May a judge employ as bailiff a liquor control board member whose decisions are appealed to the judge’s court?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2007. 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 circuit court judge’s bailiff was appointed to the local Liquor Control Board. Appeals from that board’s licensing decisions went directly to the judge’s circuit court.
The Committee framed the question from the judge’s ethical perspective. If the judge heard an appeal from a decision in which the bailiff participated as a board member, the Committee found that the appearance of impropriety could not be cured through recusal or another measure. It concluded that employing the board member as bailiff violates Canon 2.
The opinion expressly leaves any separate Maryland Public Ethics Law issue concerning the bailiff outside its scope.
In practice
The opinion disallows this combination of court employment and board service because board decisions come to the judge’s court on direct appeal.
Common questions
Q: Whose duties did the Committee analyze?
A: The judge’s. It said the bailiff’s own public-ethics issues were beyond its mission.
Q: Would recusal cure the concern?
A: No. The Committee expressly said recusal would not overcome the appearance problem.
Q: Why did the board position matter?
A: Board decisions, including those involving the bailiff, were appealed directly to the circuit court.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies the then-cited Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct, Maryland Rule 16-813, Canon 2A, to the judge’s employment of a bailiff serving on the Liquor Control Board.
Citations and references
- Maryland Rule 16-813, Canon 2A.
- Maryland Code, former Article 2B §§ 15-201 and 16-101, cited in the opinion.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee opinion index
- Original PDF: Opinion 2007-09
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee
Opinion Request Number: 2007-09
Date of Issue: August 24, 2007
■ Published Opinion Unpublished Opinion Unpublished Letter of Advice
Judge’s Bailiff Should Not Serve on Liquor Control Board
Issue: Is it a conflict of interest for a person to serve as a judge’s bailiff while also serving on the Liquor Control Board in the jurisdiction in which the judge’s court is located?
Answer: Yes.
Facts: One of a Circuit Court judge’s bailiffs has been appointed by the Governor, pursuant to Article 2B, § 15-201 of the Annotated Code, to the Liquor Control Board in the jurisdiction in which the judge’s court is located. One of the functions of the Liquor Control Board is to approve/disapprove and revoke liquor licenses for commercial establishments. Article 2B, § 16- 101 states that any appeal from a decision of the Liquor Control Board will be to the Circuit Court.
Discussion: This matter can be looked at two ways – from the perspective of the bailiff and from the perspective of the requesting judge. It is the mission of this Committee to view this matter from the requesting judge’s perspective, i.e., what ethical concerns could it raise for the judge. Whether the bailiff may have a conflict of interest or ethical issues under the Maryland Public Ethics Law is beyond the scope of this Committee’s mission. (It should also be noted that a bailiff is not subject to the Maryland Code of Conduct for Judicial Appointees. Md. Rule 16- 814).
The Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2A, states: “A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.” Md. Rule 16-813.
Appeals from the decisions of the Liquor Control Board are heard by the Circuit Court. This is a direct appeal. In the matter before us, the requesting judge would be hearing an appeal from a decision of a Board upon which a Circuit Court employee sits and took part in the decision. Based on this fact, it would be impossible to overcome “the appearance of impropriety,” as set forth in Canon 2A, by recusal or any other means. Therefore, this Committee finds employment of a member of the Liquor Control Board as a bailiff to violate Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion Request Number: 2007-09 Date of Issue: August 24, 2007
■ Published Opinion Unpublished Opinion Unpublished Letter of Advice Page 2 of 2
Application: The Judicial Ethics Committee cautions that this opinion is applicable only prospectively and only to the conduct of the requestor described in this opinion, to the extent of the requestor’s compliance with this opinion. Omission or misstatement of a material fact in the written request for opinion negates reliance on this opinion.
Additionally, this opinion should not be considered to be binding indefinitely. The passage of time may result in amendment to the applicable law and/or developments in the area of judicial ethics generally or in changes of facts that could affect the conclusion of the Committee. If you engage in a continuing course of conduct, you should keep abreast of developments in the area of judicial ethics and, in the event of a change in that area or a change in facts, submit an updated request to the Committee.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2007. 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