May a Maryland Orphans’ Court judge serve on the board of a nonpartisan county business organization?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2011. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
An Orphans’ Court judge was invited to serve without pay on a local business organization’s board. The group was nonpartisan, and the proposed role was advisory, with no fundraising or lobbying.
The Committee treated the organization as a civic organization under the then-cited Rule 3.7. It permitted board service provided the limits in Rules 3.1 and 3.7 were met, including no interference with court duties, frequent disqualification, improper use of court resources, or likely proceedings involving the organization before the judge.
The opinion also flagged possible appearances by the organization’s other members before the judge, the use of judicial prestige, and external influences as matters governed by the cited Code.
In practice
The permission concerns the described unpaid advisory role without fundraising or lobbying. The opinion preserves the cited restrictions on cases involving the organization or its members.
Common questions
Q: Was the judge allowed to serve on the board?
A: Yes, subject to the stated Judicial Code restrictions.
Q: Was fundraising part of the approved role?
A: No. The request said the judge would not fundraise or lobby.
Q: Could appearances by other members before the judge matter?
A: Yes. The Committee flagged possible disqualification or recusal under Rule 2.11.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies the then-cited Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct, Maryland Rule 16-813, A-109(2), Rules 3.1 and 3.7(a)(6), and related Rules 1.3, 2.4, 2.11, and 3.6.
Citations and references
Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct:
- Maryland Rule 16-813, A-109(2); Rules 1.3, 2.4, 2.11, 3.1, 3.6, and 3.7(a)(6).
See also
Source
- Landing page: Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee opinion index
- Original PDF: Opinion 2011-06
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee
Opinion Request Number: 2011-06
Date of Issue: April 4, 2011
■ Published Opinion 9 Unpublished Opinion 9 Unpublished Letter of Advice
Orphans’ Court Judge May Serve on the Board of Non-Partisan County Business Organization
Issue: An Orphans’ Court judge has requested advice as to whether the judge may serve on the board of a non-partisan county business organization.
Answer: Yes.
Facts: An Orphans’ Court judge received a request to serve on the board of a local business organization in the county in which the judge sits. The organization is a non- partisan group with a main goal of serving the business community. The organization is similar to a Chamber of Commerce in that its activities are designed to foster a positive business climate. The requesting judge’s role would be strictly advisory in nature and would not involve fundraising or lobbying. The position with the organization is voluntary and one for which the judge would receive no compensation. The judge would be expected to attend the organization’s monthly meetings.
Discussion: An Orphans’ Court judge is subject to the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct (“Code”), Maryland Rule 16-813, A-109(2) subject to certain exceptions not relevant to this request.
Rule 3.1 of the Code permits a judge to engage in extrajudicial activities provided that the judge does not: (a) participate in activities that would interfere with the proper performance of the judge’s judicial duties; (b) participate in activities that would lead to frequent disqualification of the judge; (c) participate in activities that would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge’s independence, integrity or impartiality; (d) engage in conduct that would appear to a reasonable person to be coercive; or (e) make inappropriate use of court personnel or the resources of the court.
Rule 3.7 of the Code provides that a judge may participate in educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic organizations subject to Rule 3.1 above and Rule 3.6.1 Specifically, Rule 3.7(a)(6) provides that a judge may serve as an officer, director, trustee or nonlegal advisor of such organizations unless the organization would be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge or would frequently be engaged in adversary proceedings in the court of which the judge is a member, or in
1
Rule 3.6 prohibits a judge from holding membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion Request Number: 2011-06 Date of Issue: April 4, 2011
■ Published Opinion 9 Unpublished Opinion 9 Unpublished Letter of Advice Page 2 of 2
any court, subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the court of which the judge is a member.
It is the Committee’s opinion that the organization described by the requesting judge is a civic organization within the meaning set out in Rule 3.7. As such, the judge may accept a position with that organization as long as the prohibitions set forth in Rules 3.1 and Rule 3.7 do not exist. The requesting judge indicated that his/her role would be purely advisory in nature and no compensation would be received for his/her services to the organization. Further, the requesting judge indicated that he/she would not be involved in fundraising or lobbying for the organization.
As the requesting judge is a member of the Orphans’ Court, it is unlikely that the organization would come before that court. The judge is cautioned, however, to consider whether any other members of the organization would appear before the judge and whether disqualification or recusal would be required under Rule 2.11. The judge is further cautioned as to lending the prestige of the judge’s judicial office to the organization (Rule 1.3) and the avoidance of external influences on the judge’s conduct (Rule 2.4).
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 2011. 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