Cook County Public Defender Collective Bargaining Agreement

«1) the public defender delegates an overwhelming majority of decision-making duties to members of his staff;  2. Deputy public defenders naturally exercise a high degree of authority and discretion in daily life in order to achieve and achieve the objectives of their function;  and (3) the professional interests of deputy public defenders are in principle identical to those of the public defender. 275 Ill.App.3d 853, 859, 212 Fig.Dec. 194, 656 N.E.2.791. In any event, in order to really draw inspiration from Yeshiva`s analysis, one must not only take into account the jurisprudence and legal provisions, but also take into account the actual tasks of a worker.   A review of the actual responsibilities of assistant public defenders in Kane County can only support a conclusion that the assistants` duties are not executive, but are merely routine;  its decisions are not complementary, but simply «random», their professional responsibility to provide legal services to clients in need. In order to resume judicial activities safely, several important changes are made to institutions and protocols, in accordance with national, governmental and local public health guidelines. Amendments include: In Chief Judge of the Circuit Court v. American Federation of State, County — Municipal Employees, Council 31, 229 Ill.App.3d 180, 171 Iii.Dec. 102, 593 N.E.2d 922 (1992), the Court of Appeal found that, on the basis of the facts presented to the Commission, the legal guardians employed in the Cook County Public Guardian`s office were executives.   In accordance with the law, public guardian Patrick Murphy had been appointed to represent persons deemed incompetent because of their age or disability.   Because of the caseload, individual cases were assigned ad litem to legal guardians who made almost all decisions in their respective cases.   The Chamber argued that the ad litem guardian does not represent the interests of her employer, but the many services of the Court.

  The court rejected this argument.   The court found that the ad litem custodians, through their exercise of the broad discretion of decision-making, did effectively direct the policy of the Cook County Public Guardians Office.