Professional background
This page’s dated record identifies the professional role involved. An independent official career biography was not located in the sources checked.
Source check: October 4, 2026. Career facts and public feedback are separate from the allegations and evidence discussed in the dated record.
Rate or discuss this profile — share a firsthand experience, disagreement or sourced correction.
What the Record Establishes
- A fifty-six-page verified objection filed August 5 told the reviewing court that the order barring the appellant from filing “is further justified by defendant’s harassing Notice of Disciplinary Referral.”
What They Have Not Produced
- What record supports the characterization of a disciplinary referral as harassment.
- Whether a stay was sought following the representation in paragraph 14.
- Any written response disputing a documented fact on this page — the offer is open.
The Power This Office Actually Holds
The Office of the State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor represents the People in appeals from Illinois circuit courts. A staff attorney drafts and files the State’s appellate pleadings. Where a pleading is verified under 735 ILCS 5/1-109, its factual assertions are made subject to penalties for false statement.
- Represents the People of the State of Illinois in the reviewing court
- Drafts and files the State’s appellate pleadings, including verified filings
- Responds to motions affecting a defendant’s access to the reviewing court
- Is bound by Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3, 4.4, 5.1 and 8.4
This page reports what a filing says and what rules bear on it. It reports no finding, because none exists.
Paragraph 13, and the structural problem it creates
A verified filing told a reviewing court that a litigant’s use of the attorney disciplinary channel was among the justifications for restricting his ability to file. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 775 addresses the privileged character of communications to the Commission; Rule 766 addresses the confidentiality of the Commission’s file. The Supreme Court of Illinois built that channel. If using it is itself a reason to narrow a litigant’s access to the courts, the channel carries a cost the rules do not describe.
Paragraph 14, and where it lands
The same filing states that appointed counsel confirmed a willingness to seek a stay. That assertion, verified, is now part of the record — and it is the sentence the August 13 letter to appointed counsel is built around.
The request for investigation, described accurately
A seventy-one-page request alleging six counts under Rules 3.3, 4.4, 5.1 and 8.4, supported by eight exhibits, was transmitted to both Commission offices on August 14 in two parts. A request for investigation is a complaint by a member of the public. It is not a charge, not a finding, and not evidence that anything was substantiated. The Commission’s file is confidential under Rule 766, and this archive claims no outcome and expects to learn none.
The standing offer
If any factual statement on this page is disputed in writing, the response will be published in full, with its date, at equal prominence.
The Documented Chronology
- July 30, 2026
The People file an objection to the appellant’s emergency request to stay.
- August 5, 2026
The People file a verified objection to the motion to discharge counsel, containing paragraphs 13 and 14.
- August 5, 2026
A response is filed the same day.
- August 7, 2026
The court denies vacatur and denies counsel’s withdrawal.
- August 13, 2026
A seventy-one-page request for investigation is prepared, alleging six counts under Rules 3.3, 4.4, 5.1 and 8.4.
- August 14, 2026
It is transmitted to both Commission offices in two parts, each cover printing the digest of the whole.
Still Not Produced
Each of these records exists inside a government system. Each has been requested. None has been supplied.
- What record supports the characterization of a disciplinary referral as harassment.
- Whether a stay was sought following the representation in paragraph 14.
- Any written response disputing a documented fact on this page — the offer is open.
If any of it is produced, or if Max C. Boose disputes a documented fact on this page, the response will be published here in full, with its date. Read the correction standard.
Follow the same record into the next office
Every named official → · The investigation behind this dossier → · Add context or rate this profile →