Lloyd James Brooks

Name: Lloyd James Brooks

Age (as of Election Day): 49

Current residence: Homewood

Current position: Cook County circuit judge, appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court in December 2018

Past legal experience: Co-founder, Consumer Legal Group P.C., 2013-18; owner, The Brooks Law Firm, 2004-13; associate, Lord Bissell & Brook, 2002-04; associate, Zevnik Horton, 2000-02

Campaign funds available, July 1 to Dec. 31: $95,687.11

Campaign funds spent, July 1 to Dec. 31: $62,380.66

Law school, year graduated: Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, 2000

Campaign website: vote4judgebrooks.com

Hobbies/Interests: Seeing movies with family

Family: Married with two children

Have you ever run for office before?

No, not for elected office. I previously attempted to become an associate judge. Associate judges are appointed by the current sitting circuit judges, and I made the finalist list for that twice. But I was not appointed in either of those attempts.

Why should voters support your candidacy?

I think that I am the most qualified person for the race that I’m running, both by years of experience, and the type of experience, not even including the fact that I’m now actually currently doing the job.

I believe that gives me an edge. The kind of experience I have — I was a mortgage foreclosure defense attorney before I was appointed to the bench — it’s the kind of experience that neither of my opponents can claim they have.

I took cases on appeal both on the federal and state levels. And now I’m doing the job of a judge, so I think that’s certainly experience neither of my opponents can offer.

About the only experience I suppose they may be able to argue is that they have probably handled some jury trials. However, jury trials, I think that’s something attorneys often tout as a measure, but I think it’s often not a complete measure because most cases never go to trial — to argue an attorney is ready to become a judge just because they’ve handled some jury trials is kind of shortsighted.

The second thing I’d add: A lot of people can’t afford an attorney. I have a much better understanding of how the everyday person views court, and I believe because of that I bring a certain amount of compassion to the bench that is sorely needed by most people that show up to court.

Nowadays, a problem is so many people come to court without representation by an attorney. In a civil context, I believe 60% to 65% of people show up unrepresented, so the judge is the only thing standing between the self-represented person and the attorney on the other side. I think it does take a judge with a certain amount of compassion and ability to be able to guide those people through the court system and take care of them, to make sure equal justice is being done.

Why do you want to be a judge?

I believe that we need to make sure that we have people who are going to be humble, who are going to be compassionate, because so many people appear in our courts that are unrepresented. I believe I bring that to the table.

I think another thing that is sorely needed, and why I want to continue to be a circuit court judge, is the need for diversity. As judges, we’re required to uphold the Constitution, as well as the canons of judicial ethics here in Illinois. And both of them have as part of them the promise of an impartial judge, one who is going to apply equal justice for all that appear in the courthouse.

There are a number of communities which don’t feel like the justice system is just to them. And one of the problems the courthouse suffers from is too many of the judges in the courthouse are of a certain race and a certain gender. As a result, it gives the appearance that our justice system is only for people of a certain race and possibly a certain gender.

So diversity is important to give our communities the appearance of applying justice impartially. You’re much more likely to believe that judge is listening to you and treating you fairly. I’ve handled a number of cases where the person in front of me lost. Whether it was a motion or judgment entered against them or something, and have them thanking me, and I know that has to do with the fact that they know I listened to them and treated them fairly, and I know that’s really important.

What was the most interesting case you handled as a lawyer?

I handled a number of cases that I thought were interesting. I probably bore my wife to death when I come home every day and tell my wife, “Hey honey, you need to listen to what happened today.”

I represented a number of homeowners, mostly in mortgage foreclosure defense. But there was one case in particular I recall where my client had gotten a loan from a mortgage company, bought or sold a couple times, problems with the loan documentation, such that the loan gave my client the right to undo the loan, and she was being foreclosed on by one of the banks. So she hired me. One of my defenses was she had the right to undo the loan.

They refused to come to court. I was able to prove-up my case in front of the judge, who gave me judgments against two separate banks. I had the sheriff of Cook County go out and close the branches.

One of the banks immediately came into court. The second bank apparently didn’t get wind of it, and the sheriff threatened to chain the bank branch doors closed, because the branch manager wasn’t going to cooperate.

Ultimately, he allowed the sheriff to inventory everything in the bank branch. Needless to say, that bank retained an attorney and showed up to court the very next day with a check.

The court had ordered we were going to sell all office equipment. It wasn’t a mom-and-pop operation, either. The client actually was able to turn the tables on the bank. Instead of the bank taking the property from her, she was going to be the one selling off the bank property.

What would you consider your greatest career accomplishment?

Probably bringing some more order to the way foreclosures were done. When I first started doing foreclosures in 2004 or 2005, the foreclosure crisis hadn’t made national headlines. It was on its way. I described foreclosure courtrooms as the Wild West at that time. In my opinion, the rules weren’t being properly applied in those cases, not by banks, not by attorneys, not by, unfortunately, the judges.

When I started doing those cases, I literally started bringing the rule book to the courtroom.

Literally by just following the law, I was able to save houses, because the banks had to start following the rules. To try and bring a button to it, ultimately what began to happen was not only were the rules starting to be applied, but the appellate court started reversing some decisions that applied the law improperly. So it started changing the ways banks would bring foreclosures, because they had to start making sure they were dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s.

In addition, I would sue the banks, bring counterclaims based upon their failure to follow federal rules, and I was winning those cases. Because of some of those cases I was involved in, it started changing the practices of many of the banks, because they had to make sure their paperwork was in order.

So, I think my greatest accomplishment, would be, at least here in the state of Illinois … changing the way banks and their attorneys operated.

What qualities do you bring to the bench?

I think the No. 1 thing, in addition to the things already mentioned, is being prepared. When I practiced as an attorney, one of the fears always was, you had the perfect motion, or this great case, that went down the tubes because the judge didn’t understand what was happening and made a bad ruling. All because they weren’t prepared, either because they didn’t understand the substantive law or didn’t read the briefs.

I really pride myself on being prepared now as a judge, if attorneys provide courtesy copies, then I’ve read them. I may have done my own legal research if there’s a topic I wanted to check on.

When I sit on the bench, the parties can be sure I’ve listened to them and I’ve read all the materials.

And I’ve already talked about bringing some compassion to the bench. And when a ruling comes down, I’ve explained them to the litigants, so when they leave, they don’t just say, “I won the lawsuit.” They know why they’ve won a lawsuit.