May a family court judge also appear for pay as a television judge on an out-of-state weekly show?

Plain-English summary

A national cable network invited a family court judge to take a paid, rotating seat on a weekly court show filmed in another state. The first season would have ten to twelve episodes, with the judge appearing in fewer than all of them. The judge believed the work would not interfere with court duties.

The Commission reviewed Rule 3.1(A) and (C). It identified public confusion between a real judge and a television judge, differences between television and West Virginia procedures, and the show’s likely demands on the docket. It concluded that the judge could not concurrently serve as a family court judge and television judge.

In practice

The opinion addresses the particular paid weekly show and the Commission’s concerns about public perception and docket demands.

Common questions

Q: Could the judge accept the television role while serving on the family court?

A: No. The Commission expressly rejected concurrent service.

Q: Why did the Commission reject it?

A: It identified perceived harm to court integrity, potential confusion for litigants and interference with the judicial docket.

Background and rules framework

Rule 3.1(A) restricts outside activities that interfere with judicial duties, and Rule 3.1(C) addresses activities that appear to undermine judicial integrity. The Commission applied both to the proposed program.

Citations and references

West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct:

• Rule 3.1(A), interference with judicial duties.
• Rule 3.1(C), appearance of undermining integrity.

See also

• WV JIC Advisory Opinion 2024-10
• WV JIC Advisory Opinion 2023-23

Source

• Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
• Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 2022-21, redacted

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION COMMISSION
City Center East - Suite 1200 A
4700 MacCorkle Ave., SE
Charleston, West Virginia 25304
(304) 558-0169 • FAX (304) 558-0831

July 26, 2022

Re: JIC Advisory Opinion 2022-21
Dear Judge

Your request for an advisory opinion to Counsel was recently reviewed by the Judicial Investigation Commission. The factual scenario giving rise to your request is as follows: You have been approached by a national cable tv network to appear as a rotating panel of five or so judges on a TV show similar to Judge Judy. The program will be a live weekly show that will air on Friday nights and you will be paid for your services. According to you, you will not be on the show every week. The first season is expected to have ten to twelve episodes. Whenever you are on, you will have to fly to another state where the show is produced. You do not believe the show would interfere with your duties as a judge. You want to know if you can concurrently serve as a family court judge and a tv judge.

To address your question the Commission has reviewed Rule 3.1(A) and (C) of the Code of Judicial Conduct which state:

Rule 3.1 — Extrajudicial Activities in General
A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, except as prohibited by law or this Code. However, when engaging in extrajudicial activities, a judge

shall not:

(A) Participate in activities that will interfere with the proper performance of the judge’s judicial duties; . . . JIC Advisory Opinion 2022-21 July 26, 2022 Page 2 of 2

(C) participate in activities that would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge’s .. . integrity... .”

While the Commission cannot and would not say that being on a Judge Judy type show would undermine the integrity of West Virginia Courts it can say that it creates the appearance of doing so among the general public who may not understand the difference between a real judge and a television judge. The Commission thinks it would be confusing to his/her West Virginia litigants to see him/her acting one way in the courtroom and perhaps a different way on television. There is also a vast difference between TV law and procedures and West Virginia law and procedure. The Commission is concerned that the time and demands of a television show are demanding and that while you would try not to let it interfere with your day to day job it would only be a matter of time before juggling two different positions in two different states would cause havoc with your docket. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that you cannot concurrently serve as a family court judge and a television judge.

The Commission hopes that this opinion fully addresses the issues which you have raised. Please do not hesitate to contact the Commission should you have any questions, comments or concerns.

Alan D. Moats, Chairperson

Judicial Investigation Commission

ADM/tat