Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Philip G. Reinhard Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 50020 DATE 4/23/2012

CASE

TITLE

Chrzanowski vs. Bianchi, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

For the reasons stated below, the motion to disqualify [#13] is denied.

■[ For further details see text below.]

Electronic Notices.

STATEMENT - OPINION

Plaintiff has filed a motion to disqualify all attorneys in the McHenry County State’s Attorney’s

Office (SA’s Office) from representing defendants, Louis Bianchi, the McHenry County State’s Attorney,

Michael Combs, an assistant McHenry County state’s attorney, and McHenry County in this lawsuit arising

out of plaintiff’s termination from employment as an assistant state’s attorney. Defendants have responded,

and plaintiff filed a reply.

Plaintiff seeks to have all attorneys employed by the SA’s Office disqualified for several reasons. 

First, he contends that Bianchi himself cannot act as counsel pursuant to American Bar Association Model

Rule 3.7 and, therefore, because he cannot act as counsel none of his associates may do so because he also

lacks the authority to direct or supervise them in that capacity. Second, he asserts that Bianchi, Combs, and

possibly other assistant state’s attorneys, including Webb, will be material witnesses and are therefore

disqualified under ABA Model Rule 3.7. Finally, he argues that there is a conflict of interest and that a

“strong public policy” supporting appointment of a special prosecutor exits where, as here, the state’s attorney

is an interested party in the litigation.

Because disqualification of counsel deprives a party of the representation of their choosing, allowing

disqualification is a drastic measure which courts should hesitate to approve except when absolutely

necessary. RMB Fasteners v. Heads & Threads Int’l, LLC, 2012 WL 245124, * 2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 25, 2012). 

Additionally, a motion to disqualify counsel should be viewed with extreme caution for it can be misused as a

harassment technique. RMB Fasteners, at * 2. Thus, the moving party bears a heavy burden of proving facts

required for disqualification. RMB Fasteners, at * 2.

As for the applicable rules of attorney conduct, this court has generally adopted the ABA Model Rules

of Professional Responsibility. See Local Rule 83.50. Under LR 83.50, any matter not addressed by the

ABA Model Rules or for which the ABA Model Rules are inconsistent with the applicable state rules is

governed by the state where the attorney’s principal office is located. LR 83.50. In this case, that would be

Illinois’ Rules of Professional Conduct. See RMB Fasteners, at * 2.

12C50020 Chrzanowski vs. Bianchi, et al. Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT - OPINION

1. The court will apply the ABA Model Rules as plaintiff has not identified any gap or

inconsistency in those rules that would justify application of the Illinois rules.

2. The court notes that it is a particularly extreme measure in this case as such disqualification

would result in McHenry County having to foot the bill for outside counsel while its already paid

attorneys sit on the sidelines.

Here, plaintiff’s reliance on ABA Model Rule 3.7 is misplaced.1 The mere fact that Bianchi might be

disqualified based on his being a material witness does not necessarily preclude other attorneys in his office

who are not otherwise disqualified from representing defendants. Plaintiff cites no meaningful authority for

that novel proposition, and the court can find none. Plaintiff’s further reliance on 55 ILCS 5/3-9008 is of no

avail. That state-law provision lacks efficacy in this federal question litigation. Further, to the extent Bianchi

is an “interested” party within the meaning of that statutory provision, there is no authority, and plaintiff cites

none, for the extension of such a disqualification to all the other attorneys in the SA’s Office.

There is likewise no basis at this point to disqualify all attorneys in the SA’s Office directly under

ABA Model Rule 3.7. Plaintiff has not shown which attorneys, if any besides Bianchi and Combs, might be

material witnesses in this case. To the extent Webb turns out to be a material witness, she may be barred

from further representation at trial. It is premature to disqualify her or any other attorney besides defendants

on that basis at this time.

Lastly, plaintiff has not shown any actual conflict or appearance of impropriety that would justify

disqualification of the entire SA’s Office. Nor is there any indication that the public’s confidence in the

administration of justice will be affected by having any assistant state’s attorneys who are not otherwise

disqualified from representing defendants in this case.

In short, plaintiff has not carried his heavy burden of obtaining the extreme measure of attorney

disqualification in this case.2 For these reasons, the motion to disqualify is denied.

12C50020 Chrzanowski vs. Bianchi, et al. Page 2 of 2