May a New Hampshire judge consult directly with an out-of-state judge about a case transfer?

Plain-English summary

A judge asked about directly contacting a judge in another state to discuss administrative matters associated with transferring a case to New Hampshire, when no specific statute authorized the contact. The proposed discussion was to facilitate the transfer.

The Committee concluded that Canon 3(B)(7)(b) permits consultation with other judges to aid adjudicative responsibilities and does not limit that permission to New Hampshire judges. It treated transfer-related administrative discussions as within the judge's responsibility to dispose of matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly under Canon 3(B)(8).

In practice

For the described interstate transfer, the opinion permits direct judge-to-judge consultation about administrative matters that aid the New Hampshire judge's adjudicative work.

Common questions

Q: Does the consultation rule cover judges from other states?

A: Yes. The Committee said Canon 3(B)(7)(b) makes no distinction between New Hampshire judges and judges of other jurisdictions.

Q: What purpose did the opinion approve for the contact?

A: It approved discussion that aids adjudicative responsibilities, including facilitating a transfer between states.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Canons 3(B)(7)(b) and 3(B)(8) of the then effective New Hampshire Code of Judicial Conduct to the proposed administrative communication between judges.

Citations and references

New Hampshire Code of Judicial Conduct: Canons 3(B)(7)(b) and 3(B)(8); Supreme Court Rule 38-A(4)(c).

See also

• NH Judicial Ethics Op. 2002-ACJE-06: Former Firm Guardian

Source

• Landing page: New Hampshire judicial ethics opinions
• Original PDF: Opinion 2003-ACJE-05
• Archived official PDF: reviewable 2004 capture

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-05

DATE ISSUED: December 23, 2003

QUESTION AND FACTS PRESENTED:

A judge writes that occasionally cases may be transferred from a foreign state to New Hampshire, and it may become helpful for the New Hampshire judge to have direct communication with the presiding judge of the foreign state’s court for purposes of discussing issues relative to the transfer. The judge explains that such contact is most often made in order to expedite or otherwise facilitate the transfer. The question presented asks whether in those cases not covered by a specific authorizing statute, the judge may confer with the foreign state judge for purposes of discussing administrative matters associated with the case.

DISCUSSION AND APPLICTION OF CODE OF CONDUCT:

Canon 3(B)(7)(b) of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides, “A judge may consult with court personnel whose function is to aid the judge in carrying out the judge’s adjudicative responsibilities or with other judges.” No distinction is made between New Hampshire judges and judges of foreign jurisdictions. The Committee believes the facts presented fall within this section of the Code in that the contact, which is the subject of the inquiry, is strictly for purposes of aiding in the judge’s adjudicative responsibilities; specifically, the responsibility to dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly. See Canon 3(B)(8).

ADVISORY OPINION ON THE QUESTION PRESENTED:

Canon 3(B)(7)(b) of the Code of Judicial Conduct permits a New Hampshire judge to confer with a judge from a foreign jurisdiction for purposes of aiding the New Hampshire judge in carrying out the judge’s adjudicative responsibility, including the facilitation of the transfer of cases between sister states.

THIS ADVISORY OPINION IS ISSUED BY UNANIMOUS CONCURRENCE OF ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

Edwin W. Kelly, Member

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT

This opinion is advisory only and not binding on the judicial conduct committee, which may, in its discretion, consider compliance with an advisory opinion by the requesting individual as a good faith effort to comply with the Code of Judicial Conduct. Rule 38-A(4)(c).

2