Could an attorney sharing office space with a judge’s former spouse practice before the judge?

Plain-English summary

A judge asked whether an attorney sharing office space with the judge’s former spouse and former law partner could appear in the judge’s court. The judge had relinquished any interest in the law practice and the company owning its building after the divorce. Under former Canon 4D’s restriction on financial dealings with lawyers likely to appear, the Commission said the attorney was not prohibited from appearing on the stated facts because the judge had severed the relevant business relationships.

In practice

The letter’s conclusion depended on the stated end of the judge’s ownership and business ties; it addressed Canon 4D financial activities.

Common questions

Q: Was the office-sharing attorney barred from appearing on the described facts?

A: No. The Commission said the attorney was not prohibited under former Canon 4D because the judge had severed the relevant business relationships.

Q: What facts mattered?

A: The judge no longer had an interest in the law practice or the company that owned its building.

Background and rules framework

The letter quoted former Canon 4D(1) on business dealings that exploit judicial position or create continuing relationships with likely court participants.

Citations and references

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

See also

• WV JIC Advisory Opinion 2004-05
• WV JIC Advisory Opinion 2004-17

Source

• Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
• Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 2003-11, redacted

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

September 2, 2003

Re: JIC Advisory Opinion 2003-11 _

Dear

In a recent letter to the Judicial Investigation Commission you asked for an advisory opinion. You stated that prior to your divorce, your husband and former law partner, began sharing office space with an attorney. Their arrangement involved her paying a percentage of her income to the firm in exchange for the use of the office space. They do not share income. Upon your divorce you relinquished any interest in that practice and the corporation that owns the building that houses the law practice. Given that you no longer have any interest in the practice or enterprise, you asked whether the attorney was prohibited from practicing before you.

To address the question which you have raised, the Commission has reviewed Canon 4D of the Code of Judicial Conduct. That Canon says in relevant part:

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.

September 2, 2003
Page Two

Since you have relinquished any interest in the law practice and the corporation that owns the building that houses the law practice, you would not be in violation of provisions of Canon 4D regarding certain financial activities by a judge, if the attorney practices in your court. Based upon the facts as presented to the Commission, the attorney would not be prohibited from practicing before you since you have severed all transactions or business relationships involving that attorney.

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 the Commission.

Very truly yours,
mix.t

Fred L. Fox, II, Chairperson
Judicial Investigation Commission

FLF,II:nb