Stone Street Partners, LLC v. City of Chicago
91 N.E.3d 965
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Jan. 17, 2012 DSS issued an ordinance-violation notice to Stone Street (aka PMD) for refuse at 34 E. Oak St. under Chicago Mun. Code § 7-28-261.
- At a Feb. 23, 2012 Department of Administrative Hearings (DAH) proceeding, the ALJ admitted photographs over Stone Street’s FOIA-based objection, found a prima facie violation, and assessed a $300 fine plus fees.
- Stone Street sued in Cook County, asserting (1) the City engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by prosecuting without a licensed attorney and (2) the ALJ penalized parties who exercised the right to a contested hearing (a “trial tax”), violating due process; it also included FOIA and administrative-review claims.
- The circuit court dismissed the declaratory/due-process counts (counts I and II) under section 2-615 and later denied administrative review of the DAH decision; Stone Street appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed: (1) count I failed because a corporation cannot practice law except through an agent and Stone Street did not allege a nonlawyer agent performed legal work, and (2) count II failed because the ALJ’s statements were permissible plea-bargaining pressure, not a constitutional due-process violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unauthorized practice of law / judge-as-prosecutor | City prosecuted without a licensed attorney; proceedings null and void | City cannot ‘‘practices law’’ except through an agent; no allegation a nonlawyer agent performed legal work | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to allege an agent engaged in unauthorized practice; claim legally insufficient |
| ALJ serving as both prosecutor and judge — due process | ALJ acted as prosecutor (searched for/introduced evidence) and was biased; denied fair adjudication | Presumption of administrative impartiality; no specific factual showing of bias or predetermination | Dismissed — no showing of actual bias; doctrine presumes adjudicator fairness (Scott/Withrow) |
| ‘‘Trial tax’’ — penalizing exercise of right to contested hearing | ALJ announced minimum fine only for pleas; higher fines for contested hearings constitutes punishment for exercising hearing right | ALJ’s statement was plea-bargain style inducement; defendant free to accept or reject; no ordinance mandated higher fines | Dismissed — plea-bargain/charging-pressure permissible (Bordenkircher); Pearce-based presumption inapplicable absent vindictiveness or lack of discretion |
| Administrative-review challenges to DAH liability | (Implicit) DAH procedure and penalty unlawful | DAH decision not shown to be against manifest weight; issues largely duplicative and some claims forfeited | Denied review / affirmed — appellant forfeited some claims and did not argue manifest-weight ground; substantive legal claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Illinois State Bar Ass’n v. Schafer, 404 Ill. 45 (definition of practicing law requires legal skill)
- Scott v. Department of Commerce & Community Affairs, 84 Ill. 2d 42 (administrative adjudicators presumed impartial; combining functions not per se unconstitutional)
- Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (standard on adjudicative bias and presumption of integrity)
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (plea-bargain pressure and permissible prosecutorial inducements)
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (presumption of vindictiveness when increased sentence follows retrial)
- Northern Illinois Home Builders Ass’n v. County of Du Page, 165 Ill. 2d 25 (forfeiture/appeal-surcharge claims analyzed under equal protection/uniformity rather than due process)
- Ferris, Thompson & Zweig, Ltd. v. Esposito, 2017 IL 121297 (standard for section 2-615 dismissal)
- Schweihs v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 2016 IL 120041 (de novo review and pleading-acceptance standard)
- People v. Lewis, 88 Ill. 2d 129 (prosecutorial plea-offer pressure does not automatically equal unconstitutional vindictiveness)