How should a judge address impartiality when selecting a charity for unclaimed class-action funds?

Plain-English summary

The judge asked about $141,917.65 in a final unclaimed fund from a class action. The parties did not object to payment to a charity or nonprofit. The committee expressly declined to decide whether that payment was legal or subject to the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act. Source: Opinion 00-01, p. 1

Instead, the committee applied the Code's public-confidence and impartiality duties to the choice of recipient. It said earlier relationships with a charity must not affect the selection or make it appear that the judge sought personal gratification or recognition. It suggested selection by three or more judges or a citizens panel making recommendations. Source: Opinion 00-01, pp. 1–2

In practice

The opinion concerns impartial selection of a recipient if a charitable disbursement is otherwise lawful; it does not resolve the legal authority to disburse the funds that way. Source: Opinion 00-01, pp. 1–2

Common questions

Q: Did the committee authorize a charitable distribution of the unclaimed funds?

A: No. It expressly took no position on the legality of that decision or the Unclaimed Property Act's application. Source: Opinion 00-01, p. 1

Q: What selection methods did it suggest?

A: It suggested discussion and agreement among at least three judges or recommendations from a citizens panel. Source: Opinion 00-01, p. 2

Background and rules framework

The committee applied then-current New Mexico Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 21-200 and 21-500 to the appearance of impartiality when selecting a charitable recipient. Source: Opinion 00-01, pp. 1–2

Citations and references

• New Mexico Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 21-200 and 21-500. Source: Opinion 00-01, pp. 1–2
• Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, named but not analyzed by the committee. Source: Opinion 00-01, p. 1

See also

• NM Judicial Op. 02-09: Foundation Board
• NM Judicial Op. 02-06: Civic Boards

Source

• Landing page: New Mexico judicial advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Judicial Advisory Opinion 00-01

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Conduct

Hon. Frank H. Allen, Jr., Chairman
Hon. Marie A. Baca
Hon. James J. Wechsler
Prof. William MacPherson
June 30, 2000

The Honorable
District Judge
Judicial District
P.O. Box
NM

Re: Judicial Advisory Opinion 00-01

Dear Judge

You have asked our committee for advice concerning the disbursement of $141,917.65 held in a Final Unclaimed Fund as the result of a class action case. The parties have complied with the court's order concerning distribution and the above amount is unclaimed.

The parties have no objection to disbursing the funds to a charitable or non-profit organization. We take no position about the legality of the decision to contribute funds to charity or to the applicability of Uniform Unclaimed Property Act in this case.

In deciding the designation of the recipient or recipients of the fund we feel you should take into consideration the following. Under NMRA 2000 Rule 21-200 (A), a judge must promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Under Rule 21-200 (B), a judge shall not allow any relationship "to influence the judge' s judicial conduct or judgment," and a "judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interest of the judge or others."

The selection of the organization therefore should not be influenced by the judge’s prior relationships with the organization. The selection should be made so that it cannot be inferred that the prior relationship influenced the judge’s conduct or judgment or that the judge sought to advance the interest of the organization in order to indirectly receive personal gratification or public acknowledgment.
Rule 21-500A (1) also imposes restrictions upon a judge's extra-judicial activities such that they do not cast doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge. The judge's past extra-judicial activities should not affect his decision as to the selection of the charity.

We have a suggestion as to how to proceed with the selection of the charity so that the problems just suggested do not occur. If the selection could be made by three or more of the judges of the
, Judicial District the selection could not be criticized as being done because it was a judge's "private charity." At a meeting of the judges, nominations could be made and discussed and an organization could be selected by agreements.

An alternative suggestion is the use of a citizens panel to make recommendations to the judge.

We hope that these suggestions will be of some help.

Very truly yours,

Frank H. Allen, Jr. Chairperson
Judicial Advisory Committee

FHA/mvh

xc: The Honorable Marie Baca
The James J. Wechsler
Professor MacPherson
Thaddeus P. Bejnar