Monthly Archives: July 2023

Throwback Thursday

Posted on by

5 years ago this month:

  • Accepting an agreed stipulation of facts and proposed recommendation, the Mississippi Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge for (1) dismissing petitions for an order of protection from domestic abuse without holding the hearing required by statute; (2) signing warrants based on affidavits sworn by her relatives; (3) presiding over the initial appearance of a relative, setting the bond at $50,000, and subsequently reducing the bond to $5,000; (4) waiving an expungement fee and directing the clerks to void the receipts and refund the money; and (5) requesting that the county board of supervisors transfer a clerk because the clerk filed a complaint against her.  Commission on Judicial Performance v. Curry, 249 So. 3d 369 (Mississippi 2018).
  • Based on a stipulation and the judge’s consent, the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline publicly censured a judge and ordered him to pay a $1,500 fine to a law-related charity for (1) rudeness and sarcasm in 1 criminal case, including threatening to apply duct tape to the defendant’s mouth and (2) muttering under his breath “I hope this follows you to prison” to a defendant convicted of child abuse in a second case.  In the Matter of Smith, Stipulation and order of consent to discipline (Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline July 26, 2018) (https://judicial.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/judicialnvgov/content/Discipline/Dicisions/2018.07.26%20Certified%20Copy%20of%20Stipulation%20and%20Order%20of%20Consent%20to%20Discipline%202016-068-P.pdf).  The judge also agreed that he would complete a National Judicial College course and that his failure to comply with the order would result in his permanent removal.
  • The New Hampshire Supreme Court disbarred a former judge based on his conviction on charges of fraud pursuant to a guilty plea.  In the Matter of Moore, Order (New Hampshire Supreme Court July 5 2018) (http://www.nhattyreg.org/assets/1531143768.pdf).
  • Following a trial de novo, a Texas Special Court of Review publicly admonished a judge for referencing his judicial title and position to promote a project with his wife called “divorce in peace” that included a book, website, and on-line referral service.  In re Roach, Judgment and public admonition (Texas Special Court of Review July 24, 2018) (http://www.scjc.texas.gov/media/46686/roach18-0006judgmentandopinion.pdf).
  • Based on an agreement, the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished a court commissioner for requiring a defendant to “tattoo” his next court date on his arm in black ink; he also agreed to participate in ethics training focusing on appropriate demeanor.  In re Ponomarchuk, Stipulation, agreement, and order of admonishment (Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct July 20, 2018) (https://www.cjc.state.wa.us/materials/activity/public_actions/2018/8838FinalStip.pdf).

A sampling of recent judicial ethics advisory opinions

Posted on by
  • A court’s website may include the statement “judges who officiate weddings, do so without bias, prejudice, or discrimination” if it is not attributed to a particular judge and is presented in manner that applies to the entire court.  Washington Opinion 2023-4.
  • A town justice may attend a town board meeting to address for public information questions about the court’s procedures and limitations with respect to the collection of fees and court security.  New York Opinion 2023-47.
  • A town justice may not contact the district attorney and the town about their concerns that the town’s code enforcement proceedings do not comply with the law.  New York Opinion 2023-34.
  • • A judge may write law review or law journal articles summarizing the current state of and developments in New York case law if they avoid the perception that they are providing advice on litigation strategy or tactics and if they do not comment on matters of substantial public controversy and provide only “minimal and essentially factual commentary” on the nature and extent of changes, unresolved questions, any regional differences, and procedural impacts without resolving ambiguities or interpreting, praising, or criticizing the opinions described. New York Opinion 2023-59.
  • As long as the judge’s spouse is not involved, a judge may preside over cases that involve the police agency for which their spouse works, including approving search warrants and arrest warrants and presiding over first appearance hearings. Florida Opinion 2023-5.
  • A judge who owns a building with lawyers as tenants should disqualify themselves from all cases involving the lawyers or not rent to any lawyers likely to come before the court on a regular basis.  West Virginia Opinion 2023-15.
  • Whether a judicial officer may remain the sole member of an LLC that owns a commercial building that has a law firm and a bail bond company as tenants depends on whether the judicial officer would be interacting with tenants who are coming before the court on which they serve.  Connecticut Informal Opinion 2023-2.
  • A judge who is concerned about violations of property maintenance regulations in their neighborhood may publicly express their personal views as a private citizen, for example, at a public meeting of the city council or in a letter to the editor.  The judge may make suggestions to the mayor and city council about how the local court could address these quality-of-life issues as long as they do not refer to their present judicial status.  New York Opinion 2023-26.
  • A judge may not serve as the director of environment and legislation for a not-for-profit organization that promotes scuba-diving.  New York Opinion 2023-61.
  • A judge may serve on the board of directors of a non-profit organization that “partners with students to ensure that they are ready for, enroll in, and complete college” but may not serve on the board of a non-profit organization that provides community mediation services in small claims court.  New York Opinion 2023-28.
  • A judge may wear judicial robes when giving the keynote address at a public high school graduation.  New York Opinion 2023-49.
  • A judge may be a member of the U.S. Army Reserve Judge Advocate General’s Corps and engage in the practice of law if they will not be providing legal advice to individual service members; will not be serving as an advocate on matters that concern the civilian justice system; will only be teaching or training in the law of armed conflict, operational law, and international law and rendering legal advice in a military capacity on purely military issues; and will not appear in any state, county, or federal court.  The judge must take paid military time off, vacation, or personal leave as appropriate, and the frequency of their military legal work cannot be over approximately 30 days a year.  Connecticut Informal Opinion 2023-3.
  • A judge should not be a member of the county Republican Club.  A judge’s wife should not be a member of the county Republican Club.  West Virginia Opinion 2023-14.

