The Complaint alleged that on or about April 30, 2010, Respondent's daughter received a traffic citation (the “Citation”) in a city located within the Seventh Judicial Circuit and five days prior to the scheduled June 7, 2010 court hearing on the Citation, Respondent spoke to a then sitting judge (“Judge A”) of the Seventh Judicial Circuit who was scheduled to preside over the matter. The Complaint also alleged that during the conversation between Respondent and Judge A, the topic arose of the many traffic cases scheduled to be heard by Judge A on June 7, 2010. Thereafter, it is alleged, among other things, that Respondent informed Judge A that Respondent's daughter's traffic case was one of those cases; and on the scheduled date of her hearing on the Citation, she was going to be out of state on a mission trip. The Complaint additionally alleged that Judge A then asked Respondent his daughter's name, wrote her name down, and told Respondent that he would continue Respondent's daughter's hearing date and she would not be required to appear in court on June 7, 2010. The Complaint further alleged that on June 7, 2010, Judge A dismissed the Citation on his own motion, without first consulting the State's Attorney's Office and without ever conducting a hearing on the Citation, and falsely docketed that the Citation had been dismissed for insufficient evidence based upon a motion of the State.