May a Maryland family law master serve on the state’s Commission on Child Custody Decision Making?

Plain-English summary

A family law master asked about joining the Commission on Child Custody Decision Making, established by Maryland’s 2013 legislation to study custody decision-making practices, principles, and processes. The Committee answered yes, subject to qualifications.

The opinion applied the then-cited Code of Conduct for Judicial Appointees. It stated that Rule 3.4 in that Code was substantively identical to the Judicial Code’s Rule 3.4. The Committee adopted the analysis and conclusion of its companion Opinion Request No. 2013-15, which addressed judges serving on the same commission. This opinion itself does not restate the companion opinion’s qualifications.

In practice

The holding permits commission service for the master only with the qualifications incorporated from Opinion 2013-15. The text of this opinion does not set those qualifications out.

Common questions

Q: Did the Committee approve the master’s commission service?

A: Yes, subject to the qualifications it incorporated from Opinion Request No. 2013-15.

Q: Why did the committee use its advice to judges?

A: It said the judicial-appointee and judicial-conduct versions of Rule 3.4 were substantively identical.

Q: Are all qualifications printed in this opinion?

A: No. It adopts the analysis and conclusion of Opinion 2013-15 without repeating them.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the then-cited Maryland Code of Conduct for Judicial Appointees, Maryland Rule 16-814, particularly Rule 3.4, by reference to the parallel Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct provision. It cites Chapter 633, 2013 Laws of Maryland (House Bill 687) for the commission.

Citations and references

Maryland judicial conduct rules:

• Maryland Rule 16-814, Rule 3.4, and parallel Judicial Code Rule 3.4.

Statutes:

• Chapter 633, 2013 Laws of Maryland (House Bill 687), § 1(f)(1).

Other opinions cited:

• Maryland JEC Opinion Request No. 2013-15 (Sept. 18, 2013), service on the same commission.

See also

• MD Judicial Ethics Op. 2013-15: Judge’s commission service

Source

• Landing page: Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee opinion index
• Original PDF: Opinion 2013-16

Original opinion text

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

Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee

Opinion Request Number: 2013-16

Date of Issue: September 19, 2013

Published Opinion G Unpublished Opinion G Unpublished Letter of Advice

Master May Serve on Commission on Child Custody Decision Making

Issue: May a master serve as a member of the Commission on Child Custody Decision Making?

Answer: Yes, subject to the qualifications set forth below.

Facts: Chapter 633, 2013 Laws of Maryland (House Bill 687) established a Commission on Child Custody Decision Making (the ACommission@) effective July 1, 2013. The Commission is comprised of various stakeholders from the Legislature and the Executive Branch, the Maryland State Bar Association, the University of Maryland School of Social Work, members of the Maryland bench, and a Family Law Master, among others. The Commission is charged with the responsibility of studying the practice, principles, and process for child custody decision making in Maryland. Chapter 633, Section 1(f)(1).1

Discussion: Maryland Rule 16-814, the Maryland Code of Conduct for Judicial Appointees, governs the conduct of judicial appointees and is patterned after the Code of Judicial Conduct. Id., Preamble. The Code of Conduct for Judicial Appointees applies to an auditor, examiner or master appointed by a Maryland court. Id., 16-814(a)(1). The Code of Conduct for Judicial Appointees thus is to be read in a manner consistent with parallel provisions in the Code of Judicial Conduct. Id., Preamble.

As this Committee has already addressed the limitations for judges serving on the same Commission in [Opinion Request No. 2013-15], issued on September 18, 2013, and Rule 3.4 of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Appointees is substantively identical to Rule 3.4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Committee adopts the analysis and conclusion contained in [Opinion Request 2013-15] and finds them equally applicable to judicial appointees.

Application: The Judicial Ethics Committee cautions that this opinion is applicable only prospectively and only to the conduct described in this opinion, to the extent of your compliance with this opinion. Omission or misstatement of a material fact in the written request for opinion negates reliance on this opinion.

1
A list of the members and a more detailed review of the responsibility of the Commission on Child Custody Decision Making is contained in [Opinion Request 2013-15], issued on September 18, 2013. Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion Request Number: 2013-16 Date of Issue: September 19, 2013

Published Opinion G Unpublished Opinion G Unpublished Letter of Advice

Page 2 of 2

Additionally, the 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 fact 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 the facts, submit an updated request to the Committee.