May a Wyoming judge give character testimony about a lawyer at a disciplinary hearing without a subpoena?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2018. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Counsel for a lawyer facing discipline asked a judge to testify about the judge's experience with that lawyer. The anticipated questions concerned the lawyer's demeanor, honesty and candor toward the court, and competent representation. The committee treated those questions as potentially calling for character evidence, rather than only facts about specific events.
Rule 2.16(A) requires a judge to cooperate candidly and honestly with judicial and lawyer disciplinary agencies. The committee said this duty does not conflict with Rule 3.3's restriction on voluntary character testimony: the judge can supply facts about a specific instance without vouching for the lawyer's character.
For the proposed testimony reaching the lawyer's traits or competence, Rule 3.3 requires the judge to be duly summoned. The committee interpreted that phrase to require a formal summons or subpoena under the Rules of Civil Procedure or the presiding tribunal's rules. It also discussed the Rule 3.3 comment cautioning judges to discourage compelled character testimony except in unusual circumstances when justice requires it.
In practice
The opinion separates factual cooperation in discipline matters from testimony about a person's character. Its subpoena conclusion applies to the latter, including the anticipated opinions about the lawyer's honesty, candor, demeanor, and competence.
Common questions
Q: Can a judge voluntarily testify about a lawyer's character at a disciplinary hearing?
A: No. The committee says the judge may give character testimony only when formally summoned or subpoenaed.
Q: Does the duty to cooperate with a disciplinary agency override that limit?
A: No. The opinion says Rule 2.16(A) and Rule 3.3 do not conflict; a judge can cooperate by providing specific facts without vouching for character.
Q: Does any request to testify count as being duly summoned?
A: No. The committee interprets Rule 3.3 to require a formal summons or subpoena under the applicable procedural rules.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies Wyoming Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 1.3 on judicial prestige, Rule 2.16(A) on cooperation with disciplinary agencies, and Rule 3.3 on character testimony and vouching in adjudicatory proceedings. It quotes the 2007 Model Code of Judicial Conduct's Rule 3.3 reporters' notes and comment to explain the restriction.
Citations and references
Wyoming Code of Judicial Conduct:
- Canons 1, 2, and 3, judicial integrity, duties, and extrajudicial conduct.
- Rule 1.3, judicial prestige.
- Rule 2.16(A), cooperation with disciplinary agencies.
- Rule 3.3, character testimony and vouching when duly summoned.
Other authorities cited:
- 2007 Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 3.3, reporters' notes and Comment [1].
See also
No sibling opinions yet indexed.
Source
- Landing page: Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 2018-01
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2018. 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