‘A waste of everybody’s time’: Adrian won’t reply to complaint filed by Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission

QUINCY —Robert Adrian has until July 31 to respond to a complaint filed with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) on June 25 that recommends the former Eighth Judicial Circuit judge be disciplined.

Adrian said Friday that the ARDC shouldn’t hold its breath.

“It’s a waste of everybody’s time,” he said Friday morning. “It just shows how political and corrupt (the ARDC is). 

“They’re going after me. If you try to file a complaint with the ARDC against the sitting judge, you know what they’ll tell you? The only procedure that you can file would be with the JIB (Judicial Inquiry Board). All these allegations were made when I was a judge. They had nothing to do with my professional license. They wouldn’t even take a complaint if somebody made it.”

Adrian was served with the ARDC complaint on July 10. He has until July 31 to file a reply. Asked if he plans to file a reply, Adrian replied, “Why would I? I’m retired. I’ve taken my name off the active list.”

The Illinois Courts Commission ruled in February the Judicial Inquiry Board proved “by clear and convincing evidence” during a two-day hearing in Chicago in November 2023 that Adrian gave untruthful testimony before the Board constituting “willful misconduct” and removed him from office.

That ruling, however, only removed Adrian from his job as a judge. 

The ARDC complaint, filed by attorney Peter L. Rotskoff on behalf of ARDC Administrator Lea Gutierrez, alleges Adrian’s conduct subjects him to discipline pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 770, which says, “Conduct of attorneys which violates the rules of professional conduct contained in article VIII of these rules shall be grounds for discipline by the court.”

The rule states discipline may be:

• Disbarment.
• Disbarment on consent.
• Suspension for a specified period and until further order of the court.
• Suspension for a specified period of time.
• Suspension until further order of the court.
• Suspension for a specified period of time or until further order of the court with probation.
• Censure.
• Reprimand by the court, the review board or a hearing panel.

The last two judges to be removed from office by the Illinois Courts Commission — DuPage County Judge Patrick O’Shea in 2019 and St. Clair County Judge Ronald Duebbert in 2020 — had their law licenses suspended for one year until further order by the ARDC. Both suspensions from the ARDC happened about two years after the Illinois Courts Commission rulings.

Adrian said in a Muddy River News interview on Feb. 24 that he planned to retire after he was removed from office. He said Friday he no longer needs his law license.

The ARDC complaint has three counts. The first is making false statements in a written response to the Judicial Inquiry Board.

Adrian submitted a written response to the JIB on March 15, 2022, concerning allegations in a Feb. 22, 2022, letter. Adrian found Drew Clinton, 18, guilty of felony criminal sexual assault following a three-day bench trial in October 2021. Then, on Jan. 3, 2022, Adrian vacated Clinton’s conviction, resulting in Clinton being released from the Adams County Jail.

The JIB letter alleged Adrian reversed his guilty verdict on one count of criminal sexual assault to circumvent the law that required him to impose a mandatory sentence of at least four years of imprisonment. 

Adrian repeatedly stated in his March 15 response that he reversed his guilty finding because the evidence did not support the verdict. The ARDC’s complaint said his statements were false, believing Adrian reversed his decision to circumvent the law.

The second count is for Adrian making false statements in his testimony before the JIB.

Adrian appeared before a group of board members and JIB staff on April 8, 2022. The complaint says Adrian had the following exchange with Michael Deno, executive director and general counsel for the JIB.

• MD: (In your ruling) you never mentioned anything about the issue of consent or the people totally failing to prove lack of consent, correct? 
• RA: Correct. 
• MD: Yet that is, as you state in your response, why you reversed your decision in this matter, correct? 
• RA: It is … I did it based on the evidence in the case. I did it not because I wanted to thwart to (sic) get around the law, I did it because that was what the evidence was. 

The Illinois Courts Commission wrote in its order, “(W)e find respondent’s testimony was untruthful, and that his position before this commission — that he reversed his guilty finding based on his belief that the state had failed to prove its case — was a purely deceptive scheme designed to justify, or conceal, his misconduct.”

The third count is for Adrian making false statements under oath before the Illinois Courts Commission during the November 2023 hearing. 

The complaint states Adrian had the following exchange with Deno during that hearing:

• MD: So, Judge, to be clear, in your written response and in your sworn testimony before the Judicial Inquiry Board, you state that the reason that you reversed your decision was that the people had totally failed to prove that the victim was unable to give knowing consent and was not because you did not want to sentence (Clinton) to the penitentiary. Is that correct? 
• RA: That’s correct. 
• MD: And, Judge, as you sit here today, is that what you are telling the commission? 
• RA: That I found him not guilty because he was not guilty, and I did not do it because I didn’t want to sentence him to the Department of Corrections. That’s what I’m telling the commission. 

Adrian also had an exchange with Deno about statements he made during Clinton’s sentencing hearing.

• MD: So you’re telling the Commission that when you said “this Court will not do that,” you were not specifically saying that you were refusing to sentence (Clinton) to the Department of Corrections. 
• RA: I’m saying it’s – he’s not guilty, so it would not be just. I know I said it poorly, but I’m also talking about, and later on I talk about the statute as to being unconstitutional. 
• MD: So, Judge, once again, whether you’re saying it poorly or not, you’re telling the Commission that when you said, “This Court will not do that,” you were not specifically saying that you were refusing to sentence (Clinton) to the Department of Corrections. 
• RA: Why would I sentence someone who’s not guilty of an offense to the Department of Corrections? 
• MD: So what is your answer? Yes or no? 
• RA: My answer is I will not sentence somebody who’s not guilty of a crime to the Department of Corrections. 
• MD: Judge, so in the next part of your ruling, starting with the very next sentence, you said, “There is…” Do you see that part? 
• RA: Yes. 
• MD: “There is no way for what happened in this case that this teenager should go to the Department of Corrections. I will not do that.” Correct? 
• RA: That’s correct. 
• MD: And are you telling us here that when you said, “I will not do that,” you once again were not specifically saying that you were refusing to sentence (Clinton) to the Department of Corrections? 
• RA: I’m saying, as I said, “There is no way for what happened in this case,” which was not a sexual assault, that this teenager should go to the Department of Corrections. I will not do that. 
• MD: But you left out the words “of which there was a sexual assault.” Correct? 
• RA: That’s correct. 

The ICC wrote in its order, “(Adrian) testified before this commission that when he said, ‘The court will not do that’ and ‘I will not do that,’ he meant he would not sentence (Clinton) to prison when he was not guilty. This proffered explanation, given after the fact, is not believable. To any reasonable person hearing (Adrian’s) words, (Adrian) was refusing to sentence (Clinton) to a mandatory prison term ‘for what happened in [the] case’ because he did not believe prison was a ‘just’ sentence under the circumstances.”

The ARDC complaint also referred to a conversation Assistant State’s Attorney Todd Eyler had on Oct. 15, 2021, with Adrian in the parking lot of the Adams County Courthouse. 

Eyler testified that Adrian said something needed to be done about the way former Assistant State’s Attorney Anita Rodriguez, the prosecutor in (Clinton’s) case, handled sex cases. Eyler said Adrian specifically remarked, “First (another defendant) and (Clinton).” 

At the November hearing, Adrian said he had a conversation with Eyler in the parking lot but he did not say anything to Eyler about Rodriguez or the way she handled sex cases. 

The ICC wrote in its order, “We find Eyler’s recollection of the substance of this conversation and the date on which it occurred credible and believable. We find (Adrian’s) testimony that he did not say anything about Rodriguez and the way she was handling sexual assault cases was untruthful.”