May an appellate judge serve on a committee planning a domestic violence fatality review team?

Plain-English summary

A Court of Criminal Appeals judge was invited to a temporary steering committee organized by a nongovernmental Domestic Violence Task Force. The committee would design a fatality review team, including case-selection criteria and membership, but would not itself review cases.

The Commission applied Canon 5B to this civic committee, rather than Canon 5G's rule for government appointments. It permitted service if Canon 5B's limits were observed, including no adverse effect on impartiality or judicial duties. If the committee's activity made it appear part of a prosecution team, the judge would need to resign. The Commission left service on an actual fatality review team for another inquiry.

In practice

The holding concerned the planning committee's temporary, nongovernmental role. The opinion did not decide whether the judge could sit on a review team that examines fatalities.

Common questions

Q: Did the opinion permit service on the fatality review team itself?

A: No such service was presented. The Commission addressed only the steering committee that would set up the team.

Q: What if the steering committee came to appear part of prosecution?

A: The Commission said that appearance would adversely reflect on impartiality and require the judge to resign.

Background and rules framework

Alabama Canon 5B permits civic and charitable activity that does not adversely affect impartiality or interfere with judicial duties, subject to its other listed limits. Canon 5G concerns governmental appointments, so Canon 5B governed this nongovernmental committee. The Commission distinguished Opinion 97-635 because the judge here was planning a review team, not serving on one.

Citations and references

The opinion cites Alabama Canons 5B and 5G and Advisory Opinion 97-635.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 97-635: Child Fatality Review Panel

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions

• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 02-789

Original opinion text

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

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: JANUARY 18, 2002 ADVISORY OPINION 02-789
SERVICE ON COMMITTEE PLANNING A
FATALITY REVIEW TEAM
ISSUES
May a judge serve on a steering committee
being established by a Domestic Violence
Task Force to plan and organize a fatality
review team? Answer: Yes, subject to the
limitations in Canon 5B.
FACTS
A judge on the Court of Criminal Appeals has
been asked to serve on a steering committee
which will plan and organize a fatality review
team. The general purpose of the review team
will be to do a retrospective of deaths
resulting from domestic violence. The
committee is being established by a local
Domestic Violence Task Force. The Task
Force is not a governmental agency, nor is it
involved in prosecution of offenders.
The steering committee will perform a
temporary function. It will decide such
matters as the criteria to be used in selecting
cases for review and the composition of the
review team. It will not actually deal with
cases and will dissolve after the task of setting
up the form and function of the review team is
complete.
DISCUSSION
In AdvisoryOpinion 97-635, the Commission
concluded that service on a Regional Review
Panel under the Department of Human
Resources to evaluate child fatality cases was
contrary to Canon 5G. Canon 5G addresses
extra-judicial appointments and states in
pertinent part as follows:
It is desirable that a judge should not
accept appointment to a governmental
committee, commission, or other
position that is concerned with issues
of fact or policy on matters other than
the improvement of the law, the legal
system, ortheadministrationofjustice
or unless required by law.
The responsibilities of the particular panel at
issue were “to examine policies and
procedures of state and local agencies to
determine efficiency in the discharge of child
protection responsibilities.” Thus, the issues
of fact and policy to be addressed did not
primarilyconcerntheimprovement ofthelaw,
the legal system, or the administration of
justice.
The inquiring judge is not being asked to
serve on a fatality review team, either govern-
mental or nongovernmental. Therefore, the
situation in Advisory Opinion 97-635 is
distinguishable from the instant one.
Since the steering committee on which the
judge has been asked to serve is not a
governmental committee, the present inquiry
is governed by Canon 5B rather than Canon
5G. Canon 5B provides that a judge may
participate in civic and charitable activities
that “do not reflect adversely upon his
impartiality or interfere with the performance
of his judicial duties.” Canon 5B further
provides that a judge may serve as a nonlegal
advisor of a civic or charitable organization
subject to the following limitations:
ADVISORY OPINION 02-789
PAGE 2
(1) A judge should not serve if it is
likely that the organization or
institution will be engaged in
proceedings that would ordinarily
come before him or will be regularly
engaged in adversary proceedings in
any court.
(2) It is desirable that a judge not so-
licit funds for any educational, reli-
gious, charitable, fraternal, or civic
organization or institution, or use or
permit the use of the prestige of his
office for that purpose, but he may be
listed as an officer, director, or trustee
of such an organization or
institution.(3) A judge should not give
investment advicetosuchanorganiza-
tion or institution, but he mayserve on
its board of directors or trustees even
though it has the responsibility for
approving investment decisions.
It does not appear to the Commission that
service on the proposed steering committee
would reflect adversely upon the judge’s
impartiality. However, should the committee
become engaged in activities that create an
appearance that it is part of a prosecution
team, an adverse reflection on the judge’s
impartiality would be created which would
require the judge to resign from the commit-
tee.
The Commission assumes from the facts
presented that neither the Task Force nor the
steering committee is regularly engaged in
court proceedings or engaged in proceedings
that would ordinarily come before the inquir-
ing judge, so that the restrictions in Canon
5B(1) will not apply. Before agreeing to
serve, the judge should determine that ser-
vice will not be so time consuming as to
interfere with the performance of judicial
duties. The judge also should note the restric-
tions in Canons 5B(2) and 5B(3).
Materials provided by the inquiring judge
indicate that fatality review teams may have a
variety of different specific purposes or fo-
cuses, as well as a number of different struc-
tures. A possible purpose would be to im-
provetheapplicablelegalsystem; otherpoten-
tial purposes include matters such as
homicide/suicide prevention, community
awareness, identification of gaps in commu-
nity systems, and education in professional
duties. Potential structure formations include
by legislative mandate, by a domestic service
provider or task force, or by commission of a
governor. The appropriateness of a judge
serving on a fatality review team is a matter
not presented here, which would depend on
the specific purpose and structure of the team.
It is the opinion of the Commission that ser-
vice on the proposed steering committee to
create a fatality review team would not be
contrary to the Alabama Canons of Judicial
Ethics so long as the limitations in Canon 5B
are observed.
ADVISORY OPINION 02-789
PAGE 3
REFERENCES
Alabama Advisory Opinions 97-635.
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canons
5B and 5G.
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].