Did a Supreme Court administrative order temporarily assigning a judge to help appoint private counsel present a judicial ethics issue?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2009. 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 requester supplied an August 26, 2009 Supreme Court administrative order temporarily assigning a judge to assist in appointing private attorneys for eligible clients and asked whether any aspect violated the Code. After reviewing the order, the Commission said it found no ethical issues arising from it. The public opinion does not analyze individual Canon provisions.
In practice
The conclusion is limited to the administrative order submitted; the attached order itself is referenced but not reproduced in the OCR transcription.
Common questions
Q: Did the Commission identify a Code violation?
A: No. It found no ethical issue in the order.
Q: What was the order about?
A: Temporary judicial assistance in appointing private counsel for eligible clients.
Q: Did the opinion cite a numbered Canon?
A: No.
Background and rules framework
The Commission reviewed the specific administrative order for Code concerns and found none; it cited no numbered Canon.
Citations and references
Source discussed: West Virginia Supreme Court administrative order dated August 26, 2009, described in the opinion. No numbered Canon cited.
See also
Source
- Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
- Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 2009-16, 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 17, 2009
Re: JIC Advisory Opinion 2009-16
Dear
In a recent letter to the Commission you asked for an advisory opinion. In that correspondence you enclosed a two-page copy of an Administrative Order dated August 26,
2009, and signed by ; of the Supreme Court of West Virginia. The order was styled “TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF THE HONORABLE
_TOTHE' JUDICIAL CIRCUIT TO ASSIST IN
APPOINTING PRIVATE ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW WHO ARE AVAILABLE TO SERVE
AS COUNSEL FOR ELIGIBLE CLIENTS.” A copy of this order is attached hereto. You asked for an advisory opinion from the Judicial Investigation Commission as to whether any aspect of the above described administrative order constituted a violation of the provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
At its recent meeting your request was reviewed and discussed. After reviewing the administrative order and discussing its contents, the Commission could find no ethical issues which arise from it.
It is hoped that this opinion fully addresses the question which you have raised. If there are any further questions regarding this matter do not hesitate to contact the Commission.
Very truly yours,
Fred L. Fox, II, Chairperson
Judicial Investigation Commission
FLF:nb
Enclosure
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2009. 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