Does reopening a dissolved judicial campaign only to report an advertising refund renew disclosure or recusal duties?

Plain-English summary

A judge's 2020 campaign and committee had closed after the election. An advertising vendor later refunded an overcharge, and the Secretary of State's office directed the treasurer to reopen the campaign finance account solely to report the refund. Former committee members, including lawyers and a lobbyist, might appear in matters before the judge.

The Commission distinguished JIC Opinions 1995-34 and 2022-07, which addressed disclosure while lawyers serve on judicial campaign committees and for a period after dissolution. It concluded that this limited technical reopening did not renew a duty to disclose the former relationships or disqualify from cases involving the former members.

In practice

The conclusion depends on the campaign committee having dissolved and reopening only to account for the old vendor refund. The Commission identified neither new fundraising nor resumed committee activity on these facts.

Common questions

Q: Must the judge disclose a former committee lawyer's role because the account reopened?

A: No. The Commission said the refund-driven reopening did not require disclosure of former committee ties.

Q: Does the reopening itself require recusal from those members' cases?

A: No. The opinion says disqualification is not required on that basis.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the Commission's prior campaign-relationship guidance to a narrow campaign-finance reporting event. It does not cite a numbered Code of Judicial Conduct provision in its own analysis.

Citations and references

Other rule cited:

• Trial Court Rule 17, mentioned in the description of JIC Opinion 1995-34.

Other opinions cited:

• JIC Advisory Opinion 1995-34, attorney committee members before the judge.
• JIC Advisory Opinion 2022-07, duration of campaign-relationship disclosure.

Source

• Landing page: West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission advisory opinions
• Original PDF: JIC Advisory Opinion 2023-06, redacted

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official redacted PDF for research purposes. The linked PDF is authoritative.

JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION COMMISSION
WV Judicial Tower - Suite 700 A
4700 MacCorkle Ave., SE
Charleston, West Virginia 25304
(304) 558-0169
February 13, 2023

Re: JIC Advisory Opinion 2023-06

Dear
:

Your recent request for an advisory opinion was reviewed by the Judicial Investigation Commission. The facts giving rise to your request are as follows: You successfully ran for office in 2020. You had a campaign committee to help you in your endeavor. The committee included lawyers and non-lawyers. At some point after the election, your campaign was closed following the payment of all expenses and any remainder was contributed to charity. Your April 7, 2021, campaign finance report was entitled a final report and showed the campaign finance account closed with a zero balance. Your committee also disbanded. According to you the committee has had no meetings or calls since June 2020.

On or about September 20, 2021, a television advertising vendor apparently discovered that your campaign had been overcharged for advertising and issued a refund to your campaign. The Secretary of State’s office advised your treasurer to re-open the campaign to account for the refund and to file quarterly reports as long as the funding remained. Beginning third quarter 2021 to date, the treasurer has filed quarterly reports on the refunded amount.

Given these circumstances, it is your understanding that the committee could not legally be permitted to solicit or accept further contribution. In other words, the committee can no longer raise campaign funds even though the

JIC Advisory Opinion 2023-06
February 13, 2023
Page 2 of 2

campaign has been re-opened. Thus, the only reason the committee is now open is to account for 2021 refund.

In JIC Advisory Opinion 1995-34, the JIC stated that a judge running for office had a duty to disclose that attorneys appearing in his/her courtroom were serving on his/her campaign committee and to follow Trial Court Rule 17 if a Motion to Disqualify was filed. In JIC Advisory Opinion 2022-07, the JIC said a judge/judicial candidate must disclose the nature of the relationship when the lawyer becomes a member of the campaign committee and should continue to do so for one year after the judicial candidate takes office or for one year after the dissolution of the campaign committee, whichever is longer.

You are concerned because your 2020 campaign treasurer, who is not an attorney, serves as a lobbyist for certain interests that may have cases before the Court from time to time. Additionally, some lawyers who were on your 2020 campaign committee argue before the Court from time to time. You want to know if the reopening of the 2020 campaign under the circumstances set forth requires you to disclose your former relationship with these individuals.

Based upon the foregoing, the JIC is of the opinion that you do not need to disclose the nature of the relationship nor do you need to disqualify yourself from presiding over any cases involving any 2020 campaign committee members. The re-opening of the campaign committee is based on a narrow technicality and because of that the JIC does not believe that disclosure or disqualification are necessary. We hope that this opinion fully addresses the issue which you have raised. Please do not hesitate to contact the Commission should you have any questions, comments or concerns or desire additional advice.

Sincerely,

Alan D. Moats, Chairperson
Judicial Investigation Commission

ADM/tat