Throwback Thursday

Posted on by

10 years ago this month:

  • Adopting a master’s findings of fact, the California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished a judge for, when neither his son nor his son’s attorney could appear for a hearing in his son’s tobacco infraction case, bypassing normal procedures and approaching the clerk in an area not accessible to the public and telling her the resolution he wanted and then discussing the matter with the judge assigned to the case in that judge’s chambers, off the record, before the start of the calendar.  Inquiry Concerning Mills, Decision and Order (California Commission on Judicial Performance July 30, 2013).
  • Granting the recommendation of the Commission on Judicial Qualifications, the Iowa Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a part-time judge for wearing his judicial robes and referring to his position as a magistrate in an advertisement for his services as a private attorney.  In the Matter of Meldrum, 834 N.W.2d 650 (Iowa 2013).
  • Based on stipulations and an agreement, the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline publicly reprimanded a former judge for stopping a teenage driver, seizing her license, and identifying himself as a judicial officer before returning her license.  In the Matter of Bauer, Order (Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline July 12, 2013).
  • Adopting the findings and recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, which the judge accepted, the New Jersey Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge for an ex parte conversation in the courtroom in which he advised the prosecutor about issues relevant to the admission of evidence in a pending DWI matter.  In the Matter of Diamond, 70 A.3d 600 (New Jersey 2013).

