Michael W. Tootooian
Back to Articles
Creative. Committed. Conscientious.
From the Stage to the Bench
Interview with Judge Jennifer Duncan-Brice Cook County Law Division
By Daniel M. Extrom
hour in Judge Jennifer Duncan-Briceís chambers can only be described
as a pleasure. She is kind, pleasant, relaxed, open and interesting.
She loves what she does, and she understands the importance of what
she does, and she takes very seriously the duties of her office. Yet,
she is so much more than a judge, and while the office is a part of
her life, one gets the impression that it does not define her life.
She is as much a wife and a mother of two successful grown children
as she is a judge, and she is comfortable with all of it.
in various places, including Gary, Indiana and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
her family finally settled in Crown Point, Indiana. Her father
worked in the steel mills, overseeing blast furnaces. She ultimately
graduated from Crown Point High School. She went on to Denison University
in Ohio, majoring in theater and film studies, which is not the typical
political science-history approach to law school. Her emphasis was
more in films, but she appeared also in several theatrical productions.
She knew that she wanted to go to law school, but chose to major in
theater and film because she knew that, after starting law school, there
would be no going back and she would not have a chance to study theater
and drama again. In addition to her interests in film and theater,
she also played tennis in high school and continues to play on occasion,
although, she says, ďI am not as spry as I once was!Ē She enjoys
cooking and painting in water colors.
At age ten,
she knew what she wanted to do with her life. A long-time friend
of the family was a lawyer, and when she saw him in action in court,
she found her calling: she wanted to try cases. After graduating from
Denison University, she went on to law school at The John Marshall Law
School, graduating in 1976. Her husband, Harry Brice, also graduated
from John Marshall that same year. Her family is very supportive of
her position as a judge. Her college background in drama helped
her as a trial lawyer, and she learned from her drama training that
it is important not to overplay oneís role. She used the same
approach when trying cases as a lawyer. As a judge, she has observed
that juries donít like lawyers who beat up or pick on a witness.
Although they might think that they are scoring points, those lawyers
will often alienate a jury.
In 1976, she
became an Assistant Corporation Counsel in the litigation division in
the City of Chicagoís Corporation Counsel Office, working primarily
on civil rights cases. In 1985, she was promoted to Chief Assistant
Corporation Counsel, and she reorganized the Torts Division. In
1987, she was promoted to Deputy Corporation Counsel.
In 1992, she
was elected a judge in the Circuit Court of Cook County and was assigned
to the Law Division. She was assigned a General Calendar Call
in 1996. She hears a wide variety of cases, from minor car accident
cases to medical or legal malpractice cases to construction cases. She
also hears some commercial cases. She occasionally receives cases
that require intensive case management. She is a co-author of
Illinois Pretrial Practice.
She loved being
a trial attorney, and loves being a judge. As a judge, she has
noticed that the composition of lawyers in the courtroom has changed
dramatically since she started practicing law. ďWhen I first
started practicing, it was not unusual that Iíd be the only woman
in the courtroom, and it could be kind of intimidating, but you kind
of learned to deal with that fairly quickly, if you were going to survive.
It was great training.Ē She has also noticed that some lawyers take
their adversarial role too seriously, and she says that being an adversary
does not require that one be antagonistic. She makes sure that
she is in control in her courtroom, and when the lawyers start becoming
too dramatic and antagonistic, she tells everyone that it is time to
take a deep breath and settle down.
do you most enjoy about being a judge?
I do enjoy watching good attorneys try casesóthatís funóand making
innovative arguments. I donít think thereís a month or a week that
goes by that you donít learn something. I have a real varied docket,
and you always have different kinds of problems come up, and that makes
Q: If you were
not a judge, what would you want to be?
I probably might want to be a folksinger! (Laughs.) But I was
always so focused to practice law. And Iíve enjoyed it.
