Did a judge need to take further action after learning that a lawyer practicing before the court had loaned money to a staff member?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2007. 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 learned that an attorney practicing before the court had loaned money to a court staff member. The judge promptly contacted the lawyer, considered the lawyer’s pending cases, and planned to speak with the staff member. The request asked about reporting and any further duties.
Judicial disciplinary counsel expressly said he could not issue an advisory opinion himself, but prepared the response after discussing it with the JIC chair. The letter says the judge reacted appropriately, that no party appeared prejudiced, and that the chair felt no further action was needed in this situation.
In practice
The chair’s no-further-action view addressed the described prompt response and apparent lack of prejudice. The letter also noted the judge’s plan to counsel staff against similar transactions.
Common questions
Q: Who prepared the response?
A: Judicial disciplinary counsel prepared it after consulting the JIC chair; counsel expressly said he was not authorized to give an advisory opinion himself.
Q: Did the chair call for further action by the judge?
A: No. The letter says the chair felt no further action was needed in this situation.
Q: What facts did the response rely on?
A: It cited the judge’s immediate action, the lack of an apparent effort to influence cases, and no apparent prejudice to litigants.
Background and rules framework
The letter cites no specific provision of the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct. Its response was based on the stated facts and the chair’s assessment after consulting disciplinary counsel.
See also
Source
- Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
- Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 2007-11, 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
June 14, 2007
Re: JIC Advisory Opinion 2007-11
Dear Judge
In a letter to this office dated June 5, 2007, you reported an instant involving a member of your staff and an attorney practicing before your court. You indicate that your learned that the attorney had loaned the staff member a certain amount of money. You felt that neither person considered the implications of their actions prior to the loan being made. You were informed about this matter on Monday, June 4. The attorney who made the load to your staff member is an honest and upstanding member of the Bar and is in the process of closing or substantially winding down her family practice to pursue other opportunities. While there are orders to be entered in your court, there is nothing of substance pending before the court or in which a decision has not already been rendered. To the best of your memory no hearings have been held involving this attorney since the loan was made sometime in the last week or two.
Within five minutes of being informed of the possible loan, you telephoned the lawyer to confirm the loan. She advised that she had made the loan and was very upset and stated that she hadn’t thought about any consequences to the court. You recommended that she might get out of all cases pending before you, and she said she would do that immediately if appropriate.
You have not yet discussed the matter with your staff member but stated that you would. You have taken necessary action with counsel and no litigant will be prejudiced by the incident. You asked if there were any obligations to report the lawyer to disciplinary counsel. You inquired whether you had any obligations to report the matter to anyone else. And, you asked whether there were any further duties with regard to this matter.
-2- June 14, 2007
While I, as counsel, am not authorized to give an advisory opinion on your inquiry, I did provide a copy of your letter to the Chairman of the Judicial Investigation Commission, Judge Fred L. Fox. We discussed the matter, and he asked me to prepare this letter for you.
Given the fact that you immediately took action to limit and/or prevent any repercussions from the loan as soon as you found out about it, you have reacted appropriately in this matter. The fact that there was no conscience effort on the part of the attorney or your staff member to allow the loan to influence or prejudice any of the cases pending before you would suggest that the loan and the implications that may arise from it were not considered before it was made. It would appear that no litigant or party has been prejudiced in any way by this matter. It would also appear that you intend to counsel your staff about the impropriety of any such future similar actions between staff and attorneys who practice before your court. After discussing the matter with the chairman, he felt that no further action needed to be taken by you in this situation.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter, do not hesitate to contact this office.
Your truly yours,
Charles R. Garten
Judicial Disciplinary Counsel
CRG/bl
cc: The Honorable Fred L. Fox, II
Chairman, Judicial Investigation Commission
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2007. 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