Opinion 161
(This Opinion discusses a prior version of the Canons of Judicial Conduct; the most comparable current rules are 2-2.11 Recusal, Subdivisions (A)(1) and (C); and 2-3.11 Financial, Business, or Remunerative Activities, Subdivision (A).)
Issue:
May a municipal judge rent office space from or to attorneys who appear before the judge?
Discussion:
Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 3C(1)(d)(ii) states:
Additionally, Canon 5C(1) requires:
Previously in Opinion 143 the Commission reviewed the question of whether a judge could lease an office building at a fixed monthly rent to his former associate and then preside over a case involving that associate. The Commission determined that the facts in each case would have to be reviewed. The Commission stated:
In the opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline so long as the rent paid or received is at a fair market value in accordance with local market conditions, there is nothing in the Code of Judicial Conduct which would prevent a judge from renting office space from or to attorneys who practice before the judge. However, the rental arrangement may still be considered a part of the grounds requiring disqualification in the event a more involved business relationship exists between the judge and the attorney. A rental arrangement at fair market value is not of itself sufficient to require a disqualification.
(Dated: April 15, 1994)
COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCIPLINE
OPINION 161
Issue:
May a municipal judge rent office space from or to attorneys who appear before the judge?
Discussion:
Supreme Court Rule 2, Canon 3C(1)(d)(ii) states:
A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned ....
Additionally, Canon 5C(1) requires:
A judge should refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties, exploit the judge’s judicial position, or involve the judge in frequent transactions with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court on which the judge serves.
Previously in Opinion 143 the Commission reviewed the question of whether a judge could lease an office building at a fixed monthly rent to his former associate and then preside over a case involving that associate. The Commission determined that the facts in each case would have to be reviewed. The Commission stated:
Consideration must be given to whether the payments for rent…are at the fair market value in accordance with local market conditions. That is, any payment that is not within the fair market value would require the judge’s disqualification.
In the opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline so long as the rent paid or received is at a fair market value in accordance with local market conditions, there is nothing in the Code of Judicial Conduct which would prevent a judge from renting office space from or to attorneys who practice before the judge. However, the rental arrangement may still be considered a part of the grounds requiring disqualification in the event a more involved business relationship exists between the judge and the attorney. A rental arrangement at fair market value is not of itself sufficient to require a disqualification.
(Dated: April 15, 1994)