What must a judge do when the judge’s spouse leads a large charitable campaign soliciting potential litigants?

Plain-English summary

A judge’s spouse was to chair a widely publicized charity campaign targeting large individual donations. She would solicit donors and recruit volunteers; some potential donors could be lawyers or litigants appearing before the judge. The Commission said the Canons did not restrict the spouse’s independent fundraising, but imposed duties on the judge.

On the described facts, the judge was to avoid direct or indirect participation and any identification with the campaign or charity. The opinion says he should not attend an event where his presence could appear to support fundraising or pressure donors, and his name or judicial title should not appear in campaign materials, including a reference to his spouse by his name.

The Commission further said the judge should disqualify himself if he knew a party before him had made or refused a significant campaign donation. It treated that ground as a reasonable question about impartiality under Canon 3C(1), not subject to remittal under Canon 3D.

In practice

The opinion ties the judge’s duties to a highly publicized campaign seeking very large gifts from a small donor pool. It distinguishes the spouse’s independent activity from the judge’s own participation and recusal duties.

Common questions

Q: Did the Canons forbid the spouse’s independent fundraising?

A: No. The Commission said they governed the judge’s conduct, not the spouse’s independent activity.

Q: Could the judge’s title appear in campaign materials?

A: No. The opinion said neither his name nor title should be used to identify the campaign or his spouse in it.

Q: When was recusal required?

A: When the judge knew a party had made or refused a significant donation; the opinion said that ground could not be remitted.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Canons 2C and 5B(2) to use of judicial prestige, and Canon 3C(1) to an impartiality concern from significant donations or refusals. It states Canon 3D does not permit remittal of that ground.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canons 1, 2C, 3C(1), 3D, 5B, and 5B(2)

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama Advisory Opinion 98-712, a judge on a fundraising banquet host committee
• Alabama Advisory Opinion 96-596, judicial title on a dinner invitation

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 07-880: Judge Soliciting Judges for a Charity
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 07-882: Judge Selecting Justice Grants

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 07-881

Original opinion text

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

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: March 9, 2007 ADVISORY OPINION 07-881
A JUDGE'S RESPONSIBILITIES
REGARDING THE JUDGE'S SPOUSE'S
CHARITABLE FUND-RAISING
ACTIVITIES
ISSUE
Do the Canons charge the judge with specific
responsibilities in regard to charitable fund­
raising activities ofthejudge's spouse? Answer:
Yes.
FACTS
The judge's spouse will be one of three
chairpersons for a charity's campaign to raise at
least $50 million, targeting individuals who can
give $1 million each. As a primary public
spokesperson and chief executive of the
campaign, thejudge's spouse willdirectly solicit
donations and recruit other volunteers, and her
fund-raising activities will be widely publicized.
DISCUSSION
The Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics are
directed to judicial conduct and do not preclude
or limit independent charitable fund-raising
activities by a judge's spouse. Preamble,
Alabama Canons ofJudicial Ethics ( the Canons
are "those principles which govern the conduct
of members of the judiciary," i.e., "a Code for
judges and a declaration ofthat which the people
ofthe State ofAlabama have a right to expect of
them"). Cf. Alabama Advisory Opinion 82-146
(the Canonsdo notprohibitindependentpolitical
activities by a judge's spouse).
Although a judge's wife is "an independent
person with the right to pursue personal
interests, [the judge has] an obligation to take
steps to ensure the appearance as well as the
reality of her independence and of his
impartiality." In the Matter ofCastellano 889
P.2d 175, 184 (N.M. 1995). That oblig~tion
arises particularly from Canons 2C and 5B.
Canon 2C directs, "A judge ... should not
lend the prestige of his office to advance the
private interest of others; nor should he
conveyor permit others to convey the
impressionthat they are in a special position to
influence him." Canon 5B provides that a
judge may participate in only "charitable
activities that do not reflect adversely upon his
impartiality or interfere with the performance
of his judicial activities," and section (2) of
that canon prohibits thejudge's permitting the
use ofthe prestigeofhis office for fund-raising
activities. See also generally Canon 1.
More specific restraints arising from these
Canons are based on the particular
circumstances presented to the judge. The
Commissionbases this advisory opinion on the
following facts and assumptions: the
anticipated individual donations will be
substantial, the pool of targeted donors is
small, the campaign will be widely publicized,
thejudge's wife's solicitations will most likely
occur in one-on-one situations, and some of
the potential donors may be lawyers or
possible litigants who could come before the
. judge in the future.
Inkeeping with the Canons' restrictions under
the particular circumstances here, the judge
should refrain from participating, directly or
indirectly, in the spouse's described fund­
raising activities and should not in any way be
identified with the fund-raising campaign or
the soliciting organization.
Under such facts, the judge should not attend
any campaign event where his attendance
could be reasonably construed as lending the
ADVISORY OPINION 07-881
prestige of his judicial office to SUpp011 the
campaign, impairing his impartiality, or
possibly coercing donations. See generally
Arizona Judicial Advisory Opinion 00-06;
Indiana Advisory Opinion 1-96. See,~,
Alabama Advisory Opinion 98-712 (a judge
may not serve on a host committee for fund­
raising banquets when duties includeserving as
host at a banquet table to help develop
relationships). C£ Alabama Advisory Opinion
06-856 (a judge may not solicit funds from a
person or entity who is regularly a party to
proceedings in the judge's court).
In addition, the judge should not permit the
use of his name or title in any component of
the fund-raising campaign, including any
reference to his wife by his name (i.e., Mrs.
John Doe). See,~, Alabama Advisory
Opinion 96-596 (a judge should not be listed
as a judge on the invitation to a fund-raising
dinner (one of a series to be held in various
homes) hosted by the judge and his spouse,
and he is discouraged under the Canons from
holding the dinner in their home).
Finally, the Commission finds that, under the
facts submitted, particularly given the size of
the solicitations by the judge's spouse in the
described campaign, the judge should
disqualify himself from any matter before him
should he know that a party had either made
or refused to make a significant donation to
the campaign. These circumstances present an
instance where thejudge's "impartiality might
reasonably be questioned" under the general
provision of Canons 3C(1). This
disqualification is not subject to remittal under
Canon 3D.
REFERENCES
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, Preamble
and Canons 1, 2, 3C(1), 3D, 4, 5B, and 5B(2)
Alabama Advisory Opinions 06-856, 98-712,
96-596, and 82-146
Inthe Matter of Castellano, 889 P.2d 175, 184
(N.M.1995)
Arizona Judicial Advisory Opinion 00-06
Indiana Advisory Opinion 1-96
This opinion is advisory only and is based on
the specific facts and questions submitted by
thejudgewho 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, P. O. Box 303400,
Montgomery, Alabama 36130-3400; tel.:
(334) 242-4089; fax: (334) 353-4043; E-mail:
[email protected].