Jim Ryan
Illinois Attorney General
Due to the fact that DuPage States Attorney Joseph E. Birkett stated that he had a conflict of interest in representing Carrie Gammell Ekl, his client, in relation to Terry Ekl, the matter of Carrie Gammell Ekl v. Terry Ekl was transferred to Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan for prosecution.

We find it extremely interesting that Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan also claimed a conflict of interest in representing Carrie Gammell Ekl in collecting child support payments from her husband, Terry Ekl. Document no. 1; Document no. 2. It is the duty of the State to collect child support payments, yet in this case, both States Attorney Joseph E. Birkett and Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan placed personal relationship ahead of their legal duties.

Attorney General Jim Ryan has stated that he will "put children and families first" (Chicago Tribune, January 14, 2002, Section 2, pg 1), but in reality he has placed attorney Terry Ekl before Ekl's child and Ekl's wife. As an attorney, Jim Ryan has engaged in an act of fraud.

How does one get their legal rights when both the States Attorney and the Illinois Attorney General find excuses for their failure to support the law?

Why was this not transferred to a Special Assistant Attorney General as Jim Ryan's office stated was to be the intent of his office? Was it to cover up the conflict of interest?


In  People v. Ronald Barrow, 195 Ill.2d 506 (2001), the Illinois Supreme Court stated in response to the Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan's failure to file a legal brief in that case:
  "During the course of these proceedings, this court granted the State
 numerous extensions of time in which to file its brief. On October 29,
 1998, this court granted the State's sixth request, extending the filing
 date until December 17, 1998. That order read, "Final extension. This
 case will be submitted without the brief of appellee if it is not timely
 filed." On December 23, 1998, the State sought leave to file its brief
 instanter This court denied the motion and later denied the State's
 motions for reconsideration. Thus, we address the defendant's appeal
 without a brief from the State."
This was a murder case. Why did the Attorney General not file a legal brief in this case?

In another case, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the Illinois Attorney General had misrepesentations in its conduct before the court.

      "It is difficult to believe that this misrepresentation by the
      state, which goes to the heart of Carr's case on the merits, is
      innocent. We shall therefore issue to the attorney general's office
      a rule to show cause why the authors of the brief should not be
      sanctioned for unethical advocacy. This is especially needful in
      light of the repeated criticisms of this office that we have made
      in other cases. See, e.g., Acorn v. Edgar, 99 F.3d 261, 262 (7th
      Cir. 1996); Cooper v. Casey, 97 F.3d 914, 918 (7th Cir. 1996)
      ("the problem of inadequate representation of the State of Illinois
      and its agencies and employees is an old one to which we have
      frequently drawn attention though as yet without effect"), and
      cases cited there; Anderson v. Romero, 42 F.3d 1121, 1123
      (7th Cir. 1994)."


See also an article published in the Chicago Tribune, March 11, 1999, titled "Judges Rip State's Top Legal Office".

If you have additional information about the misconduct of Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan,
please contact Citizens. 
Copyright© 2002 by Citizens for Legal Responsibility®.
                   All rights reserved.

     email: clr@clr.org

          Go to Home Page

Created January 27, 2002

Last updated February 15, 2002