Recent cases

Posted on by

  • The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished a judge for driving under the influence of alcohol, being convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, and driving with a blood alcohol content of twice the legal limit.  Public Admonishment of Jacobs (California Commission on Judicial Performance June 29, 2023).
  • Accepting an offer of discipline by consent and the recommendation of a Board of Examining Officer, the Delaware Court on the Judiciary publicly censured a judge for having cases under advisement for more than 90 days throughout 2020, 2021, and 2022.  In re Vari, Order (Delaware Court on the Judiciary June 7, 2023).
  • The hearing panel of the Kansas Commission on Judicial Conduct entered a cease-and-desist order after finding that a former judicial candidate had violated the requirement that a judicial candidate be scrupulously fair and accurate in all statements by using the phrase “hostile work environment” in reference to the chief judge when speaking to the county commission.  Inquiry Concerning Montgomery, Findings of fact, conclusions of law, and disposition (Kansas Commission on Judicial Conduct June 12, 2023).
  • Based on a deferred recommendation of discipline agreement, the Louisiana Judiciary Commission publicly admonished a judge for holding a trial in a civil case without giving the defendant the 10 days to file an answer required by law, charging the defendant an excessive filing fee for a motion for a new trial, engaging in ex parte communications about payment of the judgement and the defendant’s desire for a new trial or appeal, and making statements that led the defendant to believe that the judge would eventually enter a new judgment in her favor.  In re Jones, Deferred recommendation of discipline agreement (Louisiana Judiciary Commission June 15, 2023).
  • Following a hearing, the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities publicly reprimanded a judge for being reticent and not cooperating with disciplinary authorities and filing inaccurate financial disclosure statements.  In the Matter of White, Reprimand (Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities June 30, 2023).
  • Adopting in part the recommendation of the Judicial Tenure Commission, the Michigan Supreme Court ordered that, if a former judge is elected or appointed to judicial office again, she will be suspended without pay for 6 years from the date of its decision for (1) abusing her contempt powers in at least 2 cases; (2) summarily dismissing or adjourning multiple cases because a party used a process server that the judge believed was dishonest without making factual findings that process had not been served and, when admonished to stop by the Chief Judge, dismissing cases on a pretext; (3) failing to comply with a performance-improvement plan issued to her by the Chief Judge, intentionally refusing to follow the orders of the Chief Judge, and sending ominous Bible verses to the Chief Judge, the court administrator, and the regional court administrator; (4) disconnecting the videorecording equipment in her courtroom and failing to maintain a record of proceedings in her courtroom for weeks; (5) creating unauthorized recordings of the proceedings in her courtroom on her personal cell phone; (6) parking in a handicap loading zone at a gym, placing a placard in her window to convey that she was there on official business, and, when the police were called, flashing her judge’s badge at the responding officer; and (7) making material misrepresentations to the Commission in its investigation.  In re Davis (Michigan Supreme Court June 23, 2023).
  • Based on the judge’s waiver of a formal hearing, the Nebraska Commission on Judicial Qualifications publicly reprimanded a judge for instructing a clerk not to process a charge against his friend and priest, telling the county attorney there must be some mistake about the charge, and encouraging his friend to follow up with law enforcement to resolve the matter.  In the Matter of Burns, Reprimand (Nebraska Commission on Judicial Qualifications June 23, 2023).
  • Accepting a stipulation based on the judge’s affirmation that he will resign effective June 30, 2023 and his affirmation that he will not seek or accept judicial office in the future, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded a proceeding against a judge; the Commission had informed the judge that it was investigating 3 complaints, one alleging that he had failed to disclose that an attorney in a landlord/tenant case had personally represented him in an unrelated civil matter and failed to afford the opposing party an opportunity to be heard according to law, one alleging that he became a candidate for election to the office of town supervisor without resigning from his position as town justice, and one alleging that he had testified falsely under oath at a hearing in a matter challenging his candidacy because he was a town justice.  In the Matter of Ugell, Decision and order (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct June 1, 2023).
  • The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for failing to timely hold compliance hearings, to review and sign records as required, and to record compliance hearings.  Public Reprimand of Uzomba (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct June 28, 2023).
  • The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished a judge for maintaining a website that advertised both his private legal services and his position as justice of the peace; he was also ordered to obtain 2 hours of continuing legal education.  Public Admonition of Ramirez and Order of Additional Education (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct June 21, 2023).
  • The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for failing to complete his judicial education for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 academic years and failing to cooperate with the Commission.  Public Reprimand of Jasso (Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct June 8, 2023).
  • Based on a stipulation and agreement, the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished a judge for decisional delay in 2 cases.  In re Matter of Roberts, Stipulation, agreement, and order (Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct June 23, 2023).
  • Based on a stipulation and agreement, the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished a judge for an approximately 1-year delay issuing a decision in a land use case.  In re Fairgrieve, Stipulation, agreement, and order (Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct June 23, 2023).

Throwback Thursday

Posted on by

20 years ago this month:

  • Based on stipulated facts, the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline publicly reprimanded a judge for calling a police officer about a driving while intoxicated charge, leading the officer to withdraw the charge.  In re Berkhimer, 828 A.2d 19 (Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline 2003).
  • Accepting an agreement for discipline by consent, the South Carolina Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a former magistrate who had pled guilty to 2 counts of possession of cocaine.  In the Matter of Curtis, 583 S.E.2d 754 (South Carolina 2003).
  • Accepting an agreement for discipline by consent, the South Carolina Supreme Court suspended a judge for 6 months without pay for keeping for his personal use the proceeds from the sales of abandoned vehicles instead of turning them over to the county treasurer or the court clerk.  In the Matter of Singleton, 584 S.E.2d 365 (South Carolina 2003).

27th National College on Judicial Conduct and Ethics

Posted on by

The 27th National College on Judicial Conduct and Ethics will be held Wednesday October 18 through Friday October 20, 2023, in Washington, D.C. at the Omni Shoreham, 2500 Calvert Street NW.  The College registration fee will be $450.  The hotel room rate will be $299 for single or double occupancy. 

