May a newly elected county judge finish his unfinished private law practice while also performing his judicial duties?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether one who had been elevated to the office of County Judge in Oklahoma, and who had assumed that judicial office's duties, may complete unfinished legal practice while continuing to perform the judicial functions of the office.

The Committee responded that it should not render an actual opinion, since the Bar Association's authority to speak in such circumstances was highly doubtful. It added, however, that it thought the proposal of doubtful propriety, and pointed to Section 1, Title 5, O.S. 1941; the cases of Lilly v. State, Roddie v. State, and Dixon v. State; the State Bar of Oklahoma Yearbook, 1937, Title IV; and Oklahoma Advisory Opinion No. 34.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1950, under the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics and decades before Oklahoma adopted the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions. The relationship between holding judicial office and practicing law is now governed by the Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct, which did not exist when this opinion issued. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the Committee actually decide the question?

A: No. It declined to render an actual opinion, finding the Bar Association's authority to speak in such circumstances highly doubtful.

Q: Did it signal any view?

A: Yes. It said it thought the proposal of doubtful propriety, and pointed to a statute, three Court of Criminal Appeals decisions, a Bar Yearbook provision, and Opinion No. 34.

Background and rules framework

The opinion addressed the limits of the Bar Association's authority to opine on a sitting judge's conduct as much as the merits. It pointed, without full analysis, to Section 1, Title 5, O.S. 1941, three Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals decisions, the 1937 State Bar Yearbook, and Advisory Opinion No. 34. It predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Section 1, Title 5, O.S. 1941.

Cases:

• Lilly v. State, 7 Okl.Cr. 284, 123 P. 575.
• Roddie v. State, 19 Okl.Cr. 63, 198 P. 342.
• Dixon v. State, 67 Okl.Cr. 365, 94 P.2d 258.

Other authorities cited:

• State Bar of Oklahoma Yearbook, 1937, Title IV, p. 25.
• Oklahoma Advisory Opinion No. 34 (Vol. 1, p. 76).

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 149: Committee declines an evidence question on a lawyer's testimony
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 116: Former judge retained in a case he handled procedurally
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 101: Former judge cannot litigate a matter he decided

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-151/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted November 30, 1950

QUERY

May one who has been elevated to the office of County Judge in Oklahoma and who has assumed the duties and obligations of that judicial office complete unfinished legal practice while continuing to perform the judicial functions of said office?

ANSWER

The above presents a matter concerning which an actual opinion of the Ethics Committee of the Oklahoma Bar Association should not be rendered, since the authority of the Bar Association to speak under such circumstances is highly doubtful. It is thought, however, that the proposal is of doubtful propriety. See Section 1, Title 5, O.S.1941; Lilly v. State, 7 Okl.Cr. 284, 123 P. 575; Roddie v. State, 19 Okl.Cr. 63, 198 P. 342; Dixon v. State, 67 Okl.Cr. 365, 94 P.2d 258; State Bar of Oklahoma Yearbook, 1937, Title IV, Page 25; Opinion 34, State Bar of Oklahoma, Volume I, page 76.