Hook v. McDade

Attorney George Hook (plaintiff) defended Wittek Industries and its owner, Carmen Viana, against an employee’s civil lawsuit. The company’s defense costs were paid by an insurance company. After Hook and the insurance company disagreed about Hook’s legal fees, Hook withdrew as counsel. The insurance company initially replaced Hook with attorney Mary McDade, who allegedly commented that the timing of Hook’s withdrawal might be legal malpractice. Shortly after that, Mary withdrew as counsel for Viana. A month later, Hook and Viana were indicted on criminal charges for embezzling funds from Wittek’s employee pension plan. Viana fled to Brazil. Hook’s case proceeded before Judge Joe McDade (defendant), Mary’s husband. The judge ruled against Hook on several early matters. Hook then filed a motion seeking to disqualify the judge or to have the judge recuse himself. This motion claimed there was an appearance that the judge had been improperly influenced by his wife’s (1) previous civil representation of Viana, who was now Hook’s codefendant in the criminal matter, and (2) comment that Hook had possibly committed malpractice in that other matter. Hook argued that the judge’s rulings against Hook were proof of a personal bias against Hook. On the record, the judge said Hook’s recusal motion was an attack on his integrity and that he was offended. The judge denied the disqualification motion. Weeks later, the day before trial, Hook petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the judge to recuse himself from hearing Hook’s criminal charges.