Is a Michigan judge who owns an office building disqualified when a lawyer who rents space there appears before the judge?

Plain-English summary

A judge owned an office building where the judge formerly practiced law; the judge's former partners leased the building, and the judge already disqualified himself from the former partners' cases. The partners had now subleased some of the space to another lawyer, and the judge asked whether he was disqualified in cases involving that new lawyer. The opinion applied MCJC 2A and MCJC 5C(3).

The opinion concluded that a landlord-tenant relationship, with the judge as landlord and a lawyer as tenant, creates an appearance of impropriety if the lawyer practices before the landlord-judge. It reasoned that the tenant's subletting from the lawyers rather than directly from the judge alters the legal connection but not the appearance to the litigating public, and that if a litigant learns of the relationship from someone other than the judge, there is just cause to question the judge's impartiality.

The opinion concluded that if the tenant-attorney appears before the landlord-judge, the judge should at a minimum disclose the relationship and continue to sit only with the informed consent of the parties. Although actual impartiality may be unaffected, especially given no direct privity between the judge and the sublessee, the relationship casts a shadow over the judge's decisions affecting the sublessee or the clients, and disclosure and consent would remove that shadow. If the relationship causes frequent disqualification, the opinion concluded the judge should consider divesting the property or renting to non-lawyers under MCJC 5C(3).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989 and interprets the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct as it then stood. The Code of Judicial Conduct and the rules governing judicial disqualification have been amended since, including later changes to disqualification standards and procedures. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current Code of Judicial Conduct and court rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Is a Michigan judge automatically disqualified when a lawyer-tenant appears?

A: The opinion concluded disqualification is not automatic; the judge must disclose the relationship and may continue to sit only with the informed consent of the parties.

Q: Does it matter that the lawyer subleases from another lawyer rather than directly from the judge?

A: The opinion concluded the indirect arrangement alters the legal connection but not the appearance to the public, so disclosure and consent are still required.

Q: Why does disclosure matter so much?

A: The opinion reasoned that if a litigant learns of the relationship from someone other than the judge, there is just cause to question the judge's impartiality; disclosure and consent remove that shadow.

Q: What should the judge do if the relationship keeps requiring disqualification?

A: The opinion concluded that under MCJC 5C(3) the judge should consider divesting the property or renting to non-lawyers if the relationship causes frequent disqualification.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted MCJC 2A (avoiding impropriety and its appearance) and MCJC 5C(3) (managing investments and financial interests to minimize disqualification, and divesting interests that require frequent disqualification). It relied on prior committee opinions CI-293 and CI-300.

Citations and references

Code of Judicial Conduct (as cited):

• MCJC 2A (avoiding the appearance of impropriety)
• MCJC 5C(3) (managing or divesting financial interests that cause frequent disqualification)

Other opinions cited:

• Michigan CI-293, CI-300: disclosure and consent for relationships casting doubt on impartiality

See also

• Mich Judicial Ethics Op. J-5: when the judges' own lawyer appears as advocate
• Mich Judicial Ethics Op. J-4: judge disqualification for former-firm, financial, and family ties

Source

• Landing page: https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions?OpinionID=715&Type=6

Original opinion text

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

JI-6

June 1, 1989

SYLLABUS

A relationship between a landlord/judge and a tenant/lawyer creates the appearance of impropriety if the lawyer practices before the judge.

A full disclosure of the relationship must be made to all litigants, and the consent of all litigants obtained, in order to avoid a disqualification.

A judge should manage investments and other financial interests to minimize the number of cases in which the judge is disqualified. As soon as can be done without serious financial detriment, a judge should divest investments and other financial interests that require frequent disqualification.

References: MCJC 2A, 5C(3); CI-293, CI-300.

TEXT

A judge is the owner of an office building in which the judge formerly practiced law; the former partners lease the building. The judge continues to disqualify himself from the former partners' cases, but the partners have now subleased some space in the building to another lawyer. The judge asks whether the judge is disqualified in cases involving the new lawyer.

A landlord-tenant relationship with judge as landlord and a lawyer as tenant creates the appearance of impropriety if the lawyer practices before the landlord judge. MCJC 2A. The fact that a tenant sublets from the lawyers rather than directly from the judge alters the legal connection between the two, but does not alter the appearance to the litigating public. If the relationship exists and a litigant learns of it from someone other than the judge, there is just cause to question the judge's impartiality.

If the tenant/attorney appears before the landlord/judge, the judge should, at a minimum, disclose the relationship and continue to sit on the case only with the informed consent of the parties.

Actual judicial impartiality may be completely unaffected by the landlord/tenant relationship described, especially as there is no direct privity between the landlord/judge and sublessee/lawyer, but the relationship itself casts a shadow of doubt over the judge's acts and decisions affecting the sublessee or the clients. Disclosure and consent would remove the shadow. In accord, CI-293, CI-300.

If the relationship causes frequent disqualification, the judge should consider divesting the property or renting to nonlawyers pursuant to MCJC 5C(3).