Could a part-time judge finish criminal-defense matters already underway when Opinion 98-02 restricted future representations?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1998. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A municipal judge had already taken criminal-defense matters when the Committee issued Opinion 98-02, which limited representation against a prosecutor who appeared before him. He asked how to handle those pending cases.
The Committee treated its earlier ruling as prospective and noted the Code’s allowance for compliance as soon as reasonably possible. It permitted completion of pending matters but said the judge should decline such representation in the future.
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 judge have to abandon the existing cases?
A: No. The Committee allowed him to complete those pending representations.
Q: Could he accept similar new cases afterward?
A: No. It said he should decline them henceforth.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied the Code’s Application Provisions Section D and expressly addressed the prospective effect of JEAC Opinion 98-02.
Citations and references
- Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct Application Provisions, Section D.
- JEAC Opinion 98-02.
See also
No sibling opinions yet indexed.
Source
- Landing page: https://jddc.arkansas.gov/opinions/opinion-no-98-03/
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
May 20, 1998
Judge Milas AButch Hale, III
Hale & Young, P.L.L.C.
4801 North Hills Boulevard Suite 1550
North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116
Re: Advisory Opinion 98-03
Dear Judge Hale:
Your question is a follow-up to our advisory opinion 98-02, in which we concluded that a municipal judge, as a continuing part-time judge, should not accept representation of criminal defendants in the circuit in which the prosecuting attorney, who appears before the judge, has jurisdiction. To prevent the appearance of impropriety, the private law practice of the judge must be subordinated to the judicial responsibility.
Your letter states that at the time of the issuance of our opinion, you were involved in the representation of such a client in your private capacity. Section D of the Application Provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct recognizes that a judge can and should comply with some provisions Aas soon as reasonably possible@. In addition, our opinion places the burden on the judge to decline the initial representation. Further, our opinion raised this issue of first impression and should be applied prospectively.
Accordingly, we conclude that you are permitted to complete your representation in the pending matters, but should decline such representation henceforth.
Sincerely,
Howard W. Brill
For the Committee
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1998. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace