An ethics complaint has been filed with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) against Illinois Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Rochford, accusing her of making a false statement to evade service of a court summons.Â
The complaint, submitted on January 30, 2026, by Edward “Coach” Weinhaus, stems from a Cook County Circuit Court case alleging due process violations by a lower court judge and the Illinois Judges Association (IJA).
According to the ARDC filing, process server Darryl Ellis swears Rochford answered her door at her Lake Forest home on January 28, 2026, when he attempted to deliver a summons package with discovery requests. Ellis, authorized by Legal Document Management, Inc., explained the court-issued document. Rochford allegedly responded, “I’m not home,” before closing the door. The ARDC complaint states this was a deliberate falsehood intended to impede a judicial proceeding presided over by the Hon. Caroline Kate Moreland of the Cook County Circuit Court, violating attorney duties on honesty, particularly as to the integrity of judges.
The discovery summons relates to Case No. 2025CH10526, Weinhaus v. Scannicchio et al., a verified complaint filed in October 2025 seeking damages for alleged constitutional violations. In the suit, Weinhaus accuses the IJA, a Business League under the IRS Code, of ruling on member-related cases to help their members rather than offering litigants due process through a disinterested judiciary. Rochford is named as one of 12 respondents in discovery, not a defendant, in the complaint due to her relationship with the IJA, to provide information potentially linked to a RICO investigation by Weinhaus’ attorney, Adam Florek.
An affidavit from Ellis details the encounter, noting Rochford was visibly home and matched a description of a Caucasian female in her mid-50s. It states she waved her hand, said she was not home, and walked away.Â
Following her attempt to avoid service, Rochford reportedly involved the U.S. Marshals Service later the same day. It is unclear why Justice Rochford did so, as the papers had been left at her door and there was no indication of a security threat from Ellis or Weinhaus.
Above: Affidavit documenting service of a summons. Â
The ARDC complaint emphasizes a quirk of the unified Illinois court system under Article VI of its constitution: “Justice Rochford lied. And because she effectively lied to someone acting on behalf of an Illinois Court under her supervision, she is lying to herself.”Â
Weinhaus references another ARDC matter involving Weinhaus (2025PR00026) and urges equal if not greater scrutiny, because the matter in which he was named involves no active case. Justice Rochford’s case to the contrary is under the purview of Judge Moreland, whom Justice Rochford technically oversees based on her position on the Illinois Supreme Court.
The US Supreme Court has forbidden state disciplinary bodies like the ARDC from limiting attorney speech about judges outside of active court cases since 1959 in a case involving a Hawaii attorney (In re Sawyer, 360 U.S. 622 (1959)).
Rochford, a justice since 2022, has not publicly responded. Her Supreme Court profile states that she is the “First Vice President” of the IJA, the Business League of Judges at the heart of Florek’s RICO investigation. The IJA lists her as President.Â
She is no stranger to political controversy. Just after she became an Illinois Supreme Court Justice, she headlined Lake County Democratic Women’s annual fundraising gala, with commentators calling into question her ethics for doing so. Her speech followed The Center Square’s reporting on the Judicial Inquiry Board’s decision not to discipline Justice Rochford after complaints surfaced of her refusal to recuse herself on gun legislation after acceptance of $1m from Gov. JB Pritzker.
Rochford’s decision to tell a process server that she was not at home while standing in her front doorway and then instead having the Marshals get involved could also lead to questions about her fitness to serve on the judiciary. No such complaints have been reported. The ARDC’s investigation is limited to her duties as a licensed attorney. The ARDC confirmed receipt of the complaint and will review it per standard procedures.
