May a Nebraska judge own bank stock and remain a director of the banks?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1989. 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 judge owned shares in two banks and served on both boards before and after taking judicial office. The banks were located outside the judge’s district.
The Committee said bank stock ownership was permissible, subject to disqualification when a bank was a party and caution where a case could affect the bank or share value. It said former Canon 5C(2) barred service as a director of the banks, distinguishing a passive investment from active business management.
The opinion discussed the former Code’s limited exception for personal investment corporations and concluded that these banks did not fit it on the stated facts. Six members concurred in the full opinion; one concurred only in the result.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1989, before Nebraska's adoption of the 2011 Revised Code of Judicial Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific requirement.
Common questions
Q: Could the judge keep the bank shares?
A: Yes, subject to the opinion’s disqualification and impartiality limits.
Q: Could the judge remain a bank director?
A: No. The Committee concluded that former Canon 5C(2) prohibited it.
Q: Did the banks’ location outside the district change the result?
A: No. The opinion still barred the board positions.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied former Nebraska Canons 2, 3C(1)(c), 3D and 5C to investment ownership and active bank management.
Citations and references
Former Nebraska Code of Judicial Conduct: Canons 2, 3C(1)(c), 3D, 5C(1), 5C(2), and 5C(3). Statutes cited: Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 24-315 and 8-102.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Nebraska Judicial Ethics Committee opinions
- Original PDF: Opinion 89-4
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 1989. 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