The case of Jane Doe vs. John Doe, filed 17 months ago in Cook County Circuit Court, has been as mysterious as its title.
The plaintiff’s name is supposed to be a secret.
The defendant’s name is supposed to be a secret.
Even the allegations–just what John Doe is accused of doing to Jane Doe–are supposed to be a secret, since a judge sealed the court file last month.
Wrapped in the mystery is a lawsuit that has mutated from an allegation of sexual misconduct into a battle royal that pits the ideal of an open court system against the possibility of being unfairly smeared in public.
In a legal battle that joins some of the state’s marquee lawyers, the issue of whether the defendant’s real name can be used in the lawsuit has been wending its way through the Illinois courts. But in an ironic twist, the court’s file, when it was open, offered enough clues to reveal the secrets that John Doe is fighting to keep.
John Doe is Al Hofeld, a former candidate for the U.S. Senate and one of the state’s most prominent lawyers.
Jane Doe is Valerie Reznik, Hofeld’s 19-year-old niece.
The suit alleges that John Doe sexually molested Jane Doe for several years while she was growing up, a charge John Doe’s lawyers vehemently deny. They brand the plaintiff’s attempts to publicly reveal his name blackmail, saying it is ploy to leverage a hefty monetary settlement.
Up to now, Hofeld has managed to do what Cardinal Joseph Bernardin and Michael Jackson could not. Three years ago, both men were sued for alleged sexual molestation. The suit against Bernardin was dropped, the one against Jackson settled. Sill, neither escaped the publicity that comes with being accused of one of society’s most sordid crimes.
With more and more allegations of sexual misconduct ending up in court, the risk of “defamation by litigation” is a “terrible problem,” said Richard Epstein, a University of Chicago law professor.
“If you name somebody who’s not guilty, it’s horrible,” said Epstein, adding that nonetheless, he believes names should usually be used in lawsuits.
Hofeld, who spent $4.8 million during his 1992 Senate campaign to plant his name firmly in the public’s consciousness, has so far been able to keep his name out of this public record. His niece, meanwhile, has been fighting to have not only her uncle’s name used in court records, but her own name as well.
Last month, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed a lower court’s order that kept the names a secret. But the defense plans to appeal, which keeps the identities officially shielded for the time being.
Despite the court order requiring pseudonyms, the Circuit Court didn’t conceal Jane Doe’s identity. A clerk misunderstood a judge’s order and typed Reznik’s name into the court computer’s public index of cases, said a spokeswoman for Cook County Circuit Court Clerk Aurelia Pucinski.
Reznik’s name, when linked with details provided in the court file and other public documents such as marriage licenses and a will, helps draw a family tree in which John Doe can only be Al Hofeld. Court documents describe John Doe as a “well-known trail attorney” and former business associate of Philip Corboy Sr., the lawyer for John Doe. Hofeld previously worked in Corboy’s firm.
So far, the lawsuit’s secrecy has generated more legal wrangling that its allegations.
The suit and other court documents filed by Jane Doe charge that, when she was between 10 and 16, her uncle fondled her and placed her hand on his genitals. The alleged molestation occurred mostly in the uncle’s residence while the niece was babysitting for a younger cousin, the niece’s attorney said.
The court papers don’t state how many times the uncle allegedly molested her. There were no witnesses, according to court filing, though the niece claims to have referred to the alleged molestation in diaries and poems and to have discussed it with at least two friends during the period she said it occurred.
Both sides say the Cook County state’s attorney’s office has investigated the allegations and decided not to prosecute. The state’s attorney’s office declined to comment. Generally, sexual-molestation charges that set one person’s word against another’s are among the most difficult to prove.
The John Doe case has swept up a who’s who of the Illinois bar. Hofeld, 59, is a former president of the Illinois State Bar Association. In 1992, he was an unsuccessful candidate in the three-way race for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate. to year later, he lost his big to become Illinois attorney general to Republican Jim Ryan. Hofeld is now in private practice.
John Doe’s attorney for the civil suit is the legendary Corboy, long recognized as one of the country’s premier personal-injury lawyers. Representing John Doe on potential criminal charges is William Kunkle Jr., who prosecuted serial killer John Wayne Gacy and once was chairman of the Illinois Gaming Board.
Meanwhile, Jane Doe’s lawyers include Susan Loggans, a personal-injury lawyer who once had a nationally syndicated radio show and has a long list of cases in which her clients have recovered more than $1 million. Like Hofeld, Loggans once worked in Corboy’s firm.
Hofeld did not respond to repeated request for interviews. Reznik, when reached, declined to comment about the lawsuit. Neither Loggans nor Corboy would confirm the parties’ identities, citing the court order.
Loggans said she contacted Cook County State’s Atty. Jack O’Malley in January 1995 to alert him to Jane Doe’s allegations. Then, in March 1995, Jane Doe filed suit–but in a rather unusual way.
Customarily, when people file suit they name the individual they are suing. But when the niece sued, she not only identified herself as Jane Doe, she called the defendant John Doe.
Jane Doe’s attorneys say they used pseudonyms at the defense’s request. At the time, Loggans said, the two sides were close to completing a settlement agreement. But the day before the lawsuit was filed. Loggans said, the defense reneged on a $4 million offer.
