Must a lawyer who helped run a judge's election campaign disclose that relationship before appearing in front of that judge?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned a lawyer, or members of the lawyer's firm, appearing before a judge where the lawyer was a principal in forming a preliminary committee of citizens to support the judge as a candidate for election. The committee was provided with a copy of a recent Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opinion on the same question.

By a vote of 11 to 0, with one abstention, the committee was of the opinion that the lawyer who was the principal in a judicial campaign committee may practice before the judge only if there is full disclosure of the campaign relationship to adverse parties. The committee noted that while the judge may be under a duty to disclose the relationship or disqualify himself or herself, under RPC 8.4(d) and (f) it is the lawyer's duty to initiate the disclosure in a timely manner so as to avoid any prejudice to an opposing party who might object.

By a vote of 8 to 3, the committee was of the opinion that the disclosure requirement would not extend to other members of the lawyer's firm. By a vote of 5 to 4, the committee was of the opinion that the disclosure requirement would continue indefinitely rather than merely for the period of the term of office for which the lawyer acted on behalf of the judge.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rule then numbered RPC 8.4, governing professional misconduct (including conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), corresponds to Model Rule 8.4 and was later amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer appear before a judge whose election campaign the lawyer helped lead?

A: Per the opinion, yes, but only with disclosure. The committee was of the opinion (11-0, one abstention) that a lawyer who was a principal in the judge's campaign committee may practice before that judge only if the campaign relationship is fully disclosed to adverse parties.

Q: Whose job is it to make the disclosure?

A: The lawyer's. The committee noted that although the judge may have a duty to disclose or disqualify, under RPC 8.4(d) and (f) it is the lawyer's duty to initiate the disclosure in a timely manner to avoid prejudice to an opposing party who might object.

Q: Does the disclosure duty fall on the lawyer's partners and associates too?

A: No. By a vote of 8 to 3, the committee was of the opinion that the disclosure requirement would not extend to other members of the lawyer's firm.

Q: How long does the disclosure duty last?

A: Indefinitely. By a vote of 5 to 4, the committee was of the opinion that the requirement continues indefinitely rather than only for the term of office for which the lawyer acted on the judge's behalf.

Background and rules framework

The opinion grounds the lawyer's disclosure duty in the rule then numbered Washington RPC 8.4(d) and (f), corresponding to Model Rule 8.4. The committee placed the burden to initiate timely disclosure on the lawyer who led the campaign committee, separate from any duty the judge might have to disclose the relationship or disqualify, and tied the requirement to avoiding prejudice to an opposing party.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Washington RPC 8.4(d) and (f) (professional misconduct), corresponding to Model Rule 8.4.

Other opinions cited:

• A then-recent Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opinion on the same question (provided to the committee; not separately identified in the text).

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 936: a judge's participation where the lawyer's partner is a part-time court commissioner
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1019: appearing before a court commissioner formerly associated with the firm

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=241

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1161
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RPC 8.4(d); 8.4(f)
Subject: Lawyer's appearance before judge where lawyer is principal in judge's election committee; disclosure requirements

The Committee again considered your inquiry regarding the appearance of a lawyer or members of a lawyer's firm before a judge where the lawyer is a principal in forming a preliminary committee of citizens to support the judge as a candidate for election. The Committee was provided with a copy of the recent Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opinion on this same question. By a vote of 11-0, with one abstention, the Committee was of the opinion that the lawyer who was the principle in a judicial campaign committee may practice before the judge only if there is full disclosure of the campaign relationship to adverse parties. The Committee noted that while the judge may be under a duty to disclose the relationship and/or disqualify him or herself, pursuant to RPC 8.4(d) and (f), it is the lawyer's duty to initiate the disclosure in a timely manner so as to avoid any prejudice to an opposing party who might object.

Further, by a vote of 8-3, the Committee was of the opinion that the disclosure requirement would not extend to other members of the lawyer's firm. Finally, by a vote of 5-4, the Committee was of the opinion that this disclosure requirement would continue indefinitely rather then merely for the period of the term of office for which the lawyer acted on behalf of the judge.