The College will begin Wednesday afternoon with registration and a reception.  Thursday morning there will be a plenary session, followed by concurrent break-out sessions through Friday noon.  The College provides a forum for judicial conduct commission members and staff, judges, judicial ethics advisory committees, and others to discuss professional standards for judges and current issues in judicial discipline.

The plenary session Thursday morning will be “Best Practices in Judicial Ethics and Discipline” led by David J. Sachar, Director of the Center for Judicial Ethics, and Cynthia Gray, Director Emeritus.  As usual, there will be sessions on determining the appropriate sanction, for new members of judicial conduct commissions, for public members of judicial conduct commissions, and on social media and judicial ethics.  Additional sessions are in the planning stage and will be announced as they are confirmed.

If you have suggestions or questions, please email David Sachar, Director of the Center for Judicial Ethics, at djsachar@ncsc.org.

The blog will post a link when registration if open.

When a member of a judge’s family is a political candidate:  Part 3 — Photos

Posted on by

All judicial ethics opinions on the issue advise that, when a judge’s close relative is running for a public office, the judge may be referred to in campaign literature and included in a family photo used in campaign flyers and other materials – with caveats. 

Although acknowledging that appearing in a photo “might be perceived as a prohibited public endorsement of the candidate,” the Massachusetts advisory committee explained “that the Canons must be viewed with some degree of realism and common sense.”

Obviously, the public would perceive that one spouse would support the efforts of the other in this type of endeavor.  What will offend [the code of judicial conduct] is activity that crosses the line from acceptable, and, indeed, expected, familial support to the impermissible trading on the prestige of the judicial office.  Also to be thrown into the mix, moreover, is the desirability of the electorate to have certain basic information about any candidate.

Massachusetts Advisory Opinion 1999-16.

The New York judicial ethics committee stated:

During a campaign, it would be normal and usual to use a family photograph in campaign literature.  To exclude the spouse-judge from the photograph would seem odd and, indeed, misleading.  But to prohibit entirely any use of a photograph that includes the judge seems unnecessary, so long as proper precautions are taken.

New York Advisory Opinion 2017-79.

The Oklahoma committee reasoned:

The public will surely assume that the judge supports his wife’s candidacy.  Voters who know the judge may be influenced by his position, but they would have that information whether or not the judge appeared in the family photograph.  Voters who do not know the judge will receive no clue as to his position from the photograph.

Oklahoma Advisory Opinion 2000-6. 

The Colorado opinion stated:

Family pictures and names are biographical information about a candidate and a candidate’s family, not a prohibited “public endorsement” within the meaning of [the code of judicial conduct].  Moreover, when the candidate uses the family photograph with nothing to indicate the occupation of the candidate’s spouse, the prestige of the office is not being used to assist the candidate.

Colorado Advisory Opinion 2005-5;

The permission extends to formats such as campaign videos (Kansas Advisory Opinion 185 (2017)) and websites (Maryland Advisory Opinion Request 2022-1).

Most of the opinions specifically involve a judge/spouse being pictured with a candidate/spouse, presumably because pictures of spouses are customary and expected if not required in campaigns, but some opinions give the same advice when the candidate is a child, sibling, or other close relative.  See, e.g., New York Advisory Opinion 2010-75 (“the Committee discerns no difference between posing with one’s spouse, an ethically permissible activity . . . , and posing with one’s child”).

Further, the opinions state that a judge may be identified by name in a family member’s campaign materials.  California Advisory Opinion 49 (2000); Colorado Advisory Opinion 2005-5; Connecticut Informal Opinion 2018-6; Indiana Advisory Opinion 2-2014; Maine Advisory Opinion 1994-3; Massachusetts Advisory Opinion 1999-16; New Mexico Advisory Opinion 1996-2; New York Advisory Opinion 1996-7; Ohio Advisory Opinion 2001-1; Oklahoma Advisory Opinion 2000-6; West Virginia Advisory Opinion 2019-22.  But see Texas Advisory Opinion 180 (1995) (a judge’s name and title may not be used in press releases or campaign literature identifying a candidate as the judge’s spouse).

However, the campaign materials should not include an explicit endorsement by the judge (Connecticut Informal Opinion 2018-6; Maryland Advisory Opinion Request 2022-1) or imply that the judge actively endorses their family member’s candidacy (Florida Advisory Opinion 2016-7).