Corboy said he doesn’t know about any settlement offer because he wasn’t John Doe’s lawyer at the time. According to Loggans, Doe’s lawyer during those negotiations was Doe’s law partner. Hofeld’s law partner, Howard Schaffner, did not return calls seeking comment.
Loggans said she believed John Doe would change his mind and settle, so she filed suit using the pseudonyms in order to spare him embarrassment. But in the case didn’t settle, she wanted to file the suit before the state’s new tort-reform law took effect. Among other things, that law placed a $500,000 cap on so-called non-economic damages, such as pain an suffering.
Corboy said that soon after the lawsuit was field, Jane Doe threatened to substitute real names for the pseudonyms if her uncle didn’t settle quickly. John Doe’s lawyers said they considered the threat blackmail and got Circuit Court Judge Michael J. Hogan to bar the niece from using the names. The niece appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, which overturned Hogan’s order on July 31.
Hogan’s law clerk said the judge declined to comment because the lawsuit is still pending before him. As for the issue of pseudonyms, Corboy filed papers last week indicating the defense plans to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Typically, participants in the legal system cannot treat the courtroom as a masquerade ball, lowering their masks and revealing their faces only when it suits them. Anonymity, when granted, has been reserved for minors or adults litigating highly personal matters, such as abortion, adoption, sexual orientation and religion.
Examples include the Jane Roe lawsuit that shaped the nations’s abortion laws and the Baby Richard case, which helped change Illinois’ adoption laws.
At the heart, of Jane Doe vs. John Doe is a 9-year-old Illinois law that allows civil suits to be filed under a pseudonym if a judge find “good cause.”
The assumption behind the law is that it would apply to plaintiffs. John Doe’s lawyers argue that defendants, or at least their defendant, should be allowed to claim the same right to privacy.
Corboy said that even if the allegations contained in the suit are proved baseless, such a public accusation could destroy the uncle’s reputation and hurt his family. “It would be hard to imagine allegations which would raise more of a social stigma …,” Corboy argued in his brief before the appeals court.
In an interview, Corboy questioned what purpose would be served by naming the parties before a judge or jury has determined the allegations are valid. “What will it do for society?” he asked. “What will it do for the administration of justice?”
Ruling on this issue for the first time, the appeals court rejected Corboy’s arguments that John Doe was entitled to special protection.`
“It seems to this court that any doctor sued for medical malpractice, any lawyer sued for legal malpractice, or any individual sued for sexual molestation can assert that the plaintiff’s allegations will cause harm to his reputation, embarrassment and stress among his family members, and damage to his business as a result of the litigation,” the court wrote.
The court also noted the parallels between John Doe’s arguments and those offered by a New Jersey minister who was accused by two adults of molesting them when they were minors. Earlier this year a New Jersey appeals court rejected the minister’s request that the lawsuit proceed secretly, citing several problems that could arise.
The court listed different judicial proceedings that could be hampered by concealing the participants’ identities. How, for example, could a jury be impaneled without knowing whether potential jurors had a conflict with either party?
The New Jersey court also expressed concern that the minister, identified only as J.C., might have violated criminal laws or professional ethics. Besides, the court wrote, naming the minister would eliminate the possibility that other ministers might wrongly be suspected of being the defendant.
In general, courts have long been reluctant to use pseudonyms, believing the legal system should remain an open forum to minimize the chance or even appearance of impropriety. And even the trail judge who initially granted the non-disclosure order in the he John Doe case questioned how a trial could be conducted without the parties’ real names being used.
Though Corboy plans to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, many legal experts believe the decision should stand. “It’s a long overdue recognition of the right of the public to information about court proceedings,” said John Elson, law professor at Northwestern University.
Praise for the opinion even came from Chicago attorney James Serritella, who defended Bernardin against the allegations of sexual abuse. In that case, the accusations were covered at length in the press, but, so, too was their ultimate withdrawal.
“The bottom line is it’s probably better to have all the facts out there and let the press report freely,” Serritella said. “People will be convicted or vindicate in the broad light of day.”
FOLLOWING THE LAWSUIT THROUGH THE COURTS
Cook County Circuit Court
MARCH 3, 1995: A lawsuit, titled Jane Doe vs. John Doe, is filed in Cook County Circuit Court by Valerie Reznik. The lawsuit alleges sexual misconduct by her uncle.
MARCH 7, 1995: The defense asks Circuit Court Judge Michael Hogan to keep John Doe’s real name from being used. Hogan issue an order doing so.
MARCH 10, 1995: Hogan denies a motion by Jane Doe asking him to change his mind.
MAY 5, 1995: Hogan denies another motion by Jane Doe asking that her own name be used in the lawsuit.
Illinois Appellate Court
JUNE 2, 1995: Jane Doe appeals.
JUNE 31, 1996: The Illinois Appellate Court reverse Hogan’s order, allowing the real names to be used in the lawsuit. As a matter or procedure, Hogan’s order remains in effect to give the defense an opportunity to appeal.
AUG. 13, 1996: The defense files papers indicating that it plans to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Chicago Tribune
