Opinion 156
(This Opinion discusses a prior version of the Canons of Judicial Conduct; the most comparable current rules are 2-1.1 Compliance with the Law; and Rule 2-2.11 Recusal, Subdivisions (A)(5)(a) & (A)(2)(c) and (C).)
Issue:
May a circuit judge preside over matters where a former member of his law firm is an attorney? In this case the only continuing relationship between the law firm and the new judge is that the law firm continues to collect attorney fees on behalf of the judge for services performed by the judge prior to his swearing in as judge.
Discussion:
Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 3 (C)(1)(b) states that a judge should disqualify himself where:
If a judge or a member of his former law firm was involved with the case prior to the judge taking the bench, it is clear that he should disqualify himself. The Commission assumed that the only business relationship between the new judge and his former law firm is that the former law firm is serving as a collecting agency for attorney fees which were earned by the judge prior to his assuming the bench.
Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 3 (C)91)(d)(ii) states:
In Opinion 143 the Commission determined that when a judge is selling his interest in his law practice to his former associate and is also leasing an office building to his former law associate, he should notify the parties and their attorneys of the business relationship in accordance with Canon 3(D) “remittal of disqualification.” The Commission made this determination based upon the possibility that any fee generated by the former associate’s practice before the judge could be used to pay the judge for the law practice purchase or for rent and thus the judge could be considered to have “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding”. [Canon 3(C)(1)(d)(ii)] However, in the present case the only business relationship between the law firm and the judge is that the law firm is collecting back due attorney fees on old cases. In the opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline such a minor business relationship is not such that it would be substantially affected by the outcome of new proceedings before the judge. As a result, the judge need not disqualify himself or follow the procedure of remittal of disqualification where the only business relationship between the judge and his former law firm is one where the law firm is collecting back due attorney fees on behalf of the judge.
(Dated: February 13, 1991)
COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCIPLINE
OPINION 156
Issue:
May a circuit judge preside over matters where a former member of his law firm is an attorney? In this case the only continuing relationship between the law firm and the new judge is that the law firm continues to collect attorney fees on behalf of the judge for services performed by the judge prior to his swearing in as judge.
Discussion:
Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 3 (C)(1)(b) states that a judge should disqualify himself where:
He served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter ...
If a judge or a member of his former law firm was involved with the case prior to the judge taking the bench, it is clear that he should disqualify himself. The Commission assumed that the only business relationship between the new judge and his former law firm is that the former law firm is serving as a collecting agency for attorney fees which were earned by the judge prior to his assuming the bench.
Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 3 (C)91)(d)(ii) states:
A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned ...
In Opinion 143 the Commission determined that when a judge is selling his interest in his law practice to his former associate and is also leasing an office building to his former law associate, he should notify the parties and their attorneys of the business relationship in accordance with Canon 3(D) “remittal of disqualification.” The Commission made this determination based upon the possibility that any fee generated by the former associate’s practice before the judge could be used to pay the judge for the law practice purchase or for rent and thus the judge could be considered to have “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding”. [Canon 3(C)(1)(d)(ii)] However, in the present case the only business relationship between the law firm and the judge is that the law firm is collecting back due attorney fees on old cases. In the opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline such a minor business relationship is not such that it would be substantially affected by the outcome of new proceedings before the judge. As a result, the judge need not disqualify himself or follow the procedure of remittal of disqualification where the only business relationship between the judge and his former law firm is one where the law firm is collecting back due attorney fees on behalf of the judge.
(Dated: February 13, 1991)