Could a judge record an unpaid educational interview encouraging young people to finish high school or earn a GED?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1989. 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 judge recorded a half-hour interview to encourage young people to complete high school or obtain a GED. The judge would receive no payment and had no business affiliation with the media producer.
The Commission found no violation of the Judicial Code of Ethics based on those facts and the interview’s educational objective. It did not cite a numbered Canon.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1989 under the earlier Judicial Code of Ethics, before West Virginia adopted its 1993 Code and its 2015 Code of Judicial Conduct, effective December 1, 2015. Subsequent rule changes or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify the current Code before relying on the letter's conclusion.
Common questions
Q: Did the Commission find an ethics violation?
A: No, on the stated unpaid educational facts.
Q: Which facts mattered?
A: The lack of payment or producer affiliation and the educational purpose.
Background and rules framework
The Commission assessed the particular video facts under the Judicial Code of Ethics without citing a numbered Canon.
Citations and references
The opinion cites no numbered West Virginia Judicial Code of Ethics provision.
See also
Source
- Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
- Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 1989-02, redacted
- Code adoption date: West Virginia JIC 2015 Annual Report
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.
JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION COMMISSION
Room E~400, State Capitol
Charleston 25305
June 30, 1989
Re: JIC Advisory Opinion 1989-02
Dear
Your letter to Counse l for the Judici al Invest igation
Commis sion dated June 2, 1989, has been receive d and review ed by the member s of the Connni ssion. In that corresp ondenc e you asked for an adviso ry opinio n as to the propri ety of filming a televis ion tape for educat ional purpos es. In your corresp ondenc e you indica te that you have recent ly filmed a one-ha lf hour intervi ew with _ Media, Inc., the subjec t of which was to encour age youths to comple te high school or at the very least to obtain a GED. You furthe r indica te that you will not receiv e any remune ration for the intervi ew but did it solely for the purpos e of encour aging boys and girls to remain in school and furthe r their educat ion.
Your reques t for an adviso ry opinio n relativ e to this matter was review ed by the Judici al Invest igation Commi ssion at its recent meetin g. Based upon the inform ation which you set forth in your corresp ondenc e of June 2, 1989, the fact that you have no busine ss affilia tion with
Media, Inc., and the educat ional object ive of the intervi ew, the Commis sion does not feel that this intervi ew would violat e any of the Canons of the Judici al Code of Ethics .
If there is any questio n concer ning this letter or if the Commis sion can be of furthe r assista nce, please contac t me.
Very truly yours,
c:!J::M /3, f!1avc,Ll,,,,'j
0
Thomas B. Canter bury
Chairm an
TBC/bl
cc: Commi ssion Counse l
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1989. 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