Could a part-time judge privately represent a client against a person who owed fines to the judge’s court?

Plain-English summary

A part-time municipal judge asked about representing a spouse in a domestic case or a bank in a debt case when the opposing person had an unpaid fine in his court.

The Committee said both representations should be declined. The judge’s control over the opposing person’s court matter could appear to benefit the private client, and representation would require recusal when that person later appeared before him.

Currency note

This opinion predates the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct that took effect July 1, 2009, as stated in JEAC Opinion 2009-04. Later rules and opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify the current Code before relying on a specific rule.

Common questions

Q: Did the Committee distinguish the domestic and debt-collection scenarios?

A: No. It gave the same conclusion for both proposed private representations.

Q: What would happen if the opposing person later appeared in the judge’s court?

A: The Committee said the judge would have to recuse.

Background and rules framework

The Committee applied then-current Canon 2’s appearance rule, Canon 3 (c)(1) on recusal, and Canon 5(C)(1 & 3) on minimizing disqualification in the judge’s financial affairs.

Citations and references

• Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 2, 3 (c)(1), and 5(C)(1 & 3).

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Landing page: https://jddc.arkansas.gov/opinions/opinion-no-93-02/

Original opinion text

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

April 6, 1993

Judge John W. Martin

Brinkley Municipal Court

Box 472

Brinkley, AR 72021

RE: Advisory Opinion 93-02

Dear Judge Martin,

Your letter of March 22nd asks whether you, as a part-time municipal judge, may represent an individual in a domestic relations matter when the adverse spouse of that individual has an outstanding fine balance owed to the municipal court over which you preside? Your related question is whether a part-time judge may represent a client such as a bank in a debt collection action against an individual who has an outstanding fine balance with the municipal court?

Part-time judges are subject to most of the same ethical standards as full-time judges. See Code of Judicial Conduct, Compliance Section (A). Judges are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in all their activities, Canon 2, and accordingly part-time judges are to avoid that appearance in their private practice of law. The representation of one party and the simultaneous judicial supervision or control over the adverse party creates the potential for judicial manipulation to gain an advantage for the private client.

If a judge were to represent the client, the judge would be obligated to recuse when the adverse party next appeared in municipal court. See Canon 3 (c)(1). Because judges are to conduct their financial affairs to minimize the frequency of disqualification, Canon 5(C)(1 & 3), the judge should not accept this private client.

By representing such a client, the part-time judge may have a financial interest in the success of that client. The success of that client, and therefore the financial reward to the part-time judge, may hinge upon the status of the adverse party's outstanding fine balance in municipal court.

For all of these reasons our conclusion is that, in both instances, you should not accept these cases in your private practice of law.

Sincerely,

James A. Badami

For the Committee