Opinion 81
(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; 2-3.11Financial, Business, or Remunerative Activities; and “Application, Section III. Part-Time Municipal Judge.”)
Issue:
May a municipal judge represent a criminal defendant when the charge arose out of events occurring outside the city limits? Also, may the municipal judge accept a civil case where there may be some question of a violation of a city ordinance but where no actual city charges have been filed?
Discussion:
Commission’s Opinion #63 dealt with the issue of whether a municipal judge could be appointed to represent an indigent in a criminal case. That Opinion held:
Opinion #63 was not limited to criminal appointments occurring within the municipality in question. In the Commission’s Opinion, any criminal appointment of a judge “would erode public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary in violation of Supreme Court Rule 2 Canon 2(A).
The Commission has not yet covered the issue of whether the municipal judge can continue to practice criminal law either within or outside his municipality. The provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct applicable to part-time municipal judges allows a judge to practice law but with the following restrictions:
Additionally, Supreme Court Rule 2 Canon 5C(1) states:
Using the same reasoning as employed in Opinion #63, it is the Opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline that a municipal judge practicing criminal law within his municipality could conceivably be a judge in one trial and defense counsel in another involving the same facts. Accordingly, the judge should not practice criminal law within his municipality and should withdraw from any criminal cases occurring within his municipality for which he had been retained prior to his swearing-in as a municipal judge.
A judge may, however, continue to practice criminal law on cases involving events occurring outside his municipality since there is no chance that the judge would be presiding in one trial and defense counsel in another involving the same facts.
It is further opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline that a municipal judge may accept a civil case where there is no pending issue of a violation of a city ordinance. The fact that a possibility exists that a charge could be filed involving the civil case does not preclude the municipal judge from handling the matter.
(Dated: May 26, 1982)
COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCIPLINE
OPINION 81
Issue:
May a municipal judge represent a criminal defendant when the charge arose out of events occurring outside the city limits? Also, may the municipal judge accept a civil case where there may be some question of a violation of a city ordinance but where no actual city charges have been filed?
Discussion:
Commission’s Opinion #63 dealt with the issue of whether a municipal judge could be appointed to represent an indigent in a criminal case. That Opinion held:
[F]acts that amount to a city ordinance violation are many times also a violation of state law. A municipal judge could conceivably be a judge in one trial and defense counsel in another involving the same facts. Additionally, the practice of appointing any judge as criminal defense counsel would erode public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary in violation of Supreme Court Rule 2 Canon 2(A).
Opinion #63 was not limited to criminal appointments occurring within the municipality in question. In the Commission’s Opinion, any criminal appointment of a judge “would erode public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary in violation of Supreme Court Rule 2 Canon 2(A).
The Commission has not yet covered the issue of whether the municipal judge can continue to practice criminal law either within or outside his municipality. The provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct applicable to part-time municipal judges allows a judge to practice law but with the following restrictions:
A part-time judge:…(2) should not practice law in the court on which he serves or in any court subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the court on which he serves, or act as a lawyer in a proceeding in which he has served as a judge or in any other proceeding related thereto.
Additionally, Supreme Court Rule 2 Canon 5C(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 person likely to come before the court on which he serves.
Using the same reasoning as employed in Opinion #63, it is the Opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline that a municipal judge practicing criminal law within his municipality could conceivably be a judge in one trial and defense counsel in another involving the same facts. Accordingly, the judge should not practice criminal law within his municipality and should withdraw from any criminal cases occurring within his municipality for which he had been retained prior to his swearing-in as a municipal judge.
A judge may, however, continue to practice criminal law on cases involving events occurring outside his municipality since there is no chance that the judge would be presiding in one trial and defense counsel in another involving the same facts.
It is further opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline that a municipal judge may accept a civil case where there is no pending issue of a violation of a city ordinance. The fact that a possibility exists that a charge could be filed involving the civil case does not preclude the municipal judge from handling the matter.
(Dated: May 26, 1982)