Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-NH

Did the judicial ethics committee decide whether lawyers from a special justice's former firm could appear in that court?

Short answer No. The Committee said the presented attorney-appearance question fell outside its judicial ethics jurisdiction. It did not decide a possible recusal question because that question had not been asked.
Bar
JUDICIAL-NH
Issued
2003
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2003. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2003
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A presiding judge asked whether lawyers from a special justice's former firm could appear in that court under RSA 502-A:21. The special justice no longer worked at the firm but was employed by a title company largely owned by its shareholders.

The Committee unanimously declined to decide the appearance issue. It said Supreme Court Rule 38-A(3)(a) limited its jurisdiction to questions about judicial ethical conduct, while the submitted question concerned attorneys' conduct. It mentioned that the special justice's recusal under Canons 2A, 3E, and 3F might become a separate issue, but no such question had been presented.

In practice

This opinion resolves only the Committee's jurisdiction over the submitted attorney-appearance question. It gives no answer about whether the lawyers may appear or whether the special justice must recuse.

Common questions

Q: Did the Committee decide whether the former firm's lawyers could appear?

A: No. It held that the question concerned attorney conduct outside its jurisdiction.

Q: Did it decide whether the special justice must recuse?

A: No. The Committee said a recusal question might arise, but it had not been asked.

Background and rules framework

The opinion cites RSA 502-A:21 as the source of the attorney-appearance question and Supreme Court Rule 38-A(3)(a) for the Committee's jurisdiction. Canons 2A, 3E, and 3F appear only as potential grounds for a separate judicial recusal inquiry.

Citations and references

New Hampshire Code of Judicial Conduct: Canons 2A, 3E, and 3F, cited as potential recusal provisions without an interpretation.

Statutes: RSA 502-A:21, the attorney-appearance provision raised by the requester.

Other authorities cited: Supreme Court Rule 38-A(3)(a).

See also

Source

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ETHICS

DOCKET NUMBER: 2003-ACJE-04

DATE ISSUED: January 28, 2004

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

The members of the former law firm of a special justice have filed appearances and seek to practice in the special justice’s court. Although the special justice is no longer associated with the law firm, the justice is employed by a title company which is owned almost exclusively by shareholders of the former law firm.

The question posed by the inquiring presiding judge in that court is whether the prohibition expressed in RSA 502-A:21 would prevent the members of the former law firm of the special justice from appearing and practicing in that court? The statutory provision provides in part, “No attorney shall be permitted to practice before any district court where any ... special justice thereof is associated with said attorney in the practice of law.”

Depending on the answer to this question, a second question may necessarily arise as to the special justice’s obligation to disqualify from any cases involving the former law firm under Canons 2A, 3E, and 3F of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

The Committee is unanimous in concluding that the first question does not implicate the jurisdiction of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics. Under Supreme Court Rule 38-A(3)(a), the committee’s jurisdiction is limited to “render[ing] advisory opinions with respect to the interpretation of rules of court and statutes relating to the ethical and professional conduct of judges. Any person whose conduct is subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct may request an advisory opinion about the propriety of his or her proposed conduct.” The question presented relates to attorney conduct only.

The second question has not been asked and may not arise.

James R. Patten, Vice-Chair

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2003. 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