Lawyer-podcasters are notorious media whores in the figurative sense. Some, such as our Publisher‘s CEO, receive great accolades in the national press and establish dominance over vanquished rivals. Others seek fame and fortune by attacking the powerful.

Wait, scratch that.

Lawyers have a very, very hard time going after the court systems that rule over them. The ethical rules for attorneys often bar it. But that’s a question for our sister site, ALABnews, the largest attorney misconduct news service in the country.

Here at AbusiveDiscretion, the largest judicial misconduct news service in the country, we cover Pat Eckler asking whether it is appropriate for the Illinois Supreme Court to laud its own rulings in press releases?

Eckler is one-half of the leading Illinois-focused Podium and Panel Podcast with fellow attorney Dan Cotter.

Eckler, practiced defense counsel, knows better than to openly criticize the Illinois Supreme Court. Rather, like a student of Socrates, he asks the question:

“Is it appropriate for the Illinois Supreme Court to support a public policy?”

Apparently, the Illinois Supreme Court thinks so, as posted on its LinkedIn page.


Eckler further lists statements that suggest he might have an answer to his probing question, but without directly criticizing his Illinois overlords supervisors.

AbusiveDiscretion‘s crack team of researcher(s?) have thoroughly checked the California Supreme Court’s LinkedIn page (the only state judicial system with better-compensated judges than Illinois): no posts; the Missouri Supreme Court’s LinkedIn page (a sane state): its historical society does not even have a claimed LinkedIn page; and the United States Supreme Court (for those outside of the Illinois judiciary who believe Illinois has a master): no posts.

[***Anonymous Opinion Writer’s Note: The choice of states being coterminous with the licenses of our Publisher’s CEO should not indicate that this post was written by a licensed attorney risking his/her license in any way by potentially criticizing the state of Illinois where he/she is licensed. He/She has in fact, written suggested advertisements for the state of Illinois himself about advertising its judiciary’s unique approach to fundamental rights.]

Illinois started with 5,855 followers at the time of Eckler’s post. Clearly motivated by the competition to his Podcast for Illinois viewers, his thinly-veiled annoyance with the competition for Illinois eyeballs does not comport with his cool-as-a-cucumber on-air personality, buttressed by funny-man Cotter.

Sadly, the Illinois Supreme Court’s attention-seeking gambit to profit off its own rulings worked. As of now, it has climbed to 5,862 followers. AbusiveDiscretion is not prepared to say whether the dam-break resulted from the self-back-patting of the Illinois Supreme Court, or the Streisand Effect from Eckler’s inquisition.

Although it hardly matters. The Illinois Supreme Court’s media success was almost guaranteed when it sought coverage by having indicted former Alderman Ed Burke‘s wife sit as its Chief Justice. Out of respect for the Hon. Anne Burke (Ret.), the feds did not deem her “thoroughly corrupt.” According one of attorney* Barry Zuckerkorn’s clients, the feds “cannot arrest a husband and wife for the same crime.”

[*Editor’s Note: He’s very good.]

Her recent departure from the court (we hate to see the good ones go) created a conundrum for the Illinois Supreme Court to retain viewer eyeballs. With the Court’s new PR strategy the embittered podcaster identified, it can now create its even-better-than-the-epitome-of-corruption news and photo opps from meaty decisions on what it determines the law is. As Eckler notes, now it promotes the state as the first in the nation to remove cash bail – a policy Eckler views as being in the purview of the legislature.

In any event, Eckler’s inadvertent promotion of Illinois’ publicity strategy could never stop the Court’s PR momentum. Illinois was already ahead of SCOTUS in Linkedin followers. SCOTUS has recently penned decisions on gun rights, gay marriage, abortion, and immigration of passing interest to some Americans.

But AbusiveDiscretion is going to keep following this story in this eyeball-competition attention triangle.

We have long heard rumour (again, the British education of our Publisher’s CEO and this odd spelling of “rumor” should alert you to nothing) of a SCOTUS PR Department’s unreleased musings. We think SCOTUS has the heft to make decisions and promote themselves to climb back in front of the purportedly Burke-less Illinois Judiciary.

We will follow up with what we discover when our inbox is inundated from licensed attorney(s?) speaking anonymously and published by someone’s child who wants his allowance.