## Facts

- The University of Illinois was created by statute as a land-grant institution and governed by an elected Board of Trustees with authority over the University’s management and staffing.
- The Board employed a University Counsel (Sveinbjorn Johnson) and an Assistant University Counsel (Norval D. Hodges) to provide legal services and represent the University and Board in litigation.
- Legislative appropriations to the University were made largely in lump sums rather than by line-item positions; the University’s budgets submitted to the legislature consistently included funding for these legal positions, and appropriations historically covered those salaries.
- In separate litigation involving the University, the Attorney General asserted he was the exclusive legal representative for the State and its agencies and attempted to prevent Johnson and Hodges from acting as counsel for the University and Board.
- The Attorney General’s position led to non-certification of the lawyers on his payroll, and the Auditor of Public Accounts refused to issue salary warrants, blocking payment from University appropriations.
- The Board and the two lawyers filed an original mandamus action in the Illinois Supreme Court seeking (1) issuance of salary warrants and (2) an order preventing the Attorney General’s interference with the Board’s use of its counsel.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board of Trustees had statutory authority to employ and compensate its own legal counsel, independent of the Attorney General, from funds appropriated to the University.
2. Whether the Attorney General could prevent Board-selected counsel from representing the University and Board in litigation, and whether the Auditor could refuse salary warrants based on the Attorney General’s objections despite existing appropriations.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court awarded a writ of mandamus in accordance with its opinion.
- The court held the Board had authority under its enabling statutes to employ and pay University Counsel and Assistant Counsel to represent the University and the Board.
- The court rejected the Attorney General’s claim of exclusive control over the University’s legal representation in this context and found his interference unauthorized.
- The court held the Auditor lacked a lawful basis to withhold salary warrants when appropriated funds were available to the University and the Board had duly employed the lawyers and set their compensation.

## Legal Principles

- A statutorily created public corporation governed by a board with broad management powers may retain and compensate counsel as an incident of its statutory authority.
- Longstanding legislative practice of funding positions through lump-sum appropriations, coupled with budget submissions reflecting those positions, supports the legality of payment for such personnel from appropriated funds.
- The Attorney General’s general role as chief legal officer does not necessarily give exclusive authority to control litigation or displace counsel retained by an entity the legislature has granted independent governance authority.
- Mandamus lies to compel a public officer to perform a clear, nondiscretionary duty, including issuing payment warrants when statutory prerequisites and appropriations are satisfied.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the Board of Trustees’ statutory control over the University’s legal affairs by confirming its authority to hire and pay its own counsel, barring the Attorney General from blocking that representation, and compelling the Auditor to issue salary warrants from appropriated University funds.


People ex rel. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. Barrett, 382 Ill. 321, 46 N.E.2d 951 (Ill. 1943)