Cook County judges have been quietly handing some of the county's most sensitive criminal cases to outside lawyers, and the bills are piling up. Those fees, paid by taxpayers, are sparking pointed questions about who is watching the money and how conflicts of interest are handled.
According to the Chicago Tribune, court-appointed special prosecutors billed more than $773,000 for a cluster of post-conviction cases between 2024 and 2025. The Tribune's review of handwritten court orders, payment entries and case dockets shows judges repeatedly calling in private lawyers when the State's Attorney's Office was recused or otherwise sidelined.
Public records back that up. County and court payment logs, including board minutes and finance committee agendas, list court-ordered payouts tagged "In re Special Prosecutor" and show six-figure or multi-part payments to firms such as McCarthy & Valentini. Those line items appear in the official Cook County Board record and in court attachments as routine entries in special-court orders, as documented in Cook County Board records.
Defense attorneys and advocates say the pattern looks like "prosecutor shopping": judges rotate in private lawyers on controversial matters with little public explanation, while billing details stay murky enough to frustrate real oversight. On the other side, special prosecutors and some judges argue that outside counsel only come in when the elected State's Attorney is recused or unavailable, and that certain cases demand their particular expertise. Local reporting on those appointments, and the fights swirling around them, has amplified both narratives. The TRiiBE has highlighted similar disputes in the post-conviction review world.
How appointments are supposed to work
On paper, the rules are tighter than the current practice critics describe. Illinois law lets a court appoint a special prosecutor only after it finds that the State's Attorney has an "actual conflict of interest." Judges are instructed to look first to other public agencies or state prosecutors before reaching for private lawyers. The statute also says pay must be reasonable for the actual time spent and that any appointment should be no broader than what the individual case requires. The controlling language sits in 55 ILCS 5/3-9008.
Court fights and precedent
Judges do not all read that "actual conflict" standard the same way. Judicial opinions and court filings show a split over how strictly to apply it, a debate that has already made its way to the Illinois Supreme Court. In the Abdul Malik Muhammad matter and related cases, the key question is whether past supervisory relationships or employment histories are enough to knock a prosecutor out of a case. The arguments laid out in Illinois Supreme Court filings and coverage from Bloomberg Law sketch the narrow legal path judges are trying to walk.
Judge Jessica Colon-Sayre, who has handled some of the related motions, labeled the proceedings "messy" in court filings. The chief judge's office has told reporters that the issue is under review by new court leadership, according to the Tribune's reporting.
Defense lawyers say they intend to keep pressing judges to spell out, in public, why they are bringing in special prosecutors and to insist on tighter tracking of what those lawyers are paid. Reporters and watchdog groups point out that the county's finance records and court dockets are still the best way to follow the money and see which lawyers are landing these assignments. Public-records requests and coverage by The TRiiBE have become key tools in that effort.
Legal implications
The tug-of-war between the statute, case law and individual judges' calls has put Illinois courts in the role of balancing impartial prosecutions, defendants' rights and county budgets at the same time. A broad reading of "actual conflict" would likely mean more special prosecutor appointments and more outside fees. A narrow reading would keep more cases, including some involving police misconduct, with the elected State's Attorney or other public agencies. For now, The Counties Code and the Muhammad case record remain the touchstones for how that balance is being set and where it might go next.