The California committee cautioned that campaign photos that include a judge/relative “should be placed and captioned in a way that indicates it depicts the candidate’s family not an endorsement by the judge.”  California Advisory Opinion 49 (2000).  Similarly, other committees note that the judge/family member should appear in a photo not as a judge but as a member of the candidate’s family (Indiana Advisory Opinion 2-2014); should be identified only by name and their relationship to the candidate (West Virginia Advisory Opinion 2019-22); and “should be identified and depicted only as a spouse and not as a member of the judiciary” (Colorado Advisory Opinion 2005-5).

Thus, the judge may not be identified, referred to, or depicted as a judge by appearance, setting, occupation, title, office, status, or position in a family member’s campaign materials.  See Florida Advisory Opinion 1990-7; Kansas Advisory Opinion 185 (2017); Maine Advisory Opinion 1994-3; Oklahoma Advisory Opinion 2000-6.

Specifically, a judge may not wear a judicial robe in a family member’s campaign photo.  Alabama Advisory Opinion 2018-937; California Advisory Opinion 49 (2000); Colorado Advisory Opinion 2005-5; Connecticut Informal Opinion 2018-6; Florida Advisory Opinion 2016-7; Florida Advisory Opinion 2017-16; Indiana Advisory Opinion 2-2014; Louisiana Advisory Opinion 278 (2017); Massachusetts Advisory Opinion 1999-16; New York Advisory Opinion 2017-79; New York Advisory Opinion 2010-75.

Further, opinions advise that a judge/family member cannot be pictured in a judicial or courthouse setting (Connecticut Informal Opinion 2018-6; California Advisory Opinion 49 (2000)); with any other indicia pointing to the judicial office (Alabama Advisory Opinion 2018-937); with any “judicial paraphernalia;” (Florida Advisory Opinion 2017-16); or with any visual elements identifying them as a judge (Maryland Advisory Opinion Request 2022-1).

Other opinions state that the photo should not identify the judge/family member by general titles such as “Judge” or “Honorable” (see Alabama Advisory Opinion 2018-937; Colorado Advisory Opinion 2005-5; South Carolina Advisory Opinion 14-2003) or specific titles such as “Master in Equity” (South Carolina Advisory Opinion 7-2012) or “Magistrate” (South Carolina Advisory Opinion 9-2002).

A few opinions are less strict.  The New Mexico committee advised that a candidate may state that their spouse is a judge in their campaign literature provided other members of their immediate family are similarly referred to and the judge’s specific office or title are not used.  New Mexico Advisory Opinion 1996-2.  See also Louisiana Advisory Opinion 278 (2017) (a judge whose spouse is running for state-wide office may not be identified by title in their spouse’s campaign materials, but their occupation as a district judge may be cited for biographical purposes without reference to the specific court).

Further, the Ohio advisory committee stated that a judge may be pictured or referred to with the title “judge” as long as the occupations of other family members are also identified and  the judge/family member is not otherwise depicted in their official capacity.  Ohio Advisory Opinion 2001-1.  The committee explained:

To endorse is “to give approval of or support to.”  Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary 431 (1984).  True, a family picture symbolizes love and support; however, in this Board’s view it is not a “public endorsement” of a family member’s candidacy even when included in campaign literature.  The love and support portrayed by a family picture applies to the members of a family generally in all their endeavors, not specifically to one family member’s candidacy for elective office.

In campaign literature, a family picture provides biographical information regarding a candidate.  The family picture is often accompanied by the names of the family members and sometimes other biographical family information is provided.  The Board finds no ethical bar to using a family picture and listing a judge’s name with or without the title “judge” along with the names of the other family members in the campaign literature of a judge’s spouse.  Family member pictures, names, and occupations are biographical information about a candidate and the candidate’s family, not a prohibited “public endorsement.”

Similarly, the Massachusetts judicial ethics committee advised that a spouse/candidate’s campaign literature may identify their relative as a judge as long as the judge’s specific office and title are not used, their judicial duties are not discussed, the occupations of other family members are also identified, and the judge is not pictured in robes.  Massachusetts Advisory Opinion 1999-16.  The committee explained:  “We believe that the public’s expectation that it will learn certain basic biographical information about a candidate negates, or at least minimizes to an acceptable degree, any perception that a reference to a judicial spouse in such literature or commercials implies a judicial endorsement.”

