Could a lawyer married to a district judge, or colleagues in the Attorney General's office, appear in that court?

Plain-English summary

The Attorney General expected to hire a lawyer married to a Vermont trial judge. The questions were whether the lawyer could appear before the district-court bench and whether all Attorney General lawyers would be barred from appearing before the spouse judge.

The committee distinguished the judge's recusal duty from the lawyer's ability to practice. It said the Judicial Canons barred the judge from sitting in a proceeding in which the spouse acted as counsel, but the lawyer's Code contained no general prohibition on practice before the other district judges. It also found no Code bar to Attorney General colleagues appearing before the spouse judge on the stated plan to avoid tax matters involving a possible conflict.

The opinion discussed EC 9-6's appearance-of-impropriety standard and EC 7-35's bar on communications about a pending matter that might confer undue advantage. It declined to treat the family relationship alone as disqualifying all lawyers in the office.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1979 under Vermont's former Code of Professional Responsibility. The Vermont Supreme Court's rules history says the Rules of Professional Conduct replaced the Code and applied to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999; the court later made comprehensive amendments in 2009. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could the lawyer appear before judges other than the lawyer's spouse?

A: Yes. The committee found no general bar to practice before the district-court bench.

Q: Could the spouse judge hear a case argued by that lawyer?

A: No. The committee said the judge must disqualify from a proceeding in which the spouse acts as attorney.

Q: Were all Attorney General colleagues barred from the spouse judge's court?

A: No. The committee found no such office-wide prohibition on the facts presented.

Background and rules framework

The opinion discussed former EC 9-6, EC 7-35, and Canon 3C(1)(d)(ii) of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Its answer distinguished attorney practice from judicial disqualification.

Citations and references

Vermont Code and Judicial Canons:

• EC 9-6; EC 7-35; Canons of Judicial Ethics Canon 3C(1)(d)(ii).

See also

• Vermont Ethics Op. 81-10: Former judge prosecuting after an inquest
• Vermont Ethics Op. 79-29: Attorney General's office defending judges

Source

• Landing page: VBA conflict of interest opinions
• Original PDF: Vermont Advisory Opinion 79-20
• Rules history: Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, “These rules apply to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999.”