Opinion 126
(This Opinion discusses a prior version of the Canons of Judicial Conduct; the most comparable current rule is 2-2.12 Supervisory Duties, Subdivision (A).)
Issue:
May a municipal judge allow his clerk who is subject to his direction and control to be employed by a court service company? The court service company runs a school for traffic offenders and attendance at the school is part of court ordered probation. The municipal court uses four different court service companies. Cases are divided equally among any qualified court service company that is in attendance on the night of court.
Discussion:
Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 3B(2) states:
In the opinion of the Commission, since the municipal judge has power of directions and control over his court clerk, he may not allow his clerk to be employed by a court service company if such employment might create the appearance of impropriety.
The controlling question is whether the court’s use of a court service company which employs his clerk is the appearance of impropriety in violation of Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 2:
In the opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline, the possibility of a traffic offender seeing the clerk in the courtroom and then subsequently seeing the same clerk at the court service company could lead to the
appearance of impropriety. Additionally, the potential for abuse and possible preferential treatment which is inherent in the clerk’s dual employment makes this practice one which should be discouraged. As a result, the Commission’s opinion is that the court clerk should not be allowed to be employed by the court service company.
(Dated: June 24, 1986)
COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCIPLINE
OPINION 126
Issue:
May a municipal judge allow his clerk who is subject to his direction and control to be employed by a court service company? The court service company runs a school for traffic offenders and attendance at the school is part of court ordered probation. The municipal court uses four different court service companies. Cases are divided equally among any qualified court service company that is in attendance on the night of court.
Discussion:
Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 3B(2) states:
A judge should require his staff and court officials subject to his direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to him.
In the opinion of the Commission, since the municipal judge has power of directions and control over his court clerk, he may not allow his clerk to be employed by a court service company if such employment might create the appearance of impropriety.
The controlling question is whether the court’s use of a court service company which employs his clerk is the appearance of impropriety in violation of Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 2:
A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in his official activities.
In the opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline, the possibility of a traffic offender seeing the clerk in the courtroom and then subsequently seeing the same clerk at the court service company could lead to the
appearance of impropriety. Additionally, the potential for abuse and possible preferential treatment which is inherent in the clerk’s dual employment makes this practice one which should be discouraged. As a result, the Commission’s opinion is that the court clerk should not be allowed to be employed by the court service company.
(Dated: June 24, 1986)