Could family law master offices accept donated furniture and equipment from nonprofit organizations?

Plain-English summary

Family law master offices had received furniture and equipment from bar associations and law offices because state supplies were minimal. The Commission reconsidered its March 29, 1991 position after hearing about the operational problems.

It reaffirmed that judicial officers should not accept gifts of money or equipment from nonprofit organizations. The letter stated that a state contract required the Department of Human Services to furnish the offices and suggested pursuing that obligation. It did not cite a numbered Canon.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991 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 office needs change the Commission’s gift position?

A: No. The Commission reaffirmed its prohibition on gifts of money or equipment from nonprofit organizations.

Q: What alternative did the letter identify?

A: It described a state contract under which the Department of Human Services was to provide the offices’ furnishings.

Background and rules framework

The letter reaffirmed a March 29, 1991 advisory position on gifts without citing a numbered Judicial Code of Ethics provision.

Citations and references

The opinion cites its earlier March 29, 1991 advisory position but no numbered Canon.

See also

• WV JIC Advisory Opinion 1993-09: Reporter discounted rental

Source

• Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
• Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 1991-09, 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.

•

fr1)
JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION COMMISSION
Room E-400, State Capitol

Charleston 25305

October 18, 1991

Re: JIC Advisory Opinion 1991-09

Dear
As you may know the Judicial Investigation Commission issued an advisory opinion on March 29, 1991, which stated that judicial officers are prohibited from accepting gifts of money or equipment from nonprofit organization s.
This advisory opinion directly affected some of the offices of family law masters since we have been informed that donations of equipment and furniture have been given or loaned by local bar associations ta some family law master offices. We are also told that without these donations and gifts some of the offices would not have proper furniture.
The Judicial Investigati.o n Commissi.on reconsidered this matter at its recent meeting based upon a letter received
from
Director for Family Law Masters.
reiterated that since the inception of the. Family Law Master Program in 1986 masters have been provided with only minimal. equipment and furnishings by the State. She stated that in order to perform their jobs more effectively many family law masters have used their own personal equipment, supplies, and furniture in thei.r offices. When that was not enough, bar association and law offices donated equipment such as the items which have been described to the Commission. Without the donated equipment, many ot the family law maste.rs offices would barely be able to function.

()etcher 18, 1991.

In spite of the problems enc(mntered by some f ami1y law masters, tht? Judicial Investigation Commission reiterated its position that judicial officers should not accept gifts of money or equipment from nonprofit organizations. We were informed by the family law master member of the Commission that the Supreme Court and the Depa.rtment of Human Services ha.ve a contract in which the Depa1·tment of Human Services is required to provide all of the equipment, furniture, and items needed to maintain properly the family law master offices.

I have been reque.sted by the Commission to address this correspond.ence to you and set forth the problems which have arisen. While this may be the least of the problems the family law master system is currently facing, perhaps some p:ressure can be utilized t.o compel the Department of Human Service!>to furnish properly the law masters offices.
Very truly yours,
w f Ji=_
Cha.rles R. Garten, counsel
CRG/bl