What should a judge disclose when an attorney appearing before the judge is an election opponent?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2000. 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 about hearing cases involving a local attorney who regularly practiced before the judge and was opposing the judge in an upcoming election. The Commission said the judge should disclose the contested race on the record when that attorney appeared, so parties and counsel could decide whether to seek recusal.
The Commission quoted then-Canon 3E(1) on disqualification when impartiality might reasonably be questioned and commentary on disclosure even when the judge believes there is no basis for disqualification. It added that the judge should recuse from the attorney's case if the election created personal bias or prejudice concerning the attorney.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2000, 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: What did the Commission say the judge should disclose?
A: The judge should disclose the contested judicial race when the opposing attorney appeared before the judge.
Q: When did the Commission say recusal was needed?
A: It said the judge should recuse from the attorney's case if the judge had personal bias or prejudice concerning that attorney because of the race.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied former Canon 3E(1) and its disclosure commentary to an attorney who was the judge's election opponent. It cited Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc. after explaining that disclosure would allow parties and lawyers to consider whether to seek recusal.
Citations and references
Cases:
- Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc., 194 W. Va. 97, 359 S.E.2d 374 (1995), cited in the opinion's discussion of disclosure and recusal.
Other authorities cited:
- West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3E(1) and commentary, as quoted in the 2000 opinion.
See also
Source
- Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
- Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 2000-06, 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
Post Office Box 1629
Charleston, West Virginia 25326-1629
(304) 558-0169 • FAX (304) 558-0831
February 7, 2000
JIC Advisory Opinion 2000-06
Dear Judge:
In a recent letter to the Judicial Investigation Commission you asked for an advisory opinion. In your letter you stated that you have opposition in the upcoming election from a local attorney who practices in your court on a regular basis. You inquired about whether you have any obligation to disclose this matter for public record in a proceeding involving this attorney. You stated that you were concerned about whether this situation would create any limitations on your hearing cases involving the attorney.
To address your request the Commission reviewed Canon 3E(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct which states in relevant part: A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The commentary following the Canon states that a judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes that there is no real basis for disqualification. Based on the language contained in the Canon and the commentary following it, it is the opinion of the Commission that you should disclose the fact that you and the attorney are in a contested judicial race when that attorney appears before you. This would permit all parties and their attorneys to make an informed decision about whether to seek your recusal from that particular case. See Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc., 194 W.Va. 97, 359 S.E.2d 374 (1995). Obviously if you have a personal bias or prejudice concerning the attorney because of your current situation you should recuse yourself from his case.
February 7, 2000
Page Two
If there is any further question regarding this matter do not hesitate to contact the Commission.
Very truly yours,
Donald H. Cookman, Vice-Chairman
DHC:nb
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2000. 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