May a Maryland Orphans’ Court judge write probate bonds for insurance clients through the judge’s private business?

Plain-English summary

An Orphans’ Court judge asked whether an insurance business could prepare probate bonds for clients. The judge proposed having another licensed agent sign the bonds.

The Committee noted that the Orphans’ Court sets bonds for estate representatives and may order more than the statutory minimum. Selling the bonds to paying clients while exercising those court duties may create an appearance of impropriety and suggest use of judicial prestige to benefit the business. It rejected both direct preparation and preparation by someone acting in the judge’s name.

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: Could another licensed agent sign the bonds instead of the judge?

A: No. The Committee barred another person acting in the judge’s name from perfecting the bonds.

Q: Why did the Committee find a conflict?

A: The judge’s court set estate bonds, while the judge’s insurance business would earn from supplying bonds to clients.

Q: Was the answer limited to bonds sold to the judge’s insured clients?

A: That was the conduct presented and rejected in the opinion.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Maryland’s then-cited Canons IV and XXIV and Ethics Rule 9 on apparent impropriety and use of judicial prestige for a private business. It also cites the Orphans’ Court’s bond-setting authority.

Citations and references

• Maryland Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canons IV and XXIV; Ethics Rule 9.
• Md. Estates and Trusts Article § 6-102.
• Maryland JEC Opinion Request 1977-08.

See also

• MD Judicial Ethics Op. 2013-13
• MD Judicial Ethics Op. 1984-05

Source

• Landing page: Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee opinion index
• Original PDF: Opinion 1982-01

Original opinion text

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

Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee

Opinion Request Number: 1982-01

Date of Issue: March 18, 1982

O Published Opinion G Unpublished Opinion G Unpublished Letter of Advice

Orphans’ Court Judge Not to Write Probate Bonds in Insurance Business

A chief judge of a county’s Orphans’ Court has requested the opinion of this Committee concerning a certain aspect of his private business activity. Specifically, the judge asks whether it is proper, as part of his insurance business, to perfect probate bonds when requested to do so by his insured clients. The judge suggests that any possible conflict of interest could be avoided by having another licensed agent in his office sign the bonds as attorney-in-fact.
A similar issue was raised in [Opinion Request No. 1977-08], dated October 21, 1977, in which the Committee found that it was not permissible for a judge of the Orphans’ Court to participate as auctioneer in estate sales. It is the Committee’s opinion that the rationale of [Opinion Request No. 1977-08] applies to the question presented here and that the judge of the Orphans’ Court would be precluded from writing probate bonds for his insured customers under Canons IV and XXIV and Rule 9.
Section 6-102 of the Estates and Trust[s] Article gives the Orphans’ Court the responsibility of setting bonds for personal representatives of decedents’ estates. A judge of the Orphans’ Court may also exercise his discretion to order additional bond other than the minimum required by statute. It is clear that the performance of these statutory duties in concert with the act of perfecting such bonds for paying clients may create the appearance of impropriety, which contravenes the proscription of Canon IV. Similarly, such activity conflicts with Rule 9 and Canon XXIV’s mandate that a judge “avoid giving ground for any reasonable suspicion that he is utilizing the power or prestige of his office to persuade or coerce others to patronize or contribute to the success of private business ventures.” Canon XXIV specifically precludes a judge from “enter[ing] into such private business ... as would justify such suspicion.” The object of these and all the Canons and Rules is to hold the office of judge above suspicion or the appearance of abuse of power or prestige. The Committee concludes that these ethical concerns do not permit the judge of the Orphans’ Court or another person acting in his name, to perfect probate bonds as part of his private business activity.