by Tom Stilp JD, MBA/MM, LLM, MSC, DBA, May 20th, 2025
As institutions run by human beings, courts are far from perfect, but there are certain procedural safeguards that, if followed, will provide for a fair hearing more often than not. Even the courts will tell you that a litigant is not entitled to a perfect trial, only a fair one.
Over the years, the courts have ceded more and more of their work to “rent a judge” programs where retired judges help parties settle disputes privately. Companies offering private dispute resolution mechanisms, mostly through mediation and arbitration, have multiplied. In a recent article, Judge Mitchell Hoffman, the former Presiding Judge of the circuit court of Lake County, touted the advantages of programs that are more cost-effective and confidential.
The court system may have awoken to this problem. The Courts have recently commented on the activities of the City of Chicago in its administrative hearings. For anyone who has received a Notice of Violation from the City, this may be news.
In Stone Street Partners vs Chicago Dept. of Administrative Hearings, 2014 IL App (1st) 123654, the Court noted the City’s building code violation process is big business. Through a series of enactments over the last 20 years, the Illinois Legislature has removed ordinance enforcement hearings from the judiciary to local administrative hearings, a process the judiciary has not challenged. Then – state Senator Barak Obama sponsored legislation raising the administrative decisions to the dignity of a court order. The process has been so successful, according to the Court, that Chicago has established a large central hearing facility that equals or surpasses the size and case volume of courts throughout the state.
The Court noted in one case, the City imposed a fine over $135,000, proving that the administrative hearings are not “inconsequential” as the City argued to justify lax procedures.
In the end, procedures require both experience and a familiarity, something the Court said only an experienced attorney could provide. Because the building owner had not been properly represented in Stone Street Partners, the Court allowed the building owner to challenge the fine even though the fine had been entered years before.
Having an attorney is a good idea to guard against the “unknown unknowns.” Following the old adage, “what you don’t know that can hurt you,” is addressed by having competent legal representation.
