Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-ME

Could a Maine probate judge represent a legislative candidate in an election recount?

Short answer Yes. The committee concluded that representing the candidate in the specified legislative recount was not prohibited by the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct.
Bar
JUDICIAL-ME
Issued
November 10, 2006
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2006. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2006
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A probate judge was asked to serve as counsel for a Maine House candidate in a recount concerning District 94. The committee considered the probate-judge exceptions in Part II, Section 1B(1) of the then-current Code. Source: Opinion 06-1.

The committee said legal representation in this recount was not “other political activity” under Canon 5A(1)(f). It reasoned that the recount would not come before the judge in a judicial capacity and that, under the cited Maine Constitution provision, the House decided its members’ elections. Source: Opinion 06-1.

The committee concluded that the probate judge’s proposed counsel role was not prohibited by the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct. Source: Opinion 06-1.

In practice

For the specified House recount, the opinion permitted the probate judge to act as a candidate’s lawyer. Its reasoning rested on the probate-judge Code exceptions and the recount’s placement outside the judge’s court. Source: Opinion 06-1.

Common questions

Q: Did the opinion treat recount representation as prohibited political activity?

A: No. It said the proposed legal representation was not “other political activity” within Canon 5A(1)(f). Source: Opinion 06-1.

Q: Why would the matter not reach the judge’s court?

A: The opinion said the House of Representatives was the exclusive judge of the winning candidate under Maine Constitution Article IV, Part Third, Section 3. Source: Opinion 06-1.

Q: What did the committee conclude?

A: It concluded that the judge of probate was not prohibited from representing the legislative candidate in this recount. Source: Opinion 06-1.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Maine Code of Judicial Conduct Part II, Section 1B(1) and Canons 4C(1), 5A(1)(b) and 5A(1)(f), and cited Maine Constitution Article IV, Part Third, Section 3. Its first two scanned pages hold the opinion; attached Code pages are mostly unreadable in OCR, so the full text is linked in the official PDF. Source: Opinion 06-1.

Citations and references

Maine Code of Judicial Conduct:

  • Part II, Section 1B(1); Canon 4C(1); Canon 5A(1)(b), (f).

Constitution:

  • Maine Constitution Article IV, Part Third, Section 3.

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

Original opinion text

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

Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2006. 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