Could a new judge retain a real estate partnership with practicing lawyers who might appear in court?

Plain-English summary

A new judge retained an interest in a real estate partnership that owned an office rented to a law firm. The other partners were practicing lawyers, and the judge asked whether the interest had to be sold, how any buyout should be paid, and how cases involving the partners should be handled.

The Commission said the interest had to be sold under former Canon 4D. It suggested a one-time lump sum to avoid an ongoing business relationship and said the judge should recuse from cases involving the real estate partners before the sale. The letter also cited Matter of Means.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001, 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: Could the judge keep the real estate partnership interest?

A: No. The Commission said the judge needed to sell the described interest.

Q: What payment form did the Commission suggest?

A: It suggested a one-time lump sum so a continuing business relationship would not remain.

Q: What did the letter say about cases involving the partners before sale?

A: The Commission said the judge should recuse from those cases until the transaction occurred.

Background and rules framework

The letter quoted former Canon 4D(1) of the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct, especially the limit on continuing business relationships with lawyers likely to appear before the judge's court.

Citations and references

West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct (former): Canon 4D(1).

Cases: Matter of Means, 192 W. Va. 380, 452 S.E.2d 696 (1994), cited alongside the partnership and recusal conclusion.

See also

• WV JIC Advisory Opinion 2001-01

Source

• Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
• Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 2001-02, 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

January 16, 2001
JIC Advisory Opinion 2001-02

Dear Judge

In a recent correspondent to the Commission you asked for an advisory opinion. In your letter you stated that one of your former law partnerships became a real estate partnership in 1990 when the law firm merged with another firm. The purpose of the conversion of the law partnership into a real estate partnership was to continue to hold and rent your office buildings which you owned in two separate towns. Subsequently, you sold one of the offices and currently just own an office which you still rent to a local law firm. All of your partners in the real estate partnership are attorneys who practice with various firms in the area or are sole practioners. You asked for an advisory opinion regarding your options with respect to your interest in the real estate partnership since you assumed the Bench at the first of this year. You asked if your only option is to sell your interest, does the buy out need to be in a lump sum or can it be in periodic payments. You asked how this situation would affect your disqualification/recusal presently, as well as, in the future from cases involving your real estate partners and also in cases involving any of the several attorneys in their firms.

To address the inquiry which you have made the Commission reviewed Canon 4D of the Code of Judicial Conduct. That Canon states in relevant part as follows:

Canon 4 - A judge shall so conduct the judge's extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.

D. Financial activities. (1) A judge shall not engage in financial and business dealings that:
(a) may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge's judicial position, or
(b) involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with those lawyers or other persons likely to come before the court on which the judge serves.

January 16, 2001
Page Two

Based upon the language contained in this Section of Canon 4, it is the opinion of the Commission that you would need to sell your interest in the real estate partnership which you have described. The Commission would suggest that this sale take place in a one-time lump sum so that the possibility of a continuing business relationship would not be present. Prior to this transaction you should recuse yourself from cases involving the partners who are members of the real estate partnership. See also, Matter of Means, 192 W.Va. 380, 452 S.E.2d 696 (1994).

If you have any further question regarding this matter do not hesitate to contact the Commission.

Very truly yours,

Donald H. Cookman, Chairman
Judicial Investigation Commission

DHC:nb