BAR ACTIVITIES
Opinion No. 31
(1978)
QUESTION: May a
judge subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct properly sign a letter endorsing a
candidate for elective office in the State Bar of Texas when such letter is
addressed to members of the State Bar generally; or such letter is addressed to judges
only?
ANSWER: The
members of the Committee are seriously divided as to an answer applicable to
both facets of the question. A
majority of the Committee is of the opinion that since the amendment of Canon 7*
permits a judge to participate in political activities generally, participation
in State Bar election activities is not forbidden. However, the same majority considers
such conduct undesirable since such an endorsement might be construed as the
lending of the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of
others in violation of Canon 2B.
_______________
*Now see Canon 5.
RETIRED JUDGE: EXTRA-JUDICIAL
SERVICE
Opinion No. 32
(1978)
QUESTION: There
being two types of retired judges mentioned in subdivision D of the Compliance
Section* of the Code of Judicial Conduct (those eligible for recall to judicial
service and those not eligible), what difference, if any, is there in the
applicability of the exemptions mentioned in the subdivision to the two classes
of retired judges?
ANSWER: A
retired judge eligible for recall to judicial service must, in the language of
subdivision D of the Compliance Section, "refrain from judicial service during
the period of an extra-judicial appointment not sanctioned by Canon 5G."** There
is no such restraint upon a retired judge not eligible for recall to judicial
service. Otherwise, there is no
difference in the applicability of the exemption provisions to the two classes
of retired judges mentioned in the Compliance Section.
_______________
* Now see Canon 6.
** Now see Canon 4H.
RETIRED JUDGE: FINANCIAL
ACTIVITIES
Opinion No. 33
(1978)
QUESTION: After
August 31, 1978, active judges subject to the provisions of the Code of Judicial
Conduct may not serve as officers or directors of a publicly owned business,
defined in Canon 5C(2)* as one having "more than ten owners." Does a retired judge violate any of the
canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct by serving as an officer or director of
such a publicly owned business after
ANSWER:
No. Although there are two types of
retired judges mentioned in subdivision D of the Compliance Section** of the
Code (those eligible for recall to judicial service and those who are not
eligible for recall), both classes of retired judges are exempt from the
provisions of Canon 5C(2)* of the Code.
_______________
*Now see Canon 4D(2).
** Now see Canon 6.
POLITICAL ACTIVITY
Opinion No. 34
(1978)
QUESTION: The
defeated candidate in a primary election for the office of district judge (where
one of the candidates was a constitutional county judge and the other a private
attorney) has sought a determination of the Committee as to whether certain
advertisements of the winning candidate amounted to a violation of Canon 7* of
the Code of Judicial Conduct.
ANSWER: The
Committee declines to pass upon the questions of fact for lack of jurisdiction
over the parties (neither of whom were at the time subject to the Code of
Judicial Conduct) or the subject matter of the inquiry. The Committee acts only as an advisory
peer group in determining the application of the Code of Judicial Conduct to
undisputed factual situations.
_______________
*Now see Canon 5.
RECUSAL -- OWNERSHIP OF
STOCK
Opinion No. 35
(1978)
FACTUAL ASSUMPTION: A district
judge owns a small number of shares of stock in a large international oil
company which is frequently a party to litigation in the district courts of his
county.
QUESTION: Is
the district judge required to note his disqualification or to recuse himself in
all litigation involving such corporation?
ANSWER: As we
held in Opinion Number 27 (October 17, 1977), this Committee does not have
authority to pass upon the question of whether or not a judge is
disqualified. The Constitution
(Art. 5, Sec. 11) and the statute (Art. 15, V.A.C.S.) speak to the
disqualification of a judge. The
determination of disqualification is a judicial function.
However, whether a judge should recuse himself from
pending litigation presents a question within the authority of this Committee
since it is germane to Canon 3C(3)(b)* of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Moreover, under Canon 2A, a judge
"should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence
in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."
The Committee is of the opinion that such judge should
recuse himself from participating in litigation in cases involving corporations
in which he owns stock, regardless of the number of shares
owned.
_______________
*Now see Rules 18a and 18b,
DIVESTITURE OF STOCK
OWNERSHIP
Opinion No. 36
(1978)
(Submitted contingently upon an
affirmative answer to the question set out in Opinion No.
35.)
QUESTION: What
action, if any, under the Code of Judicial Conduct, should such district judge
take to remove the cause of such disqualification of
recusation?
