May judges contribute to a committee supporting a constitutional amendment to improve appellate court administration?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1990. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Judges asked about contributing money to a committee supporting Constitutional Amendment 2, a proposal concerning appellate court structure and administration.
The Committee concluded that contributions were permitted because the committee sought improvement of the legal system and administration of justice. It suggested that any judicial contribution avoid an appearance of endorsing the committee’s fundraising activities.
The majority discussed former Canons 2B, 4C and 7A(4). A concurrence cited In re Staples in further support of participation in court reform activity.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1990, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Were contributions to this committee allowed?
A: Yes. The Committee said monetary contributions for the described court reform measure were permissible.
Q: What limitation did the Committee suggest?
A: A judge should contribute in a manner that would not be read as an endorsement of the committee’s fundraising.
Q: Was there a separate concurrence?
A: Yes. A concurrence discussed In re Staples as further support for the conclusion.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied former Nebraska Canons 2B, 4C and 7A(4) to a committee devoted to court reform, distinguishing permitted improvement of the legal system from personally participating in public fundraising.
Citations and references
Former Nebraska Code of Judicial Conduct: Canons 2B, 4C, and 7A(4). Case cited in concurrence: In re Staples, 105 Wash. 2d 905, 719 P.2d 558 (1976).
See also
Source
- Landing page: Nebraska Judicial Ethics Committee opinions
- Original PDF: Opinion 90-3
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 1990. 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