How did the Commission assess requests for judicial officers’ outside employment?

Plain-English summary

A requester sought guidance on approving judicial officers’ outside employment. The Commission reviewed former Canon 4D and the Supreme Court personnel manual’s written approval process. The letter mentions an attached counsel memorandum, but the linked PDF contains only the letter.

The Commission found no single rule that resolved every outside job request. It said reviewers had to examine each position’s description and requirements under Canon 4, particularly whether the work might reasonably appear to exploit judicial office.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994, 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: Was there a universal rule for approving outside jobs?

A: No. The Commission said each request needed individual review.

Q: What concern did it emphasize?

A: Whether the employment could reasonably be perceived to exploit the judicial position.

Background and rules framework

Former Canon 4D(3) limited judges’ business employment, and Canon 4D(1)(a) barred financial dealings reasonably perceived to exploit judicial position. The letter also described the personnel manual’s written approval process.

Citations and references

West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct (former):

• Canon 4D(1)(a), exploitation of judicial position.
• Canon 4D(3), business roles and exceptions.

See also

• WV JIC Advisory Opinion 1995-05: Bread company sales work

Source

• Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
• Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 1994-07, 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.

April 14, 1994

Re: JIC Advisory Opinion 1994-07

Dear
Your letter to the Judicialin vestigatio n,:Commi ssion seeking guidance on the ~J;>p~.oval., Qf> put:;~ae .· ~:rnplg~~l'. ltJ£y judicial officers has beeh·revie wed by·the Commissio n at a recent meeting. In your correspond ence you refer to the language contained in canon 4D(l) (a) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and request some direction when approval for outside employmen t requests are received from judicial officers. After reviewing your request the Commissio n asked Counsel to review Canon 4D and prepare a memorandum for the Commissio n's review on the Canon. A copy of this memorandum is attached to this opinion. canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct establishe s guideline s governing extra judicial activitie s by judges. Canon 4D(3) sets forth that:
(3) A judge shall not serve as an officer, director, manager, general partner, adviser or employee of any business entity except that a judge may, subject to the requireme nts of this Code, manage and participa te in:
(a) a business closely held by the judge or members of the judge's family, or
(b) a business entity primarily engaged in investmen t of the financial resources of the judge or members of the judge's family.

• 2 - April 14, 1994

This language, while limiting the kinds of employment activity in which a judge may engage, does allow extra judicial employment under certain conditions.
Canon 4D(l) (a) states:
D. Financial Activities.
(1) A judge shall not engage in financial and business dealings that:
(a) may reasonablf be perceived to exploit the judge's judicial position.
Reading this language together with that contained in 40(3), it is felt by the commission that certain limited employment is permissible so long as that activitf may not reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge's judicial position. It is obvious that Canon 4D does not provide a precise definition of permissible employment nor does it establish a bright line standard by which determinations of extra-judicial employment may easily be made in general terms.
The Commission further understands that the supreme court Personnel Manual permits certain outside em~loyment by judicial branch personnel but that any outside employment that might be construed as compromisin~ or interfering with performance in a judicial branch position is prohibited. Prior to engaging in outside employment for remuneration the Personnel Manual requires an em~loyee to submit a written request to the Administrative Director for review and approval.
After reviewing the controlling language of Canon 4 and the Personnel Manual of the Supreme court as well as cases which have been decided in other jurisdictions discussing outside employment by judicial officers, the Commission feels that each request must be dealt with individually and that no standard governing all requests can be drafted. An added element of concern is the potential for exploitation of the judicial position. This possibility exists in every outside employment situation and must be analyzed carefully when determining if a given request should be approved. Each request must be reviewed in terms of the language in Canon 4 and the description and job requirements of the employment sought.
It is hoped that the memo which is attached hereto will serve as some guidance when requests for outside employment

• 3 - April 14, 1994

are reviewed. If any additional information can be provided by the Commission, do not hesitate to contact it.
Very truly yours,

Fred L. Fox, II, Chairman
CRG/bl
Enclosure