Q: In a certain
sense, being a judge is a solitary, almost isolated, position, if you
will, and itís an almost artificial role that we have to have in a
free society. When you are making decisions, you look to past precedent,
but what about the present? What kinds of support does a judge have
in the present to be able to make and articulate a decision, because
the technology in our world is moving so fast that you are constantly
being put into new and unusual situations that there may not be much
I remember I had a complicated property damage case. A warehouse burned
down, and it contained legal files, and the question was: What was the
value of the legal files? The defendants want to say itís worth
the piece of paper itís written on. And they (the plaintiffs) are
saying, ďNo, it has certain work product, it has certain history,
and that was the question. I remember at one point, I had the
attorneys agreeójust because I needed someone who I could get information
from. I had the attorneys agree to hire an accountant for me just to
talk toósomeone just to educate me so that I could know what questions
I really should ask of the plaintiff and the defendant, because I am
not an accountant and I donít have that background. That was an unusual
situation. I see a lot of that now. I have one case now, a hospital
case, where the information, the medical records, are on the computeróno
paperóand the timing of when things occurred is whatís important,
and they are having difficulty getting that timing of when things were
put on the computer because itís a no-paper system, so I am allowing
the plaintiffís expert to go in when they do this deposition because
the plaintiffís attorney doesnít have this expertise, and then the
defendantís expert would say, ďWell, you didnít ask the right
thing, and we need this or we need that.Ē I am allowing him
(the plaintiffís lawyer) to take his expert into the deposition so
we can facilitate the retrieval of this information. We are going to
be utilizing this more and more so we can facilitate the retrieval of
Q: It may be
that the court system needs its own consulting experts in order to understand
what the lawyers are telling them.
Exactly. And thatís what happened in that fire case with the legal
files. I just didnít have the accounting background. I saw a
big studyóI forget which big accounting firm it wasóa 150 page accounting
report. My eyes were spinning. When I sat down with this accountant,
I realized some of my suspicions were true: it was a lot of smoke and
mirrors, and they ended up not even using it at trial.
Q: One side
of lawyers is paying this guy to say this, and the other side is paying
that guy to say that, and the court itself has no frame of reference,
and there is almost no baseline, and then the interesting thing is where
does all this lead in the future? Do the lawyers get to depose
the courtís consultants? There are a million possibilities!
a judge, itís important to be able to be somewhat innovative and somewhat
creative in a situation like this where there is no provision in the
rules for this kind of thing.
You can talk to other judges, and they have different backgrounds, and
they are a tremendous resource.
Q: It seems
that cases get more complex all the time and lawyers will have boxes
and boxes of records and transcripts and research, and yet in the end,
the cases will come down to one or two points. But at the same
time, from the judgeís perspective, the decision that a judge makes
can affect many other cases, perhaps for years to come.
It seems like an awesome responsibility sometimes, yet you donít necessarily
have a whole lot of time to make decisions. Is this something
that can keep you awake at night?
Sometimes. But I have found that the one thing that most attorneys want
me to do is to make a decision. Even if they donít like it,
make a decision, and we will go on. Itís the inability to make a decision
that drives attorneys crazy. And I think I am open-minded enough
that if Iíve made a mistake, I revisit. But a trial has to move
along, and the attorneys want you to make decisions. Thatís why, in
the appellate court, the standard is abuse of discretion. Itís a little
higher standard, because they know that you are making decisions quickly.
Thereís going to be some harmless error in cases, just because we
are all imperfect. (But) the system doesnít work unless you make decisions.
And hopefully, the big ones, you do right.
Q: With the
technology, do you see a day coming when most decisions will actually
be litigated and decided on-line, and save the courtrooms for evidentiary
hearings or for trials?
I donít know. Thatís an interesting question. Because frankly,
now, all of my opinions and orders are in written opinions. Thereís
no reason I canít download that on the computer. Iíve had
some bad experiences. I had one time where I was doing a ruling and
there was a court reporter. I made a very detailed ruling on adjudication
of a lien for a bone scan with a claimed charge of $7,800.00, which
ordinarily would cost about $750.00. The bone scan is the cheaper one
that you do before you do an MRI or a CT scan. So it was really out
of whack, this bill. And they came in after the settlement to
adjudicate the lien, we had a hearing, the doctor came in, and I very
carefully delineated why I thought it was unreasonable. He appealed
it and the plaintiffís counsel didnít file a brief, so they didnít
put the transcript of my ruling in front of the appellate court, and
so I got reversed by the appellate court, and it was irritating to me
because the record wasnít there. They ruled just on motions without
the record of my reasoning, and so I learned after that. I now put everything
in a detailed order so if they appeal it, they (the appellate court
judges) know why. If they reverse me, fine, but tell me a real
reason, and not a wrong reason.
Conscientious. Caring. And comfortable in her robe. Jennifer Duncan-Brice
loves being a judge.
© 2017 by The Chicago Bar Association. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. The opinions and positions stated in signed material are those of the authors and not by the fact of publication necessarily those of the Association or its members.
Newsletter Committee Members / Contributors
Ronald E. Neroda
Jalyne R. Strong-Shaw
Michael W. Tootooian