Could a magistrate rent a home from a lawyer whose firm partner frequently appeared before the magistrate?

Plain-English summary

A magistrate proposed renting a residence from an attorney who did not personally practice in the magistrate’s court. A partner at that attorney’s firm, however, frequently appeared there in criminal cases.

The Commission applied former Canon 4D(1)(b)’s restriction on continuing business relationships with lawyers likely to appear before the court and found the rental arrangement inappropriate.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993, before West Virginia adopted 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 it matter that the landlord did not personally appear?

A: The Commission still rejected the arrangement because a firm partner appeared frequently.

Q: What Canon controlled?

A: Former Canon 4D(1)(b) on continuing business relationships with lawyers likely to appear.

Background and rules framework

Former Canon 4D(1)(b) restricted a judge’s frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with lawyers or others likely to come before the court.

Citations and references

West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct (former):

• Canon 4D(1)(b), continuing business relationships.

See also

• WV JIC Advisory Opinion 1995-36: Campaign office lawyer landlord

Source

• Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
• Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 1993-15, 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
Building 1, Room E400
1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East
Charleston, WV 25305-0834

June 22, 1993
JIC Advisory Opinion 1993-15

Dear Magistrate
Your recent letter to the Judicial Investigation Commission seeking an advisory opinion about the propriety of your renting a residence in from an attorney has been referred to members of the Commission.
In that correspondence you state that the attorney from whom you will be renting does not practice in your court, but that a partner in his law firm does appear frequently in your court on criminal cases.
After reviewing your request, it is the opinion of the Commission that the arrangement which you describe would not be permitted because of the language in Canon 4D(l) (b) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. That section of the Code of Judicial Conduct states:
CANON 4
A JUDGE SHALL SO CONDUCT THE JUDGE'S EXTRA- JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES AS TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH JUDICIAL OBLIGATIONS
D. Financial Activities.
(1) A judge shall not engage in financial and business dealings that:

Magistrate - 2 - June 22, 1993

(b) involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with those lawyers or other persons likely to come before the court on which the judges serves.
Based upon that portion of the Canon, it is the opinion of the commission that the arrangement which you describe in your correspondence would not be appropriate.
Hopefull¥, this opinion addresses all of the questions which you raise in your correspondence. If there are any additional questions about this matter, do not hesitate to contact the Commission. f Vrery tfuly yours,

FLF,II/bl
-bJM,~l II, Chairman