When must a family law master recuse after hiring an attorney's former paralegal?
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 family law master planned to hire a case coordinator who had worked as the only domestic-law paralegal for a local attorney. He asked whether he could hear cases involving that attorney after she joined his staff.
Applying former Canon 3E(1), the Commission said the master should recuse from any case that was in the attorney's office while the coordinator worked there. Recusal was not required for cases the attorney received after she began working for the master on July 1, 2000.
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: Which cases required the family law master's recusal?
A: Cases that had been in the attorney's office while the new coordinator was employed there.
Q: Did recusal extend to cases the attorney took after the coordinator changed jobs?
A: No. The Commission said recusal was not required for cases the attorney received after the coordinator joined the master's staff.
Background and rules framework
The letter applied former Canon 3E(1), requiring disqualification when a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Its quoted commentary stated that this standard could apply even without one of the canon's specific disqualification grounds.
Citations and references
West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct (former): Canon 3E(1).
See also
Source
- Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
- Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 2000-27, 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
June 30, 2000
JIC Advisory Opinion 2000-27
Dear Family Law Master
In a recent letter to the Judicial Investigation Commission you asked for an advisory opinion. In your communication you stated that on July 1, 2000, will be employed as your case coordinator. For the past four years she has worked for a county attorney who practices domestic law. You asked whether cases currently pending on your docket after July 1, 2000, with that attorney should be heard by you or whether you should recuse yourself from those cases due to a possible appearance of impropriety. You have been informed that Ms. was the only paralegal in the attorney's office who handled domestic cases. Therefore, his current case load has involved Ms. in one way or another.
To address the issue which you have raised the Commission reviewed Canon 3E(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. That section of Canon 3 states as follows:
Canon 3. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently.
E. Disqualification.
(1). A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned . . .
The commentary to this Canon states that “a judge is disqualified whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply.” Based upon the language contained in the Canon and the commentary, it is the opinion of the Commission that you should recuse yourself from hearing any case which was
June 30, 2000
Page Two
in the office of the attorney while Ms. was employed by him. You would not be required to recuse yourself from those cases which went to the attorney after Ms. was employed by you on July 1, 2000. It is hoped that this opinion fully addresses the question which you have raised. If you have any further question regarding this matter do not hesitate to contact the Commission.
Very truly yours,
John W. Bennett, Chairman
JWB: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