Could a Maine District Court judge chair a court advisory committee on children and families?

Plain-English summary

A District Court judge asked whether chairing the court’s Standing Committee on Children and Families conflicted with Canon 4(C)(1). The Chief Justice had assigned the committee to review court-sponsored services and projects and report to the Supreme Judicial Court. Source: Opinion 07-1.

Canon 4(C)(1) restricted judges’ appearances or consultations with executive or legislative bodies but excepted matters concerning the law, legal system or administration of justice. The committee viewed the assignment as an administrative function within that exception and concluded the judge could carry it out. Source: Opinion 07-1.

The opinion expressly declined to advise on the methods and procedures the committee or its chair should follow. Source: Opinion 07-1.

In practice

For the Chief Justice’s described committee assignment, the opinion permitted the judge to perform the administrative work. It did not prescribe how the committee should conduct that work. Source: Opinion 07-1.

Common questions

Q: What work had been assigned to the judge’s committee?

A: The opinion described review of court-sponsored children-and-families services and projects, followed by a report to the Supreme Judicial Court. Source: Opinion 07-1.

Q: Why did Canon 4(C)(1) allow the work?

A: The committee treated it as an administrative court assignment concerning the legal system and administration of justice. Source: Opinion 07-1.

Q: Did the opinion set procedures for the committee?

A: No. It said it was not in a position to advise on the committee’s or chair’s methods and procedures. Source: Opinion 07-1.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Maine Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 4(C)(1). It cited its earlier Opinion 03-1 on the Canon’s public-hearing language and a Maine Supreme Judicial Court case distinguishing judicial from administrative functions. The scanned conclusion was checked against page two of the official PDF. Source: Opinion 07-1.

Citations and references

Maine Code of Judicial Conduct:

• Canon 4(C)(1).

Other opinions cited:

• Maine Judicial Ethics Committee Advisory Opinion 03-1, on Canon 4(C)(1).

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Landing page: Maine advisory-opinion index
• Original PDF: Opinion 07-1

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 it
Advisory Opinion 07-1 (pemrn

i

Issued: August 9, 2007 | AUG 14 2007 7?
Issue | OOS wy,

CRETE

Whether a Judge of the Maine District Court would violate any of the Canons of Judicial Conduct in presiding and carrying out the duties assigned to the Advisory Committee on Children and Families. Statement of Facts

The assignment to the Standing Committee on Children and F amily, formerly known as the Court Services Advisory Committee, is contained in a Memorandum dated February 23, 2007, approved by Chief Justice Saufley, which is attached to this Advisory Opinion and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1.

The Judge is unclear in view of Judicial Canon 4 (C) (1) and perhaps other Canons as to whether his action as a presiding officer would be prohibited.

Discussion
| Canon 4(C) (1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides as follows:

“A judge shall not appear at a public hearing before, or otherwise consult with, an executive or legislative body or official except on matters concerning the law, the legal system or the administration of justice or except when acting pro se in a matter involving the judge or the judge’s interest.”

Conclusion
In Advisory Opinion 03-1 issued 07/24/2003, this Committee stated that the language set forth above applies to legislative and executive public hearings and not to adjudicatory hearings. The Supreme Judicial Court in York Reg ister of Probate v. York County Probate Court, et al, 845

A.2d 395: 2004 ME 58 (Me. 2004) stated that there was a clear distinction between actions taken

by a Judge acting in a judicial capacity and actions that are administrative in nature.

smrenniennngromn seroma

It would appear from reading the assignment from the Chief Justice that the Advisory Committee of which the Judge is Chairman, has been assigned an administrative function to review Court sponsored services and projects relating to children and families and report to the Supreme Judicial Court the various areas assigned in Exhibit 1. It also appears that the matter under consideration concerns matters eonvernine the law, the legal system and/or the administration of justice, one of the specific exclusions under Canon 4(C)(1).

Having concluded that a presiding judge may carry out the administrative assigned duties, we are not in a position to advise as to the methods and procedures that should be followed by the

Committee or its Chairman.

P:\Users\rputnam\JudicialEthics\Opinion 07-1.doc