Could a judge run a newspaper or radio program answering public questions about court operations?

Plain-English summary

A judge proposed a newspaper column or talk radio program inviting public questions about court operations. The committee concluded that participation in an informational program was permissible, subject to the Code’s limits on comments about pending cases and a judge’s impartiality. Source: Opinion 96-05

The committee said the judge should avoid giving legal advice or advisory opinions, commenting on pending cases, or answering questions that could commit the judge to a future ruling. It also said public funds should not cover a separate post office box for the avocational program. Source: Opinion 96-05

Currency note

This 1996 opinion applied the New Mexico Code of Judicial Conduct as it stood then. Later amendments or opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat it as historical context and verify the current Code before relying on it. Source for historical rule: Opinion 96-05

Common questions

Q: Could the judge answer questions about a pending case?

A: The committee said judges should refrain from comments on pending matters or controversies that might come before a court. Source: Opinion 96-05

Q: Could the court budget pay for the program’s mailbox?

A: No. The committee viewed the separate mailbox as an avocational expense that did not directly benefit court operations. Source: Opinion 96-05

Background and rules framework

The committee applied New Mexico Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 21-300(B)(10), 21-500(B), and 21-500(D)(1)(a). It cited advisory opinions from Alabama, Florida, Michigan, New York, and Texas on judges’ educational columns and broadcasts. Source: Opinion 96-05

Citations and references

• New Mexico Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 21-300(B)(10), 21-500(B), and 21-500(D)(1)(a). Source: Opinion 96-05
• Alabama Judicial Advisory Opinion 86-265 (1986); Florida Judicial Advisory Opinion 77-21 (Issue 5, 1978); Michigan Judicial Advisory Formal Opinion C-217 (July 1979); New York Judicial Advisory Opinion 88-133 (Dec. 8, 1988); Texas Judicial Advisory Opinion 63 (1982). Source: Opinion 96-05

See also

• NM Judicial Op. 97-05: Probate Articles

Source

• Landing page: New Mexico judicial advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Judicial Advisory Opinion 96-05

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. Thomas A. Donnelly
Prof. William T. MacPhearson, Jr.
May 13, 1996
Hon. Marie A. Baca

The Honorable

Judicial Advisory Opinion No.96-05

Dear Judge

The Judicial Advisory Committee is in receipt of your letter of April 10, 1996, requesting an opinion as to whether you, as a Judge, may initiate and participate in an educational program conducted through a newspaper column or talk radio format, and which programs are designed to encourage the citizens of and the general public to write to you personally with questions, concerns, or comments relating to the operation of the court. Specifically, you have inquired whether such program or programs would be ethically permissible. You have further indicated that the initial drafts of responses to letters you receive will be prepared by a volunteer court ombudsman, that you will modify and edit the responses after regular court hours, and that the only cost included in the court budget would be for rental of a local post office box.

SCRA 1986, Canons 21-300(B)(10) and 21-500(B) (Repl. 1995) are applicable to your inquiry. Canon 21-300(B) (10) provides in applicable part:

A judge shall not, while a proceeding is pending or impending in any court, make any public comment that might reasonably be expected to affect its outcome or impair its fairness or make any nonpublic comment that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing. (Emphasis added.]
Judge
Page 2

Canon 21-500(B) provides:

B. Avocational activities. A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach and participate in other extra-judicial activities concerning the law, the legal system, the administration of justice and non-legal subjects, subject to the requirements of this Code.

A similar question to that posed by your inquiry here was addressed by a Judicial Advisory Committee in Alabama. The committee determined that judges could participate in the publication of a newspaper column designed to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice if they received no compensation for preparing such column. See Alabama Judicial Advisory opinion 86-265 (1986). That opinion also cautioned that the judges involved in such project should refrain from giving any legal advice or commentary concerning pending cases involving substantive law. Similarly, a Florida Judicial Advisory Committee held that it is permissible for a judge to write a purely informational column in a local weekly newspaper explaining the function and duties of a county court judge. Florida Judicial Advisory Opinion 77-21 (Issue 5, 1978). A Michigan Advisory Committee also found that it was ethically permissible for a judge to write a regular legal column of a general informational nature for a newspaper or to participate in radio or television programs of a similar nature. Michigan Judicial Advisory Formal Opinion C-217 (July 1979); see also New York Judicial Advisory Opinion 88- 133 (Dec. 8, 1988) ("A judge may write a weekly newspaper column about the law and courtroom procedure."); Texas Judicial Advisory Opinion 63 (1982) ("A judge may write a weekly column about legal matters for newspaper publication).

In accord with the above authorities, we think it is clear that judges are free to write about the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice with a view toward explaining the judicial system or improving the law; however, in doing so, a judge should be careful not to cast doubt on his or her impartiality, and should scrupulously refrain from giving legal advice or advisory opinions, or commenting on pending cases, matters or controversies that may come before his or her court or any other court. It is also inappropriate for a judicial officer to address or answer questions which are intended to, or might have the effect of, committing the judge to a specific ruling with respect to matters or issues which may subsequently come before the judge's court; this would deprive the judge of the impartiality necessary to perform judicial duties. Judge Page 3

Subject to the restrictions noted above, we conclude that your participation in such informational program or programs would not be improper. 5ince the rental of a separate post office box for such programs would not directly benefit the operation of the court and relates generally to avocational matters, we believe public funds should not be expended for such purposes. See Canon 21-500(D) (1) (a).

Yours very truly,

Chairman, Judicial Advisory
Committee

~