Could a Maine justice accompany her spouse on a trip he won in a no-purchase sweepstakes?

Plain-English summary

A justice’s husband won a three-day trip in an online Borders sweepstakes that required no purchase or consideration. He wished to bring the justice as his guest, and the company had no case pending before the Supreme Judicial Court. Source: Opinion 07-2.

The committee found no Canon directly addressing that precise circumstance. It considered Canon 4H on compensation and reimbursement for extrajudicial activities, then concluded that the prize went to the spouse, not the justice. The justice was an incidental beneficiary, and the committee found no Code violation on those facts. Source: Opinion 07-2.

In practice

For the no-purchase drawing described, the committee permitted the justice to accompany her spouse because the award was to him and the justice benefited only incidentally. Source: Opinion 07-2.

Common questions

Q: Who received the sweepstakes prize?

A: The justice’s spouse won the trip, and the justice would accompany him as a guest. Source: Opinion 07-2.

Q: Did the company have a pending case before the court?

A: The opinion says a check found no Borders litigation pending before the Supreme Judicial Court. Source: Opinion 07-2.

Q: What was the committee’s conclusion?

A: It found no Maine Code of Judicial Conduct violation under the facts supplied. Source: Opinion 07-2.

Background and rules framework

The opinion discussed Maine Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 4H on compensation and reimbursement for permitted extrajudicial activities, while stating that no Canon specifically addressed this exact sweepstakes situation. The scanned conclusion was checked against page two of the official PDF. Source: Opinion 07-2.

Citations and references

Maine Code of Judicial Conduct:

• Canon 4H.

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Landing page: Maine advisory-opinion index
• Original PDF: Opinion 07-2

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

Advisory Opinion 07-2 | iP r
Issued: October 5, 2007 orn i
C. 2
Issue Ae Pas WW?
GSRoTsu ab iS
Whether a Justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court could violate SHY Of ttre Garrons- -----~

of Judicial Conduct, in view of the following facts.
Statement of Facts

The Justice has informed us that her husband entered and won a sweepstakes through Borders on-line. He has reviewed the contest and believes the contest is legitimate. No purchase or consideration was required and the drawing for the prize winner appears to have been random. The prize is a two nights/three days paid trip to Newport, Rhode Island. The prize winner is allowed to bring a guest, and the Justice’s husband would like to invite his wife to join him. A further check determined that Borders has no litigation pending before the Supreme Judicial Court.

Discussion

In our search of the Canons, we find nothing that specifically addresses an issue of this kind. The closest we have come is Canon 4, A Judge Shall So Conduct the Judge’s Extrajudicial Activities as to Minimize the Risk of Conflict with Judicial Obligations. Paragraph H Compensation and Reimbursement: “A judge may receive income, honoraria and reimbursement of expenses attributable to the extrajudicial activities permitted by the code, if the source of such payment does not give the Sppearance of influencing the judge’s performance of

judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety -- .”

J

Conclusion
Under the statement of facts which we are reviewing, it is clear that the compensation or

the reimbursement in this fact pattern will be to the Justice’s spouse, and not to the Justice, and

the Justice will be an incidental beneficiary of Borders’ largess.

We find that under the facts provided above, there is no violation of the Maine Code of

Judicial Conduct.