fact of Isaacs' association with the bank;

--that such discussion, though desultory, was sufficient to enable Flynn to say he wanted no participation in the investment;

--that Justice Solfisburg saw fit to conceal from public view his ownership of the shares of stock of the bank;

--that he was allocated the relatively large number of 700 shares without any expectation that he would become a customer of the bank or could otherwise assist it in developing its business;

--that the request for the issuance of the shares to Justice Solfisburg or his trust emanated from Isaacs or Isaacs' office;

--that Justice Solfisburg began to liquidate his investment (at a 25% profit) immediately after termination of the Isaacs litigation;

--that his sale of the first 300 shares in May/June, 1967 was handled in an extraordinary manner;

--that the delivery of the shares was made by Mr. Flynn to Isaacs' office rather than to the bank;

--that the price of $25 per share paid to Justice Solfisburg was more than the price paid by the purchasers of the shares;

--that the difference, small as it was, was made up by Isaacs out of his own pocket;

--that Justice Solfisburg's account of having invested $14,000 of borrowed money in the stock of an enterprise about which he made no inquiry whatsoever is, tested by what a reasonable and prudent man would do in like circumstances, wholly incredible;

--that the whole series of events was characterized by an air of furtiveness and concealment.

         Whether or not these circumstances warrant a finding of knowledge on the part of Justice Solfisburg, it is evident that he violated the Canons of Ethics of the Illinois Judicial Conference by engaging in a pattern of concealment of his ownership of 700 shares of CCB stock, in furtherance of which he caused the stock certificates to be issued in Trust 931. The uncontroverted evidence concerning the use of the revocable trust device establishes that the only function served by Trust 931 was to conceal from the public the identity of the true owner of the stock. Indeed, the testimony of Justice Solfisburg himself provided no other rationally articulated motive for using Trust 931.


Conclusions of the Commission --
Other Charges

         (113) We conclude, on the basis of our investigation, that there is no evidence to support the following charges made in the Motion:

         (a) That Justice Solfisburg has at any time been the attorney, secret or otherwise, for CCB, or acted as attorney for the bank in cooperation or concert with any other attorneys or persons.

         (b) That any shares of stock in CCB accrued to the benefit of Justice Klingbiel by or through his daughter, Donna Klingbiel Simpson, or that Mrs. Simpson was in any way a conduit of any benefits derived by or conferred upon Justice Klingbiel.

         (c) That Donna Klingbiel Simpson has been the beneficiary of any shares of stock of CCB held by Robert E. Harrington, James E. Harrington, Francis W. Petro, Lester Yavitz and Jerome Yavitz.

         (114) We have also concluded, after careful examination, that none of the other Justices of the Supreme Court had any knowledge or any reason to believe that either Justice Solfisburg or Justice Klingbiel was subject to any undue influence or had any disqualifying interest in the decision in the Isaacs case.

         (115) Except as affirmatively set forth in this Report, the charges made by Sherman H. Skolnick and Harriet Sherman in the papers filed by them with the Court are unsupported by any credible evidence we have been able to find in our investigation.


The Integrity of the Judgment
in People v. Isaacs

         (116) The integrity of the judgment in the Isaacs case is affected by what we have found to be the appearance of impropriety on the part of two of the Justices, Solfisburg, and Klingbiel, who participated in the decision.

         (117) The correctness of a judgment or its legal soundness cannot, in the eyes of the Bar or the public, save it from taint if it appears that a judge or judges who participated in rendering the judgment had disqualifying interests or were themselves guilty of such conduct as to raise a reasonable suspicion as to their impartiality, fairness and integrity.

         However, the question whether the judgment in the Isaacs case should now be vacated or reopened by the Court is one which is beyond our proper province and should be left for adjudication by the Court.


         The Commission believes that the confidence of the public and the Bar in the Court is a most essential foundation of our society. It has been severely shaken by the facts disclosed in this record. The Commission believes that such confidence can best be restored by the prompt resignation of the two Justices.(7)


Respectfully submitted, July 31, 1969,

s/ Edwin C. Austin                s/ Mason Bull
Edwin C. Austin                Mason Bull
s/ Henry L. Pitts                 s/ Daniel M. Schuyler, Sr.
Henry L. Pitts                 Daniel M. Schuyler, Sr.
                 s/ Frank Greenberg
                 Frank Greenberg, Chairman
                 As Members of the Special Commission


John Paul Stevens                Office of the Commission:
Counsel to the Commission                Frank Greenberg, Chairman
105 South LaSalle Street                One N. LaSalle St. (Suite 2525)
Chicago, Illinois 60603                Chicago, Illinois 60602
FR. 2-2345                CE. 6-8130


1. Identical with Judicial Canon 4 of the ABA and with the corresponding canons of The Chicago Bar Association and the Illinois State Bar Association.
2. Identical with Judicial Canons 13 and 29 of the ABA and with the corresponding canons of The Chicago Bar Association and the Illinois State Bar Association.
3. Identical with Judicial Canon 25 of the ABA and with the corresponding canons of the CBA and ISBA.
4. Substantially identical with Canon 25 of the CBA and ISBA.
5. Identical with Judicial Canon 32 of the ABA and with the corresponding canon of the CBA and ISBA.
6. Identical with Judicial Canon 33 of the ABA and with the corresponding canon of the CBA and ISBA.
7. Commissioner Bull dissents from the view of the other four members of the Commission that this statement is properly within the province of the Commission.


The document represented above is transcribed from the original. This is an original source document referenced in the book Illinois Justice: The Scandal of 1969 and the Rise of John Paul Stevens by Kenneth A. Manaster, published by the University of Chicago Press.

Return to list of documents