May a judge promise an election oversight committee not to report campaign misconduct?

Plain-English summary

Membership on a Judicial Campaign Oversight Committee was conditioned on renouncing the right to file charges about any candidate's campaign conduct with the JIC, bar, grievance body, or other tribunal. An appointed judge asked whether he could accept that condition.

The Commission said no. Canons 3B(3) and 7C(1) addressed disciplinary action and reporting of campaign violations. An advance nonreporting pledge would deprive the judge of independent judgment about conduct that may need referral. The Commission had confirmed that no supreme court standing order superseded the Canons on this point.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000, after the Alabama Supreme Court's 1975 adoption of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. Subsequent amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify the current Canons and linked opinion before relying on its conclusions.

Common questions

Q: Could the judge agree to a blanket reporting waiver to join the committee?

A: No. The Commission rejected the advance pledge as inconsistent with the judge's disciplinary responsibilities.

Q: Did a court order override the Canons here?

A: No. The opinion says the Commission confirmed the committee charge was not a superseding standing order.

Background and rules framework

Alabama Canon 1 required judges to uphold high conduct standards. Canon 3B(3) addressed appropriate measures for known misconduct, and Canon 7C(1) addressed filing campaign-violation complaints where permitted by law.

Citations and references

The opinion cites Alabama Canons 1, 3B(3), and 7C(1), and Advisory Opinions 78-50, 78-51, 78-52, and 95-598.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 78-50: Reporting Judicial Misconduct

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions

• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 00-745

• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: FEBRUARY 28, 2000 ADVISORY OPINION 00-745
DISCIPLINARY RESPONSIBILITIES
ISSUE
May a judge promise not to report campaign
conduct or material in violation of the Canons
of Judicial Ethics to the Judicial Inquiry
Commission, the State Bar, or other
committee or tribunal? Answer: No.
FACTS
The Charge to the Judicial Campaign
Oversight Committee contains a prerequisite
to membership on the Committee that “the
prospective member must renounce his or her
right to prefer charges against any candidate
for any campaign conduct or material before
the Judicial Inquiry Commission, the State
Bar, any grievance committee, or any other
tribunal.” A judge who has been appointed to
theOversightCommitteeinquireswhetherthe
Canons of Judicial Ethics permit him to make
such an agreement.
DISCUSSION
Canon 1 requires judges to uphold the
independence of the judiciary. “A judge
shouldparticipatein establishing,maintaining,
and enforcing . . . high standards of conduct so
that the integrity and independence of the
judiciarymaybe preserved. The provisions of
this Code should be construed and applied to
further that objective.”
Canon 3B(3) provides that a judge “should
take or initiate appropriate disciplinary
measures against a judge or lawyer for
unprofessional conductofwhichthe judgehas
personal knowledge.” The official
Commentary to Canon 3B(3) states that
reporting a lawyer’s misconduct to an
“[d]isciplinary measures may include
appropriate disciplinary body.” The
Commission has previously addressed
circumstances under which this canon
imposed a duty to report a violation of the
canons to this Commission. Advisory
Opinions 78-50, 78-51, 78-52, and 95-598.
Canon 7 contains the following provision:
C. Reporting Violations of Canon 7:
(1) If such filing is permitted by
law, a complaint alleging a violation
of this Canon 7 shall be filed with the
Judicial Inquiry Commission.
It is the opinion of the Commission that the
Canons of Judicial Ethics do not permit a
judge to agree in advance to not report to the
Commission, the State Bar, or other
appropriate body campaign conduct or
materials in violation of the canons. Such an
agreement takes awaya judge’s independence
todecidewhetherparticularcampaignconduct
or materials must be reported to one of these
bodies under Canon 3B(3) or Canon 7C(1).
This opinion is rendered after confirmation by
the Commission that the Charge to the
Judicial Campaign Oversight Committee is
not in the form of a standing order which
supercedes the Alabama Canons of Judicial
Ethics, nor has any other standing order been
issued by the Alabama Supreme Court
modifying the canons.
REFERENCES
AlabamaAdvisoryOpinions78-50,78-51,78-
52, and 95-598.
Alabama Canonsof Judicial Ethics, Canons 1,
3B(3), and 7C(1).
ADVISORY OPINION 00-745
PAGE 2
This opinion is advisory only and is based on
the specific facts and questions submitted by
the judge who requested the opinion pursuant
to Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Judicial Inquiry Commission. For further
information, you may contact the Judicial
Inquiry Commission, 800 South McDonough
Street, Suite 201, Montgomery, Alabama
36104; tel.: (334) 242-4089; fax: (334) 240-
3327; e-mail: [email protected].