May a judge authorize a bail surety company when the judge’s secretary has family ties to its principals and a related person works with detainees?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2010. 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 asked whether to grant bail-bond surety authority to a company connected through family relationships to the judge’s secretary. The public PDF redacts several names and relationship details; it also describes a related person working at a holding facility and having contact with detainees.
Applying former Canon 2A, the Commission advised the judge not to authorize the company as surety in the circuit because those relationships and detainee contact could create an appearance of impropriety.
In practice
The conclusion concerns the particular redacted relationships and holding-facility role; the opinion does not identify every participant in the public version.
Common questions
Q: Did the Commission approve the company?
A: No. It advised against granting bail surety authority.
Q: What was the ethical concern?
A: An appearance of impropriety from the secretary’s ties to company participants and related detainee contact.
Q: Are all relationship details public?
A: No. Several names and links are redacted in the official PDF.
Background and rules framework
Former Canon 2A requires judges to avoid impropriety and its appearance and to preserve public confidence in judicial integrity and impartiality.
Citations and references
West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct (former): Canon 2A.
See also
Source
- Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
- Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 2010-07, 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 10, 2010
Re: JIC Advisory Opinion 2010-07
Dear Judge
In recent correspondence to the Commission you asked for an advisory opinion regarding
whether it would be ethically appropriate for you to grant the authority to serve as surety on bailbonds in the Judicial Circuit. The principals of 7 are , and is the of "who is your secretary. is married to and
they do not reside in the same household as
You also stated that is married to and _ has
been employed by the County Commission for many years. specific duties involve managing the twelve hour holding facility where prisoners are held awaiting daily court action. She receives the prisoners from the Regional Jail transport team and supervises them until they have completed their court hearing and are returned to the
Regional Jail. She has direct contact with the prisoners and would have an indirect financial interest by virtue of being married to one of the principals of You stated that you have taken no action on the petition of and you have concerns that it might create an appearance of impropriety if the company was granted bonding authority in your circuit. They have not been authorized in another judicial circuit to the best of your knowledge.
It address the question which you have raised, the Commission has reviewed Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 2 states in relevant part:
May 10, 2010
Page Two
Canon 2. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.
A. A judge shall respect and comply with the law, shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities, and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
The Commission after reviewing your correspondence and the relationships set forth in it as they pertain to your secretary feels that you should not grant the authority to act as surety on bailbonds in the Judicial Circuit. Based upon the relationship your secretary has with individuals involved with the company and the contact one of the relatives has
with prisoners awaiting court action, the appearance of impropriety could be created by such action.
It is hoped that this opinion fully addresses the question which you have raised. If you have any further question regarding this matter, do not hesitate to contact the Commission.
Very my oP
ve
“
Ronald E. Wilson, Vice-Chairperson
Judicial Investigation Commission
REW:nb
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2010. 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