Must a judge disclose that a frequent courtroom lawyer is the judge’s campaign manager, and what happens if a party objects?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2008. 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 running for office had an attorney who regularly appeared before the judge as campaign manager; the attorney’s associate also appeared. The judge disclosed the relationship before hearings and asked whether a party objection required voluntary recusal or referral to the state Supreme Court.
The Commission said the disclosure was required under former Canon 3E(1). If a party objected to the judge hearing a matter involving the campaign manager, the judge should follow the usual procedure governing recusal in Family Court cases.
In practice
The Commission did not say an objection automatically required voluntary recusal; it directed use of the ordinary Family Court procedure.
Common questions
Q: Was disclosure of the campaign relationship required?
A: Yes. The Commission approved and required the on-record disclosure.
Q: What if a party objected?
A: The ordinary Family Court recusal procedure should be followed.
Q: Did the JIC order automatic recusal upon objection?
A: No. It described the procedure to follow.
Background and rules framework
Former Canon 3E(1) required disqualification where impartiality might reasonably be questioned, and its commentary called for relevant on-record disclosure. The opinion cited Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc.
Citations and references
West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct (former): Canon 3E(1). Case cited: Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc., 194 W. Va. 97, 459 S.E.2d 374 (1995). JIC opinions cited: December 13, 1995 and April 1, 2003.
See also
Source
- Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
- Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 2008-01, 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
February 12, 2008
JIC Advisory Opinion 2008-01
Dear Judge
In a letter to the Judicial Investigation Commission you asked for an advisory opinion. You stated that you have filed as a candidate to run for the Judicial Circuit. An attorney who frequently practices before you is serving as your campaign manager. Additionally, this attorney’s associate also practices before you on a regular basis. It is your intent to disclose this political relationship prior to hearings involving your campaign manager and/or his associate when they are counsel. You started doing this after you filed pre-candidacy papers. Most parties have not objected to you presiding over the case. You asked if one of the parties does object to you presiding over the case involving your campaign manager and/or his associate are you required to voluntarily recuse yourself or should the matter be referred to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West
Virginia for a decision.
To address the questions that you have raised, the Commission has reviewed Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 3E(1) states that a judge shall disqualify himself/herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. This Canon requires a judge to 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 no real basis for disqualification exists. Based on the language set forth in this Canon and the following commentary, the Commission feels that the disclosure that you are making is required. See, Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc., 194 W.Va. 97. 459 S.E.2d 374 (1995). See also JIC Advisory Opinion 12/13/95, and JIC Advisory Opinion 4/1/03, which are attached hereto for your information.
The Honorable
February 12, 2008
Page Two
It is the feeling of the Commission that if one of the parties does object to you presiding over a case involving your campaign manager, the procedure governing recusal in other cases pending in the Family Court should be followed.
It is hoped that this opinion fully addresses the questions which you have raised. If there is any other question concerning this matter do not hesitate to contact the Commission.
Very truly yours,
[signature]
Fred L. Fox, II, Chairperson
Judicial Investigation Commission
FLF:nb
Enclosure
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2008. 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