Ezel / Ethics Opinions / SBAND

May a former judge represent a party in a family matter in which the judge previously acted personally and substantially?

Short answer The committee said Rule 1.12(a) barred representation in the described prior matters unless all parties consented after consultation. It also said the former judge should obtain that consent before acting for those potential clients, including filing a response.
Bar
SBAND
Issued
September 26, 1995
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1995. Ask about yours and see what the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

How much weight this carries: Under North Dakota Rule for Lawyer Discipline 1.2(B), a lawyer who acts in good faith and in reasonable reliance on a written opinion of the association's ethics committee is not subject to sanction for the conduct the opinion addresses. Source.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

The requester had served as a county judge, judicial referee, and assigned district judge before entering private practice. The proposed family-law matters involved proceedings in which the requester had presided, entered findings, or acted as referee.

The committee found personal and substantial judicial participation in the scenarios it identified as Items 1 through 3. Under Rule 1.12(a), representation required all parties’ consent after consultation. On the requested interim filing in Item 5, it said the former judge should not act as legal representative before obtaining consent.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, before North Dakota's 2006 revisions to its Rules of Professional Conduct. The later North Dakota Opinion 06-05 states: “On August 1, 2006, material changes to N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.10(a) will take effect.” Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement.

Common questions

Q: Does a consent exception appear in the opinion?

A: Yes. The committee said all parties to the proceedings could consent after consultation.

Q: May the former judge file first and seek consent afterward?

A: No. For the proposed response in Item 5, the committee said the lawyer should not act for potential clients until consent was obtained.

Background and rules framework

The opinion discusses North Dakota Rules 1.12(a) in addressing the stated request.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • North Dakota Rule 1.12(a).

See also

Source

Original opinion text

Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1995. Ezel checks the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct 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