Can a Maryland court master take temporary unpaid leave to campaign actively for a spouse seeking elective office?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1986. 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 court master asked whether unpaid leave would permit campaigning for a spouse after an earlier committee answer rejected active participation.
The Committee said whether leave could be granted was an administrative question for the court. The ethical question was whether temporary leave removed the appearance of partisan bias addressed by Standard XXII. It concluded that it did not. Drawing on the resignation provision in Standard XXIV for an appointee’s own candidacy, the Committee said active campaigning for the spouse required resignation rather than temporary leave.
The opinion addresses the old standards then applicable to judicial appointees.
In practice
The historical opinion rejects temporary leave as a way to campaign actively for the spouse and calls for resignation if the master chooses that role.
Common questions
Q: Did the Committee decide whether the court could grant leave?
A: No. It described that as an administrative matter for the circuit court.
Q: Would unpaid leave cure the ethics concern?
A: No. The Committee found the partisan-bias concern remained.
Q: What did it say a master should do to campaign actively?
A: Resign rather than take temporary leave.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies the then-cited Maryland Code of Conduct for Judicial Appointees, Standards XXII and XXIV, and discusses Maryland JEC Opinion Request 1986-02.
Citations and references
- Maryland Code of Conduct for Judicial Appointees, Standards XXII and XXIV.
- Maryland JEC Opinion Requests 1986-02 and 1979-01.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee opinion index
- Original PDF: Opinion 1986-03
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee
Opinion Request Number: 1986-03
Date of Issue: May 14, 1986
O Published Opinion G Unpublished Opinion G Unpublished Letter of Advice
Master Who Is Granted Leave of Absence Is Subject to Standard XXII, Prohibiting Partisan Political Activity
A master subject to the Code of Conduct promulgated under Md. Rule 1232 informed us that the master’s spouse is a candidate for elective office and asked whether it would be proper for the master to accompany the spouse to political events or to campaign on behalf of the spouse. In [Opinion Request No. 1986-02 (unpublished)], we replied in the negative, relying on Standard XXII and our earlier [Opinion Request No. 1979-01] (Jan. 31, 1979). The master now asks whether the ruling “would preclude the Circuit Court ... from granting me a leave of absence, without pay, in order that I can engage in partisan activities for my spouse.” We think it necessary to change the focus of the question. Whether a master can be, or should be, given a “leave of absence” with or without pay is not a matter within this Committee’s competence. That is an administrative, not an ethical, question, to be determined by the Circuit Court. The issue is whether the master can properly avoid the strictures of Standard XXII by taking a temporary leave of absence, which presumably would end when the spouse’s campaign ends. We do not believe so.
Standard XXII is premised on the concern that “suspicion of being warped by political bias will attach to full-time appointees ... to whom this Standard expressly applies, who become the active promoters of the interests of one political party as against another.” That same concern would naturally be evident where the appointee actively promotes the interests of a political candidate, including a spouse. Although nothing is said in Standard XXII about leaves of absence or resignation, we note that the subject is dealt with in Standard XXIV, which prohibits masters and appointees from becoming candidates themselves for political office. That Standard states:
“If such full-time appointee should decide to become a candidate for any office not judicial, he should resign in order that it cannot be said that he is using the power or prestige of his position to promote his own candidacy or the success of his party.” (Emphasis added.)
As these two standards are based on the same concern that judicial appointees be free from even the appearance of partiality due to political bias, we think that the remedy stated in Standard XXIV should also be applicable to Standard XXII. A temporary leave of absence, paid or unpaid, simply will not suffice, in our judgment, to allay the concern expressed in Standard XXII. Accordingly, we think that, if the master chooses to become actively involved in the spouse’s campaign, the master should resign.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1986. 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