September 2004
Featured Disciplinary Case

Topic
Subverting the Judicial Process

Summary

In re Thomas Gerard Cosgrove, M.R. 19629, 01 CH 76 (Ill. Sept. 27, 2004). Cosgrove, who was licensed in 1991, was censured. He served as an assistant state’s attorney assigned to Courtroom 204 in the Markham courthouse and was the only assistant state’s attorney assigned to that courtroom when Judge Paul Sheridan presided there. Each day in Courtroom 204, there were approximately two hundred cases on the court call. Cosgrove described Sheridan as a judge who wanted to move the court calls along. Judge Sheridan had never indicated to Cosgrove that he had a particular interest in any case. Sheridan and another judge, Harry R. Buoscio, had known each other for more than twenty years and were friends. Buoscio had neighbors and long-time family friends who owned a trucking company, Cress, Inc. One of the truck drivers for Cress Inc. received a citation for driving an overweight truck. The citation was scheduled for hearing in Courtroom 204. At some point, Buoscio learned that Sheridan was assigned to Courtroom 204. Buoscio told his colleague about the overweight citation for Cress Inc. and asked whether Sheridan could have the assistant state’s attorney assigned to the courtroom “help” a friend. On the date of hearing on the overweight citation, Sheridan and Cosgrove had a conversation in Sheridan’s chambers. Sheridan told Cosgrove that there was an overweight citation coming up and that Cosgrove should “take a look at it” and see what he could do, to “SOL it or whatever.” When the case was called, Cosgrove stated: “I’m looking at the ticket and I don’t think I’m going to be able to meet my burden of proof on this matter. Motion State SOL.” Sheridan then granted the motion. The police officer who issued the citation was in Court that day and was surprised at the result, as Cosgrove had never talked to him before calling the case. After the case was SOL’d, the officer whispered: “I guess money talks around here.” Cosgrove then told the officer that he “had to do this for the judge, or because of the judge.” Later, the officer’s commander wrote a memorandum to Sheridan’s presiding judge and complained of what he described as a case of “blatant ‘ticket fixing’”. At the time of the events in question, Cosgrove had been a lawyer for two years. At the disciplinary hearing, he testified that he should immediately reported the Sheridan ex parte conversation to his supervisor. He said that he did not call his supervisor because of the pressure to keep moving cases in the courtroom.

The full text of the opinion is located at: http://www.nobc.org/cases/Report_&_Recommendation_of_Review_Board.pdf in PDF format or http://www.nobc.org/cases/Report_Word.doc in Microsoft Word format.