Could a Maine judge accept a free “Judicial Fellow” membership in a trial lawyers association?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2002. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Maine judges were invited to participate as “Judicial Fellows” in the Association of Trial Lawyers of America without paying for membership. The committee found accepting the invitation inappropriate. Source: Opinion 02-1.
The committee identified Canon 5(C)(4) because the fellowship offered a no-cost membership. It cited Advisory Opinion 93-1, which had treated a discounted dinner admission for a judge as a technical violation. Source: Opinion 02-1.
It also cited Canon 4(A)(1), which restricted extrajudicial activities that cast reasonable doubt on impartiality. Because the association represented attorneys on positions before legislative and judicial bodies, identifying a judge as its fellow might raise such doubt. The committee distinguished fellowships with the American Bar Foundation and Maine Bar Foundation, whose described mission supported the rule of law and administration of justice. Source: Opinion 02-1.
In practice
For the offered free trial lawyers association fellowship, the committee concluded that accepting membership would be inappropriate under the cited canons. Source: Opinion 02-1.
Common questions
Q: Could a judge accept the free Judicial Fellow membership?
A: No. The committee found accepting the invitation inappropriate. Source: Opinion 02-1.
Q: Why did the price of membership matter?
A: The offer was free, bringing Canon 5(C)(4) into play; the committee compared a prior discounted admission opinion. Source: Opinion 02-1.
Q: What was the impartiality concern?
A: Association with a group taking positions before courts and legislatures might cast doubt on the judge’s impartiality. Source: Opinion 02-1.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied Maine Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5(C)(4) to the free membership and Canon 4(A)(1) to the apparent impartiality issue. It cited Maine Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 93-1 on a lower-cost dinner admission. Source: Opinion 02-1.
Citations and references
Maine Code of Judicial Conduct:
- Canons 5(C)(4) and 4(A)(1).
Other opinions cited:
- Maine Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 93-1, on discounted admission to an MCLU award dinner.
See also
- ME Judicial Ethics Op. 02-7: Nonprofit Board Service
- ME Judicial Ethics Op. 03-4: Jail Authority Directorship
Source
- Landing page: Maine advisory-opinion index
- Original PDF: Opinion 02-1
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.
JUDICIAL ETHICS COMMITTEE | 1 !
Advisory Opinion No. 02-1 ial M A ae |
Issued March 5, 2002 1 MAR 1 4 ai ‘e ak
censcnsneneuqunnsenetses
Re: Participation as a “Judicial Fellow” in the Association of Trial Lawyers of America
Issue:
Whether participation of Maine judges as a “Judicial Fellow” in the Association of Trial Lawyers of America comports with the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct. Response: | . _
After reviewing the material submitted and the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct, the Committee is of the opinion that it would inappropriate to accept the invitation that has been extended. The Committee feels that acceptance of the invitation calls into play two Canons of the Code of Judicial Ethics. | |
The first is Canon 5(C)(4), because the offer from the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (‘the Association”) is for a no cost or “free” membership. See Judicial Ethics Committee Advisory Opinion 93-1, issued May 24, 1993 re: Attendance at MCLU Scolnik Award Dinner, finding that the privilege of a judge to attend the dinner
_ at a lower cost constitutes a technical violation.
The second is Canon 4(A)(1). A judge shall conduct all of the judges extra- judicial activities so that they do not: (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge. .. .
Generally speaking, the Association represents its attorney membership with
regard to certain specific positions that are taken before both legislative and judicial
bodies. The fact that a judge might be identified as a “Judicial Fellow” connected with this Association may well cast doubts on his or her impartiality.
We also note that the position taken here is consistent with the position taken by other Judicial Ethics Committees in the States of Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana. |
Our position here is to be distinguished from membership of the Judiciary as “Fellows” of the American Bar Foundation and the Maine Bar F oundation, where in both instances the Foundation is supporting the mission of both organizations in expanding the
tule of law and the sound administration of justice.
PARAP\VudicialEthics\opinion02-1.doc
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2002. 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