May a judge remain in a former law firm’s retirement plan and hear cases involving the firm or plan trustee?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1992. 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 newly appointed judge remained in a former firm’s retirement plan to avoid tax costs and obtain lower management fees. The judge’s vested account was segregated, while the firm administered the plan and a bank served as trustee.
The Committee said the judge should not hear cases involving the former firm while remaining in the plan because the continuing link could undermine public confidence under former Canon 2A. Cases involving the plan or its administration also presented a conflict.
The opinion treated bank-party cases and prohibited business dealings as dependent on whether the judge elected self-management, whether the bank and plan were distinct legal entities, and whether the former firm’s administration created frequent transactions. It left ERISA questions to a qualified adviser rather than deciding them.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1992, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 hear cases involving the former firm?
A: The Committee advised against hearing any such case while the judge remained in the firm’s retirement plan.
Q: Did self-management affect cases involving the trustee bank?
A: Yes. The opinion identified a disqualifying financial-interest concern during years when the judge elected self-management.
Q: Did the Committee settle the plan’s ERISA status?
A: No. It said the effect of ERISA and the former firm’s ability to affect vested benefits required separate advice.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied the pre-September 1992 Nebraska Code’s Canons 2A, 3C, 3D, and 5C. It distinguished disqualification from financial dealings that remittal could not cure.
Citations and references
Former Nebraska Code of Judicial Conduct: Canons 2A, 3C(1), 3C(1)(c), 3C(3)(c)(i), 3D, 5C(1), and 5C(3).
See also
Source
- Landing page: Nebraska Judicial Ethics Committee opinions
- Original PDF: Opinion 92-5
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 1992. 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