Did Mississippi's election committee find a candidate's claim to be the only judge in a race misleading when the opponent was a special master?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2022. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A judicial candidate complained that her opponent, a sitting justice court judge, called himself the only “judge” in their race. She argued that her service as a special master in chancery court made that claim misleading. A former Special Committee opinion had treated a similar claim as improper.
The Oversight Committee disagreed with that prior opinion. It said a special master does not have the full power of a court or authority to issue a binding final decision, citing Banks v. Banks and Evans v. Davis. Although special masters have some duties under the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Committee found a clear distinction between their authority and a judge's.
It expressly disapproved former Special Committee Public Opinion 2018-24, found that the opponent had not knowingly misrepresented the complainant's qualifications, and declined to take action against him.
In practice
The opinion resolves the title claim on its stated facts and expressly disapproves the former Special Committee's 2018-24 treatment of a special master as a judge for that comparison.
Common questions
Q: Did the Committee follow former Public Opinion 2018-24?
A: No. It expressly disapproved that opinion's treatment of a special master in this campaign-title dispute.
Q: Did it find that the justice court judge knowingly misrepresented his opponent's qualifications?
A: No. The Committee found no knowing misrepresentation and declined to take action against him.
Q: Why did the Committee distinguish a special master from a judge?
A: It cited the special master's lack of authority to issue a binding final decision and said a master's report has no effect until confirmed by the chancery court.
Background and rules framework
The opinion discusses the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct's application to special masters and Mississippi Code Annotated section 41-21-61(b). It relies on Mississippi decisions about a special master's authority; it does not cite a specific numbered judicial canon as the basis for its outcome.
Citations and references
Statutes: Mississippi Code Annotated § 41-21-61(b).
Cases: Banks v. Banks, 648 So. 2d 1116 (Miss. 1994), special-master authority; Evans v. Davis, 401 So. 2d 1096 (Miss. 1981), effect of a master's report.
Other opinions cited: Former Special Committee Public Opinion 2018-24, disapproved.
See also
- MS Judicial Opinion 2022-04: Judge Title and Campaign Disclosures
- MS Judicial Opinion 2022-05: Campaign Sign Disclosures
Source
- Landing page: Judicial Election Oversight Committee opinions
- Original PDF: Public Opinion No. 2022-07
- Archived official PDF: reviewable capture
Original opinion text
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 2022. 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