Opinion 118
(This Opinion discusses a prior version of the Canons of Judicial Conduct; the most comparable current rules are 2-3.11 Financial, Business, or Remunerative Activities; and 2 2.11 Recusal, Subdivisions (A)(1),(3), and (C).)
Issue:
May a judge be involved in a general partnership holding real estate in which one or more attorneys are also partners? Secondly, is the Commission’s opinion the same if the judge serves as a general partner while the attorneys serve as limited partners with a minority interest?
Discussion:
Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 5C(1) states:
In the opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline, a judge should not be involved in a general partnership holding real estate as either a general or limited partner with attorneys who frequently appear before him. In the event that the attorney/partners rarely appear before the judge, then the judge may be involved as either a general or limited partner.
As to whether the judge need disqualify himself when an attorney occasionally appears before him who is a limited or general partner with the judge depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The more extensive financial dealings that exists between the judge and the attorney, the more likely his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Additionally, the judge should review the conflicts of interest provisions of V.A.M.S. 105.464 to determine if the judge’s relationship to the attorney or the possibility of a direct financial gain require disqualification.
Finally, in the opinion of the Commission, in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety, the judge should disclose to the parties that he is a partner or shares a financial interest with a lawyer who is appearing before him.
(Dated: January 20, 1986)
COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCIPLINE
OPINION 118
Issue:
May a judge be involved in a general partnership holding real estate in which one or more attorneys are also partners? Secondly, is the Commission’s opinion the same if the judge serves as a general partner while the attorneys serve as limited partners with a minority interest?
Discussion:
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 persons likely to come before the court on which he serves.
In the opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline, a judge should not be involved in a general partnership holding real estate as either a general or limited partner with attorneys who frequently appear before him. In the event that the attorney/partners rarely appear before the judge, then the judge may be involved as either a general or limited partner.
As to whether the judge need disqualify himself when an attorney occasionally appears before him who is a limited or general partner with the judge depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The more extensive financial dealings that exists between the judge and the attorney, the more likely his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Additionally, the judge should review the conflicts of interest provisions of V.A.M.S. 105.464 to determine if the judge’s relationship to the attorney or the possibility of a direct financial gain require disqualification.
Finally, in the opinion of the Commission, in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety, the judge should disclose to the parties that he is a partner or shares a financial interest with a lawyer who is appearing before him.
(Dated: January 20, 1986)