Is a circuit judge disqualified from hearing a case against the state Supreme Court’s administrator because of routine contact with that court?
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 circuit judge asked whether regular contact with the state Supreme Court and its administrative office prevented the judge from hearing The Associated Press v. Steven D. Canterbury, Administrator of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.
Most Commission members who responded found no Canon 3E ground requiring disqualification and said the judge could hear the matter. A minority reasoned that, even if disqualification applied, the rule of necessity would permit hearing it, citing State ex rel. Brown v. Dietrick.
In practice
The majority and minority gave different rationales; the minority did not say the judge was actually disqualified.
Common questions
Q: Did most Commission members find disqualification required?
A: No. Most found no Canon 3E ground on the facts described.
Q: What did the minority say?
A: Even if disqualified, the judge could hear the case under the rule of necessity.
Q: Which case did the minority cite?
A: State ex rel. Brown v. Dietrick, 191 W. Va. 169, 444 S.E.2d 47 (1994).
Background and rules framework
Former Canon 3E addressed judicial disqualification. The opinion also cites the rule of necessity through State ex rel. Brown v. Dietrick.
Citations and references
West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct (former): Canon 3E. Case cited: State ex rel. Brown v. Dietrick, 191 W. Va. 169, 444 S.E.2d 47 (1994).
See also
Source
- Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
- Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 2008-06, 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
May 12, 2008
Re: JIC Advisory Opinion 2008-06
Dear
In a recent letter to the Judicial Investigation Commission you asked for an advisory opinion. You asked whether you could preside in “The Associated Press v. Steven D. Canterbury, Administrator of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.” You indicated that you are regularly in contact with the Court and its administrative office. You stated that you had to be in touch with them this week concerning an issue related to your court reporter. You asked whether you, or for that matter, any Circuit Court Judge could preside in this case in light of a. possible conflict of interest and /or appearance of conflict of interest.
The Commission has reviewed Canon 3E of the Code of Judicial Conduct to address the question which you have raised. Canon 3E deals with the disqualification of a judge and when such disqualification is required. It sets forth specific grounds under which a judge must disqualify himself/herself from a proceeding and it lists other criteria which would require the judge to make a subjective determination about whether the judge could rule in a matter without bias or prejudice for or against a party. The Commission does not believe any of the criteria set forth in Canon 3E would require you to disqualify yourself from hearing the case. Most of the Commission Members who responded to your request feel that you are not disqualified from sitting on this matter and could do so without violating any of the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. A minority of the Commission feels that even if you were disqualified from sitting on the case the rule of necessity principle would be invoked and you would be permitted to here the matter. See, State ex rel. Brown v. Dietrick, 191 W.Va. 169, 444 S.E.2d 47 (1994).
May 12, 2008
Page Two
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 to contact the Commission.
Very truly yours,
[signature]
Judicial Investigation Commission
FLF:nb
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