Could a Maryland judge keep providing part-time accounting services to four clients?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1972. 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 judge asked to continue accounting work for four clients for about four to six hours a month. The Committee said that time alone was unlikely to interfere with judicial duties under Canon XXIII.
It nonetheless concluded the work was impermissible. Citing ABA ethics opinions, it explained that a lawyer providing accounting expertise acts as an attorney, while a judge could not practice law without explicit legal authority. If treated instead as separate accounting work, the Committee applied then-cited Rule 6's restriction on regulated public-interest activity.
Currency note
This opinion discusses the Maryland judicial ethics provisions in force at the time it was written. Its analysis is historical; verify the current Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct and the linked opinion before relying on a cited provision.
Common questions
Q: Was the time commitment the problem?
A: No. The Committee said four to six monthly hours were unlikely to interfere with judicial duties.
Q: How did the Committee analyze lawyer-accountant services?
A: It cited ABA opinions treating a lawyer's accounting expertise for clients as legal practice, which a judge could not continue without explicit sanction.
Q: Did calling the work accounting rather than law change the result?
A: No. The Committee also viewed regulated accounting activity as restricted by Rule 6.
Background and rules framework
The opinion discusses Maryland's then-cited Canon XXIII and Ethics Rule 6, ABA Formal Opinions 297 and 305, and former Code Article 75A's regulation of accounting activity.
Citations and references
- Maryland Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canon XXIII; Rules of Judicial Ethics, Rule 6.
- ABA Committee on Professional Ethics Formal Opinions Nos. 297 (February 24, 1961) and 305 (March 22, 1962).
- Maryland Code (1957, 1969 Repl. Vol.) Article 75A, sections 1-20; official editorial footnote identifies Business Occupations and Professions Article, Title 2, as of July 10, 2006.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee opinion index
- Original PDF: Opinion 1972-02
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee
Opinion Request Number: 1972-02
Date of Issue: July 14, 1972
O Published Opinion G Unpublished Opinion G Unpublished Letter of Advice
Judge Not to Render Accounting Services to Clients
The Ethics Committee of the Maryland Judicial Conference has considered the question raised by your letter of June 26: whether you may with propriety continue to act as an accountant for four clients, involving some 4 to 6 hours of your time each month.
It seems clear to the Committee that the amount of time involved is not likely to interfere with the performance of your judicial duties and would not constitute a breach of Canon XXIII of the Maryland Canons of Judicial Ethics ... .
The real problem, however, is found in the interplay of certain of the Opinions of the American Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics and Maryland Rule 6, which relates to the business activities of judges. A reading of the Ethics Committee's Formal Opinion No. 297, dated February 24, 1961, as amplified by Formal Opinion No. 305, dated March 22, 1962, both of which appear in "Opinions, Committee on Professional Ethics," at pages 652 and 670, respectively, American Bar Foundation (1967), makes it clear that a lawyer may not hold himself out to be both a lawyer and an accountant and if he avails himself of his accounting expertise he does so in his capacity as an attorney at law. Obviously, a judge is not permitted to engage in the practice of law in the absence of explicit legal sanction.
On the other hand, if one takes the approach that a lawyer, upon his appointment to judicial office, is no longer engaged in the practice of law and that his part-time activity in accounting work is that of an accountant, we are confronted with the restraint imposed by Maryland Rule 6, which prohibits extrajudicial activity in an activity affected with the public interest. We have concluded in other instances that an activity affected with the public interest is one which is subject to governmental regulation or to licensing, supervision and control, see Code (1957, 1969 Repl. Vol.) Article 75A, §§ 1-20.* We therefore conclude that it is not permissible for you to continue to render the accounting service referred to in your letter.
- As of the editing date [July 10, 2006], Maryland Code, Business Occupations and Professions Article, Title 2.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1972. 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