Opinion 10
(This Opinion discusses a prior version of the Canons of Judicial Conduct: the most comparable current rules are See Rule 2-3-11 Financial, Business, or Remunerative Activities; and 2-3.10 Practice of Law)
Issue:
May a retiring Magistrate Judge publish the following classified advertisement:
Discussion:
Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 5 (C)(1) states:
Canon 5 (C)(1) and Canon 5(F) “Practice of law. A judge should not practice law,” clearly prohibit a judge from practicing law. Canon 2 “A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in his official activities”, demands that a judge should not publicize the fact that he practicing law contrary to the judicial canons.
The proposed advertisement is ambiguous to the extent that it does not explain that the Magistrate Judge will no longer be a Magistrate Judge on January 1, when the office sharing arrangement is proposed.
The Commission suggests, therefore, that the advertisement read as follows:
In this manner it is clear that the Magistrate Judge is not going to be practicing law while he is a Magistrate Judge and any appearance of impropriety is, therefore, avoided.
(Undated)
COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCIPLINE
OPINION 10
Issue:
May a retiring Magistrate Judge publish the following classified advertisement:
“Magistrate seeks association or office sharing arrangement as of January 1, receptive to various possible arrangements, (name, telephone).*?
Discussion:
Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 5 (C)(1) states:
“A judge should refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on his impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of his judicial duties, exploit his judicial position, or involve him in frequent transactions with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court on which he serves.”
Canon 5 (C)(1) and Canon 5(F) “Practice of law. A judge should not practice law,” clearly prohibit a judge from practicing law. Canon 2 “A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in his official activities”, demands that a judge should not publicize the fact that he practicing law contrary to the judicial canons.
The proposed advertisement is ambiguous to the extent that it does not explain that the Magistrate Judge will no longer be a Magistrate Judge on January 1, when the office sharing arrangement is proposed.
The Commission suggests, therefore, that the advertisement read as follows:
“Magistrate retiring as of January 1, seeks association or office sharing arrangement. Receptive to various possible arrangements (name, telephone number).”
In this manner it is clear that the Magistrate Judge is not going to be practicing law while he is a Magistrate Judge and any appearance of impropriety is, therefore, avoided.
(Undated)