court information center

Friday, July 04, 2025

Opinion 38

(This Opinion discusses a prior version of the Canons of Judicial Conduct; the most comparable current rules are 2-1.2 Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary; and 2 2.13 Administrative Appointments.)

COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCIPLINE

OPINION 38

Issue:

May a judge appoint his son as guardian ad litem, appraisor, referee, trustee, or attorney for an indigent in a circuit where such assignments are customarily rotated among all member of the local bar?

Discussion:

Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 3(B)(4) states as follows:

“A judge should not make unnecessary appointments.  He should exercise his power of appointment only on the basis of merit, avoiding nepotism and favoritism.  He should not approve compensation of appointees beyond the fair value of services rendered.”

Canon 3(B)(4) clearly states that a judge should avoid “nepotism and favoritism”.  Canon 2 also requires a judge to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in his official activities.”

It is the Commission’s opinion, therefore, that even though judicial assignments had been customarily rotated among all members of the local bar, a judge should not appoint his son to either remunerative or non-remunerative assignments.  Under Canon 3(C)(4), such an appointment would require the judge to disclose to all parties that his son is acting as an attorney in the proceeding as a result of his judicial appointment.  The appointment of his son could be considered and exercise of nepotism or favoritism and an appearance of impropriety.

(Undated)