Know Your Illinois Judges
Dedicated to Increasing Voter Knowledge of Judicial Candidates in Illinois
Hon. Michael J. Chmiel
Republican
22nd Judicial Circuit Court Judge
At Large
EXPERIENCE
22nd Judicial Circuit Judge, 2006 - Present (Elected 2006 / Retained 2012, 2018)
19th Judicial Circuit Judge, 2004 - 2006 (Appointed 2004)
Private Practice, 1992 - 2004
Law Clerk, United States Bankruptcy Court, 1990 - 1992
EDUCATION
Undergraduate: University of Notre Dame, B.S., Economics and Business Administration - 1987
Law School: University of Illinois College of Law, J.D. - 1990
RATINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS
Illinois State Bar Association and 22nd Circuit Joint Judicial Advisory Polls:
Michael J. Chmiel: Not Recommended
Criteria | Score |
|---|---|
Meets Requirements Of Office | 61.11 |
Integrity | 71.96 |
Impartiality | 64.49 |
Legal Ability | 75.68 |
Temperament | 54.87 |
Court Management | 75.00 |
Health | 89.52 |
Sensitivity | 71.96 |
Number of Respondents | 114 |
CAMPAIGN FINANCEÂ
Top Donors:
Donor | Total donated | Latest date |
$3,363.92 | Apr 26, 2005 | |
$2,500.00 | Dec 06, 2005 | |
$2,107.96 | May 18, 2005 | |
$1,000.00 | May 13, 2005 | |
$750.00 | Oct 10, 2005 |
Read more on Illinois Sunshine → https://illinoissunshine.org/
Judicial Inquiry Board Complaint Summary
80. 08-CC-1, Filed February 25, 2008: Michael J. Chmiel, Circuit Judge, 22nd Circuit, McHenry County
The Complaint alleged that on Saturday, June 16, 2007, Judge Michael J. Chmiel ("Respondent"), a juvenile-court judge not on duty that day, was told by Robert Miller – a friend, former client, and political ally – that Miller's brother David had been arrested that morning on felony charges and would have to remain in jail until the following Monday absent a special bond hearing. In response, Respondent agreed to preside over such a special bond hearing, thereby enabling David Miller to be released on bond that same day. In addition, the Complaint alleged that subsequent public outcry of political favoritism for the locally-powerful Miller family caused Respondent's fellow circuit judges to inquire into the reasons why Respondent had held such a hearing; in response, Respondent failed to disclose Robert Miller's involvement. The Complaint further alleged that later, on October 12, 2007, during sworn testimony before the Board regarding the aforementioned special bond hearing, Respondent made false and misleading statements, and otherwise failed to disclose Robert Miller's involvement in causing that hearing to have occurred.
Â
Order entered November 19, 2010: Conduct of Respondent in holding a bond hearing on June 16, 2017 created the appearance of impropriety. The Board did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed actual impropriety by conducting the June 16, 2007 bond hearing, engaged in ex parte communication or gave false and misleading testimony to the Board.
Respondent reprimanded.
How Judicial Advisory Polls Work
In counties outside of Cook, ISBA conducts an advisory poll. The poll is conducted by email and mail and is sent to all ISBA members in the circuit or district from which a candidate seeks election or a judge seeks retention. Licensed attorneys who are not members of ISBA, or any attorney outside the circuit or district may request a ballot. Participants of the poll are asked to evaluate each candidate only if they have professional knowledge of the candidate(s) that enables them to make an informed evaluation. Ballots are confidential and returned inside a ballot envelope which is mailed in a Teller envelope. A certification slip stating that the participant read and understood the instructions of the poll is signed in order for the ballot to be counted. Candidates and judges are rated "recommended" or "not recommended" based on whether respondents agree that the candidate "meets acceptable requirements for the office." Those receiving 65 percent or more "yes" responses to that question are rated "recommended" and those receiving less than 65 percent are rated "not recommended." Opinions expressed in the poll are of those attorneys who chose to respond and do not reflect the opinion of the Illinois State Bar Association or the opinion of all Illinois attorneys.
Following are the questions asked on the poll. Please note that questions on Temperament and Court management differ for those seeking a judicial vacancy and those seeking retention. Clarification of those differences are noted below.
Meets Requirements of Office:
(Recommendation) Considering the qualifications of the candidate, do you believe this candidate meets acceptable requirements for the office?
Integrity
Adhere to the high standards of integrity and ethical conduct required of the office?
Impartiality
Act and rule impartially and free of any predisposition or improper influence?
Legal Ability
Have adequate legal experience, knowledge, and ability?
Temperament
for a judicial vacancy:
Exercise appropriate temperament with courtesy, consideration, firmness, fairness, patience and dignity?
for judicial retention:
Exercise the judicial temperament to serve with appropriate courtesy, consideration, firmness, fairness, patience and dignity?
Court Management
for a judicial vacancy:
Attends to all professional responsibilities including the management of cases/clients, and completes work in a prompt and skillful manner?
for judicial retention:
Diligently and promptly attend to the duties of the office and assure the steady progress of court business?
Health
Have the physical, mental and emotional health, stamina and stability needed to perform judicial duties?
Sensitivity to Diversity and Bias
Conducts self and deals with others appropriately to reduce or eliminate conduct or words which manifest bias based on race, gender, national origin, religion, disability, age, sexual orientation or socio-economic status against parties, witnesses, counsel or others?