However, the committee warned that any reference to the judicial office “must be limited to the degree necessary to supply such basic biographical information,” approving “a simple (preferably one) reference” to the family member’s current occupation as a judge.  The opinion emphasized to the inquiring judge, whose husband was running for U.S. Senate in another state:

In no event should your judicial position be given any undue prominence.  Therefore, you should not be photographed in your robes, you should not be referred to by title, and your judicial duties should not be discussed.  Moreover, anything you say in a commercial or a quote from you appearing in any materials should be brief, and should only refer to family matters.  Any greater emphasis on you will transform your role from a passive one (that is, of simply being described), to a more active one, designed, arguably, to enhance the electability of the candidate, thus making you an endorser of sorts.

When that line is crossed, you may be viewed as lending the prestige of your office to advance your husband’s private political interests.  Moreover, the greater the focus on you, the greater the danger will be that some people may be motivated to support your husband, financially or otherwise, to, at least in part, curry your favor.

* * *

Previous posts have summarized discipline decisions and advisory opinions about permitted and prohibited activities for judges who have a family member campaigning for political office in light of the ban on judges’ endorsing political candidates.

Throwback Thursday

Posted on by

25 years ago this month:

  • The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished a judge for initiating ex parte mails with the attorney for the father in a juvenile dependency case.  Public Admonishment of Caskey (California Commission on Judicial Performance July 6, 1998).
  • Accepting the recommendation of the Judiciary Commission, the Louisiana Supreme Court suspended a judge for 60 days without pay for having an extra-marital affair with a felon who was on parole from a prison sentence she had imposed.  In re Harris, 713 So. 2d 1138 (Louisiana 1998).
  • Agreeing with the disposition recommended by the Commission on Judicial Conduct, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court publicly reprimanded a judge and suspended him for 3 months without pay for (1) routinely failing to properly advise defendants during plea colloquies and (2) an ex parte communication to another judge that caused the other judge to dismiss an abuse prevention order issued against a defendant who was a janitor at the courthouse, had served on the city council with the respondent-judge, and had lived near the respondent-judge for several years.  In the Matter of Markey, 696 N.E.2d 523 (Massachusetts 1998).
  • Adopting the recommendation of the Judicial Tenure Commission, the Michigan Supreme Court removed a judge from office for making public misrepresentations at a press conference about a newspaper article reporting that the judge had used racial and ethnic slurs in conversations with her ex-husband, attempting to introduce a fraudulent letter into evidence in a Commission hearing, and engaging in inappropriate, unprofessional conduct that demonstrated a lack of respect for the discipline proceedings.  In re Ferrara, 582 N.W.2d 817 (Michigan 1998).
  • Following the recommendation of the Commission on Judicial Performance, the Mississippi Supreme Court suspended a non-lawyer judge for 90 days without pay and fined him $1,500 for, after a defendant had cursed as he was being escorted out of the courtroom, coming off the bench, putting the defendant in a headlock, hitting him several times, and cursing him.  Commission on Judicial Performance v. Guest, 717 So. 2d 325 (Mississippi 1998).
  • Accepting the recommendation of the Commission on Judicial Qualifications, the Nebraska Supreme Court removed a judge from office for (1) sending a death threat to another judge and igniting firecrackers in that judge’s office as “pranks” and using loud, abusive, vulgar, and threatening language to and about the other judge; (2) signing plea forms, court registers, and bench warrants with names other than his own, such as that of a city prosecutor, a deceased judge, Adolf Hitler, Snow White, and Mickey Mouse, and setting odd bond amounts such as 13¢ and $999.99; and (3) consistently having close contacts with people he had placed on probation.  In re Jones, 581 N.W.2d 876 (Nebraska 1998).
  • Based on an agreed statement of facts and joint recommendation, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly censured a judge for (1) attempting to discourage defendants from exercising their rights by asking them to explain why they were pleading not guilty, giving the appearance to defendants that he wanted them to admit the charges; (2) attempting to abridge the rights of defendants by insisting on a 48-hour requirement for requesting supporting depositions; (3) engaging in ex parte communications with prosecutors and relying on prosecutors to draft the legal papers that he was required to submit on appeal without notice to the defense; and (4) referring to a defendant as a “smart ass” and warning him not to “piss the trooper off.”  In the Matter of McKevitt, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct July 27, 1998).
  • Based on an agreed statement of facts and joint recommendation, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished a judge for entering a judgement in a case without holding a trial or administering an oath to the witnesses even though he had received no evidence that would support his judgment and he knew that the defendant had no legal obligation to pay the amount claimed and that his decision was contrary to law.  In the Matter of Degenhardt, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct July 27, 1998).
  • Accepting the determination of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the New York Court of Appeals removed a judge from office for (1) in willful disregard of the law, disposing of criminal charges in 16 cases without notice or an opportunity for the prosecution to be heard, without allowing the prosecution an opportunity to redraft charges, without requiring written motions, and without the consent of the prosecutor; and (2) for a pattern of calling young prosecutors intemperate and disparaging names and making insensitive remarks.  In the Matter of Duckman, 699 N.E.2d 872 (New York 1998).
  • The Wisconsin Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a judge who had had a law professor prepare her opinions on dispositive motions in 32 cases.  In the Matter of Tesmer, 580 N.W.2d 307 (Wisconsin 1998).