ANSWER: Canon
5C(3)* is explicit and mandatory.
It requires that a judge manage his financial interests so as "to
minimize the number of cases in which he is disqualified." Divestiture of investments resulting in
frequent disqualifications must be accomplished "(a)s soon as he can do so
without serious financial detriment."
Divestiture is mandatory; but the Committee is unwilling
to set a specific time period within which such divestiture must be
accomplished. The question posed
must be answered by the individual judge bearing in mind the admonitions of
Canon 3: "The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all his other
activities. His judicial duties
include all the duties of his office prescribed by law."
This requires that a judge be in position to dispose of
all cases which reach his docket; and, if his financial affairs frequently
prevent his acting on all such matters, he should consider becoming either an
investor or a judge, but not a continuation of both
activities.
______
*Now see Canon 4D(3).
DIRECTOR - MUTUAL
ASSOCIATION
Opinion No. 37
(1978)
QUESTION: May a
judge continue to serve as a director of a mutual savings and loan association,
incorporated under prior laws of this State, wherein the depositors own,
ratably, all of the reserve funds and assets of the
association?
ANSWER: It is
the opinion of the Committee that such an entity falls within the definition of
a "publicly owned business" as set out in the Canon 5C(2)* of the Code of
Judicial Conduct and continued service as a director would be in violation of
such canon.
__________________
*Now see Canon 4D(2).
ADVISORY DIRECTOR
Opinion No. 38
(1978)
QUESTION:
Assuming that a judge may not continue to serve as a director of a mutual
savings and loan association, as mentioned in Opinion Number 37 this date
released, may such judge serve as an "advisory" director
thereof?
ANSWER: In the
opinion of the Committee, there are at least two reasons why such service is
impermissible under the Code of Judicial Conduct; (a) since he may not serve as
a director under Opinion Number 37, supra, he should not be permitted to do
indirectly that which he cannot do directly; and (b) such service would be in
contravention of Canon 2B of the Code of Judicial Conduct in that it might be
construed as lending the prestige of his office to advance the private interests
of others.
ATTENDANCE AT LAWYERS'
PARTY
Opinion No. 39
(1978)
QUESTION: Does
a judge subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct violate Canon 2B and/or 5C(4)*
by accepting an invitation from a firm of attorneys to be entertained with
lodging, food and drinks for two nights and three days at a lake lodge? The outing is referred to as the firm's
annual "Judicial Conference."
ANSWER: The
Committee assumes that the name of the conference was chosen in jest or
inadvertently; and, upon such assumption, gives an affirmative answer to the
question as presented. Such answer,
however, is confined to the precise factual situation
presented.
The Committee is of the opinion that when one assumes
judicial office he does not forfeit his right to associate with his friends and
acquaintances nor is he condemned to live the life of a hermit. In fact, such a regime would, in the
view of the Committee, lessen the effectiveness of the judicial
officer.
While a judge should so conduct his impersonal affairs
as to avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety, he is not precluded
from accepting the hospitality of his friends, attending social activities of
bar associations, groups of lawyers, or other citizens.
He should not allow such social relationships to
influence his judicial conduct or judgments, nor should he permit others to
convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence
him.
_______________
*Now see Canon 4D(4).
POLITICAL PARTY
CONTRIBUTIONS
Opinion No. 40
(1979)
QUESTION: Does
a judge subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct promulgated by the Supreme Court
of Texas violate such Code by making periodic and regular financial
contributions to a political party?
ANSWER: The
Committee, by unanimous vote, answers the foregoing question in the
negative. Since the amendment of
Canon 7* of the Code of Judicial Conduct, on
Whether a judge makes a contribution or refrains
therefrom is a purely personal determination and presents a question not within
the jurisdiction of this Committee.
_______________
*Now see Canon 5.
Subject Index | 1-10 | 11-20 | 21-30 | 31-40 | 41-50 | 51-60 | 61-70 | 71-80 | 81-90 | 91-100 | 101-110 | 111-120 | 121-130 | 131-140 | 141-150 | 151-160 | 161-170 | 171-180 | 181-190 | 191-200 | 201-210 | 211-220 | 221-230 | 231-240 | 241-250 | 251-260 | 261-270 | 271-280 | 281-290 | 291-300
Judicial Ethics | Judicial Ethics Opinions