Opinion 39
(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 2-1.3 Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office.)
OPINION 39
Issue:
May a judge use court stationery for private business correspondence?
Discussion:
Whether a judge may use his court letterhead stationery in private business correspondence depends largely on what is said in the letter. Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 2(B) states that a judge “should not lend the prestige of his office to advance the private interests of others; nor should he convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence him”. Canon 2 also states that a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”
The Missouri Supreme Court reviewed an instance where a Circuit Judge used his court stationery for private business in the case of In re: Buford, 577 S.W.2d 809 (Mo. 1979). In that case “(t)he adjustor knew respondent was a circuit judge and in his report to Cameron Mutual informed the supervisor of that fact as a matter of course. The use of the circuit judge stationery added nothing to the claim and the adjustor testified the letter could have been on any kind of stationery as far as he was concerned”. Id. at 830. The court held:
It is the Commission’s opinion that if a judge is using his court stationery for private business correspondence, it should be clear from the contents of the letter that the judge is not acting in an official capacity and that the letter is not part of an official court action.
A judge is not automatically prohibited from using his court stationery to write about a defective automobile, poor telephone service, or an investment portfolio. Each case must be considered on its own merits to determine whether the use of court letterhead lends the prestige of the judicial office to private business and financial activities in a manner which adversely affects public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and, thereby, creates the appearance of impropriety.
(Dated: June 17, 1980)
COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCIPLINE
OPINION 39
Issue:
May a judge use court stationery for private business correspondence?
Discussion:
Whether a judge may use his court letterhead stationery in private business correspondence depends largely on what is said in the letter. Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 2(B) states that a judge “should not lend the prestige of his office to advance the private interests of others; nor should he convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence him”. Canon 2 also states that a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”
The Missouri Supreme Court reviewed an instance where a Circuit Judge used his court stationery for private business in the case of In re: Buford, 577 S.W.2d 809 (Mo. 1979). In that case “(t)he adjustor knew respondent was a circuit judge and in his report to Cameron Mutual informed the supervisor of that fact as a matter of course. The use of the circuit judge stationery added nothing to the claim and the adjustor testified the letter could have been on any kind of stationery as far as he was concerned”. Id. at 830. The court held:
“Respondent’s conduct in using his circuit judge stationery in filing and handling his claim for personal injury and property damage did not violate the Code of Judicial Conduct and did not constitute the exploitation of his judicial position contrary to Canon 2A and 5C(1).* Id. at 831.
It is the Commission’s opinion that if a judge is using his court stationery for private business correspondence, it should be clear from the contents of the letter that the judge is not acting in an official capacity and that the letter is not part of an official court action.
A judge is not automatically prohibited from using his court stationery to write about a defective automobile, poor telephone service, or an investment portfolio. Each case must be considered on its own merits to determine whether the use of court letterhead lends the prestige of the judicial office to private business and financial activities in a manner which adversely affects public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and, thereby, creates the appearance of impropriety.
(Dated: June 17, 1980)