City lawyers have fired back against what they deem “thinly veiled accusations of racism” leveled against them by Inspector General Deborah Witzburg, highlighting the growing fault line between Mayor Brandon Johnson’s administration and Chicago’s chief government watchdog.
Witzburg’s office on Wednesday publicly aired concerns that it shared in February with Corporation Counsel Mary Richardson-Lowry, over the Law Department’s motion to recuse the Black judge overseeing federal lawsuits brought by two Black men in notorious alleged cases of Chicago police torture.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings last year declined to step down from the cases of James Gibson and Robert Smith Jr., who claim detectives led by infamous ex-Chicago police Cmdr. Jon Burge coerced them into false confessions.
City lawyers argued Cummings should have backed away from the case because he signed a 2007 report alongside 200 fellow attorneys and activists calling for further investigation of police torture in Chicago.
“The City did not, however, seek recusal of the white Magistrate Judge assigned to the matters, Judge M. David Weisman, even though Judge Weisman had prosecuted Burge for perjury related to his unit’s misconduct when Judge Weisman was an Assistant United States Attorney,” Witzburg wrote in a Feb. 5 letter to Richardson-Lowry.
The inspector also questioned the city spending “over $30,000 for outside counsel to pursue the two recusal motions that were ultimately fruitless and that raised concerning questions about the equity of the City’s position.”
Witzburg called for “an explanation for its course of action in these matters, which involved a significant use of City resources and concern matters of significant public interest.”
City lawyers slammed Witzburg’s observations in an April 4 response.
“Without any regard for the facts or the law, you make thinly veiled accusations of racism and question our professional responsibility and legal judgment. Whether your letter reflects a lack of investigation or the deliberate omission of facts that do not support your narrative, the insinuations in your letter are irresponsible,” the unsigned response said.
The Law Department’s response noted Cummings’ statement in court that city lawyers “had a perfect right to file that motion [for recusal] … They raised a lot of issues. And I think they had a right to.”
Cummings’ stayed on the case because he “had no role in researching, writing, editing, or producing” the 2007 report, he wrote.
City lawyers said they didn’t request Weisman’s recusal because his role “was limited and not remotely comparable to the role of Judge Cummings.”
Law Department leaders called it “disturbing that you [Witzburg] see fit to casually imply racist motives without any regard for the record of professionalism and integrity of the attorneys involved — both within the Department of Law and at outside firms.”
Through a spokesperson, Richardson-Lowry on Wednesday said Witzburg’s advisory “omits critical facts” and “disregards the judge’s own assessment of what is otherwise a standard proceeding.”
“The Department of Law remains committed to representing the City zealously and responsibly — as it is the taxpayers who ultimately bear the cost of any settlement or judgment,” the corporation counsel said.
In an interview Wednesday, Witzburg said she wasn’t accusing city lawyers of racism. Rather, she called for greater transparency in how the city handles “the specter of Jon Burge cases that continue to loom very, very large over the city and its efforts to foster trust in police.”
“The legacy of these cases is enormous,” Witzburg said. “We didn’t make any findings that these decisions were wrong, but transparency is a critical part of our mandate. Governments have to answer to the governed.”
It’s the latest dustup in recent months between Witzburg and the Johnson administration, which could name a new watchdog when Witzburg’s four-year term is up next year.
Witzburg has called out the mayor and his predecessor for withholding documents, selectively enforcing subpoenas and demanding to have the Law Department sit in on interviews that “risk embarrassment” to the fifth floor of City Hall.
She’s at loggerheads with the Law Department over a proposed ordinance to remove those impediments to internal investigations — which Richardson-Lowry has contended would “dismantle guardrails so that the person charged with looking at fraud, waste and abuse would become an abuser.”
Witzburg also prodded Johnson’s office to pull back the curtain on the City Hall “gift closet” that had previously been closed to outside observers.
“The Law Department is just like all the other city departments subject to our oversight,” she said. “We find ways to work in very positive and productive ways with many of those departments, and I look forward to finding that way forward here.”