When a member of a judge’s family is a political candidate: Part 2

Posted on by

As described in a previous post, judges have been sanctioned in judicial discipline proceedings for conduct in support of a family member’s political campaign.  There are also advisory opinions that discuss the limits on what judges can do on behalf of a family member who is running for office in light of the prohibition on judges’ endorsing political candidates.

Judicial ethics opinions have proscribed public endorsements for a family member’s campaign such as:

But see New Mexico Advisory Opinion 1996-2 (a judge may solicit signatures for their spouse’s nominating petition and assist the spouse/candidate campaign door-to-door if the judge does so as a private person outside of their normal court hours). 

Moreover, opinions warn that judges may not ask people or businesses if they are willing to display campaign signs for a family member/candidate and may not deliver or erect such signs.  See Delaware Advisory Opinion 2008-1; Kansas Advisory Opinion 179 (2014); Michigan Advisory Opinion JI-30 (1990); South Carolina Advisory Opinion 6-2016; West Virginia Advisory Opinion 1994-4.  

However, the Indiana committee advised that a judge could provide behind-the-scenes assistance to a family member/candidate, giving as an example of permissible activity preparing envelopes in which campaign materials will be mailed to potential voters or donors.  Indiana Advisory Opinion 2-2014.  The opinion explained that “the key in analyzing whether certain behavior would violate the Code of Judicial Conduct is whether it appears, to the casual bystander, to use the judge or judicial candidate’s prestige of office to further the family member’s political activity.”  Similarly, the Michigan advisory committee stated that a judge may perform behind-the-scenes activities for a relative’s campaign, and the opinion listed as permitted activities stuffing envelopes, voter registration drives, placing ads, writing speeches, and building yard signs.  Michigan Advisory Opinion JI-30 (1990). The South Carolina committee stated that a magistrate whose spouse is running for office may “drive the truck on his own time while the magistrate’s spouse posts campaign signs.  These actions indicate the magistrate’s participation as a spouse, and do not constitute endorsement of a candidate for public office.”  South Carolina Advisory Opinion 9-2002.

However, the Florida committee stated that a judge may not do “leg work” for their spouse’s campaign, although it did not define “leg work” or give examples (Florida Advisory Opinion 1987-22), and the Kansas committee advised that a judge may not contribute time to their family member’s campaign.  Kansas Advisory Opinion 179 (2014). 

Other committees have cautioned that a judge:

Several advisory opinions address the question of bumper stickers.

  • A judge may not drive or be a passenger in a car that has a bumper sticker for their spouse/candidate unless there are exigent circumstances or the bumper sticker is covered.  Connecticut Informal Opinion 2018-6. 
  • A judge should not drive a car that displays a spouse/candidate’s campaign sticker even if the car is normally driven by their spouse and even if the title for the car is in their spouse’s name.  Delaware Advisory Opinion 2008-1.
  • A judge’s spouse may not put their campaign bumper strip on their car even if the title in the spouse’s name.  Florida Advisory Opinion 1987-22.
  • A judge whose spouse is running for mayor should not place the spouse’s campaign bumper sticker on the judge’s car or on any family car that the judge uses, but the judge may accept a ride in a vehicle with such a bumper sticker.  Maine Advisory Opinion 1994-3. 
  • A judge may not display a bumper sticker for a family member’s campaign.  Michigan Advisory Opinion JI-30 (1990).
  • A judge may drive an automobile that displays a bumper sticker supporting their spouse’s candidacy only when it is necessary or particularly convenient.  New York Advisory Opinion 2006-94. 
  • A judge may not drive a vehicle normally driven by a spouse/candidate if that vehicle displays a campaign sticker for the spouse’s campaign.  West Virginia Advisory Opinion 1994-4.