Could a part-time family law master practice domestic relations law in another state?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1996. 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 part-time family law master asked whether domestic relations practice in another state was permitted. The Commission classified that position as a continuing part-time judge under former Canon 6C.
Former Canon 6C(2) restricted practice in matters within the same subject-matter jurisdiction, and its commentary said a part-time family law master could not accept any domestic relations matter. Applying that language, the Commission concluded that the requester could not practice domestic relations law in another state.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1996, 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 other state change the result?
A: No. The Commission concluded that domestic relations practice there was prohibited.
Q: What Code provision did the Commission apply?
A: Former Canon 6C(2) and its commentary on part-time family law masters.
Background and rules framework
Former Canon 6C classified a part-time family law master as a continuing part-time judge. Canon 6C(2) and its commentary restricted legal practice in the same subject-matter jurisdiction.
Citations and references
West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct (former):
- Canon 6C(2) and commentary, legal practice by continuing part-time judges.
See also
Source
- Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
- Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 1996-13, 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
June 6, 1996
Re: JIC Advisory Opinion 1996-13
Dear
Your recen t letter to Couns el to the Judic ial Inves tigati on Comm ission in which you seek an adviso ry opinio n was review ed by the Comm ission at its In you corres ponde nce you stab:i, t-_hi:1t-: vn11 :::1,.- 0 "' recen t meetin g.
~<>,..+- -+-~-- fi:1m~ 1 u 1 ,::ur, maste r servin g
.
. ----
Count ies. You asked wheth er a part-t ime family law maste r may practi ce domes tic relati ons law in anoth er state.
The positi on of part-t ime family law maste r is define Canon 6C of the Code of Judic ial Condu ct as a contin uing d in part-t ime judge. Under the termin ology defini ng positi on a contin uing part-t ime judge is "a judge that who repea tedly on a part-t ime basis by electi on or under a serves contin uing appoin tment, a part-t ime family law maste r, a juven ile refere e, and a menta l hygien e comm ission er." the langua ge set forth in canon 6C(2) you "may pract iceUnder in the court on which the judge serves or in any court law subje ct to the appel late jurisd iction of the court on the judge serves , but shall not act as a lawye r in a which procee ding in which the judge has served as a judge or in any other procee ding relate d theret o, or in any matte r involv ing the same subje ct-ma tter jurisd iction ." (Emph asis suppli ed) The comme ntary to this Canon states that a part-t ime family law maste r "shal l not accep t any domes tic relati ons matte r or serve as an attorn ey in any procee ding relate d to a case in which he or she has served as a family law maste r." Based on the clear langua ge set forth in the Canon and the comme ntary follow ing the Canon , it is the opinio n of the Comm ission that you may not practi ce domes tic relati ons law in anoth er state.
- 2 - June 6, 1996
It is hoped that this opinion fully addresses the question which you have raised. If there is any further question regarding this matter, do not hesitate to contact the Commission.
Ve yours,
Chairman
FLF,II/bl
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1996. 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