The Illinois Supreme Court has created a Committee on Equality, with six subcommittees, for the purpose of “bringing equality and facilitating trust in the court system.” While it’s unclear why there is a need for such a committee at all, given that Equal Protection is a constitutional mandate, and that the word “equality” has fallen out of fashion in favor of “equity,” which allows for the currently preferred outcomes without regard to principle, the goal can’t be faulted. After all, who would be against “bringing equality and facilitating trust in the court system”?

But one of the subcommittees raises some peculiar problems: Pronoun and Preferred Name Usage. Granted, the subcommittee has yet to offer up a report, and it could well be that the final report of the subcommittee could be thoughtful and benign. But when a committee is formed for the purpose of pursuing such a novel cause, the likelihood is that the committee will take its charge seriously, no matter how controversial or dubious its proposition, and create a protocol that embeds its purpose in law or procedure. If there is a subcommittee on pronouns and preferred name usage, it’s unlikely to conclude that this is all nonsense.

In Illinois, the discussion comes at a historic moment. In 2020, Cook County Judge Jill Rose Quinn made history when elected as the state’s first openly transgender circuit court judge and the first openly transgender elected official in Illinois. Quinn also was just the fourth openly transgender judge in U.S. history.

If Judge Quinn presents as a woman and goes by the name “Jill Rose,” is there really a need for a subcommittee for formalize that the judge should be called “Jill Rose” and feminine pronouns should be used? Then again, judges are typically referred to as “your honor” or “the court,” and most people aren’t foolish enough to deliberately antagonize the person who will be making critical decisions about their case.

But this really isn’t about Judge Quinn, whether the first openly transgender judge or not. It’s about dictating to judges and lawyers what words they will be allowed to utter if they want to remain judges and lawyers in Illinois.

They point to Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4, which declares it to be professional misconduct for lawyers in Illinois to “violate a federal, state or local statute or ordinance including, but not limited to, the Illinois Human Rights Act that prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status by conduct that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer…”

That rule itself became effective in January 2023. It was rewritten in May 2022, a month after McHenry attorney Sheryl Ring, who is transgender, won a declaration from a court declaring Illinois was discriminating against transgender individuals by not having ethics rules in place specifically banning discrimination based on gender identity.

Ring specifically cited to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v Clayton County, which held that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination also extended to transgender and gay workers.

Putting aside that this is a common misstatement of the Bostock holding, it’s one thing to hold that discrimination against transgender lawyers is unlawful and another to mandate ethics rules that compel speech centered around gender identity.

Deanie Brown, chief diversity and inclusion officer for the Illinois Supreme Court, said the lawyers who violate the revised rule could be accused of “professional misconduct and they would face the consequences of those actions.”

“The Illinois Supreme Court is committed to diversity and inclusion throughout our court system,” Brown said.

What else would a “chief diversity and inclusion officer for the Illinois Supreme Court” be expected to say? This means lawyers must comply with progressive speech codes or risk discipline, possibly disbarment for using the wrong pronoun.

It’s quite possible that the subcommittee will conclude that people should be called by their legal names, meaning that if a transgender person has officially changed his or her name from one sex to another, then that’s the name by which they must be called. It’s possible that the subcommittee will conclude that lawyers and judges should use the pronoun reflected by the person’s presentation. If the litigant presents as female, then feminine pronouns should be used without regard to their genitals or DNA.

While it could well be argued that the zeal to accommodate diversity and inclusion comes at the expense of First Amendment rights to use whatever words the speaker chooses, based upon whatever view of the issue the speaker holds, there is an argument to be made the it reflects poorly on the legal system to needlessly offend litigants when they can be easily accommodated.

But the subcommittee could go farther or in a different direction. What if litigants demand that odd or confusing pronouns be used? What if they demand the use of plural pronouns which wreaks havoc with cogent opinions? What if they change their pronouns monthly, weekly, daily? What if they present as a different gender each time they appear in court? What if they aren’t constrained by legal names, but can pluck any name they want out of the air? How would they be identifiable. What if they change their names as frequently as their pronouns? If everything is fluid, why shouldn’t a person be entitled to morph at will?

Aside from the potential for havoc in the courtroom, bear in mind that the rule would come at the peril of lawyers and judges, who will be exposed to sanction for failure to comply with any litigant’s demand at any given moment. While there are no doubt well-intended people who will use their right to pick a new name and preferred pronouns with sincerity, there are also people who will use this as a weapon against lawyers and judges to “catch” them uttering last week’s name so as to grieve. The good intentions of equality won’t prevent the nightmare that these ill-conceived and unconstitutional  rules will cause.