Could a judge’s campaign committee rent office space from a partnership that included a lawyer practicing before the judge?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1995. 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 asked whether the campaign committee could rent offices in a building owned by a partnership whose member practiced before the judge.
The Commission concluded that the committee should not rent the space. It cited former Canon 3E(1) on reasonably questioned impartiality and Canon 4D(1) on continuing business relationships with lawyers likely to appear before the judge. The letter records that the Commission chair dissented.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1995, 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 the Commission approve the proposed lease?
A: No. It concluded that the campaign committee should not rent the space.
Q: Was the opinion unanimous?
A: No. The letter states that the Commission chair dissented.
Background and rules framework
Former Canon 3E(1) addressed disqualification when impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Canon 4D(1) restricted frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with lawyers likely to appear before the judge.
Citations and references
West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct (former):
- Canon 3E(1), disqualification.
- Canon 4D(1), financial and business dealings with lawyers.
See also
Source
- Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
- Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 1995-36, 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
212 Dickinson Street
Post Office Box 1629
Charleston, West Virginia 25326-1629
(304) 558-0169 FAX (304) 558-0831
December 14, 1995
Dear Judge .
Your recent letter to counsel for the Judicial Investigation Commission was reviewed by the Commission at its recent meeting. In that letter you asked whether your campaig11 committee could rent office space in a building owned by a partnership, one of whose partners is an attorney who practices before you.
After reviewing your inquiry it is the opinion of the Commission that your campaign committee should not rent office space in a building owned by a partnership one of whose partners is an attorney who practices before you. The language contained in Canon 3E(l) of the Code of Judicial Conduct concerning disqualification in proceedings in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned would become a factor in this situation. Also the language set forth in Canon 4D(l) of the Code of Judicial Conduct which prohibits a judge from engaging in any financial or business dealings that involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with lawyers likely to come before the Court would offer direction in this matter.
It is hoped this opinion addresses the inquiry which you have made. The Chairman of the Commission wishes to note his dissent in this opinion.
Very truly yours,
t!Au~-Ak&
Anita H. Ashley-*
Acting ChairperUn
AHA/bl
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1995. 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