Opinion 177
(This Opinion discusses a prior version of the Canons of Judicial Conduct; the most comparable current rules are 2-3.4 Appointments to Governmental Positions; and 2-3.1 Extrajudicial Activities in General and Comment 1.)
Issue:
May a state judge serve on the Domestic and Family Violence Council of St. Louis County?
Discussion:
The purpose and duties of the Domestic and Family Violence Council of St. Louis County is defined as follows:
The initial issue is whether such governmental committee is allowed pursuant to Canon 4C(2) that provides:
Heretofore the Commission has determined that the following activities would be considered matters concerning the law, the legal system or the administration of justice:
It is the opinion of the Commission that the judge’s involvement in the Domestic and Family Violence Council for the purposes outlined in the ordinance are matters having to do with the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice.
The second issue raised by the judge’s service on the Domestic and Family Violence Council is whether such service would risk a conflict of judicial obligations in violation of Canon 4. Canon 4A provides:
The Commission notes that the legislature has recently created the Missouri Domestic Violence Commission for the purpose: “to study solutions for domestic violence in the State of Missouri.” The statutory purposes of the Missouri Domestic Violence Commission are similar to those of the Domestic and Family Violence Council of St. Louis County. The state legislature has indicated its opinion of the value of judicial service on such committees by providing that the Missouri Domestic Violence Committee membership shall include a juvenile and a family court judge.
In addition, one of the commentaries to Canon 4 provides in pertinent part:
Heretofore in Opinion 164, the Commission reviewed the propriety of a judge’s service on the Regional Advisory Council for the State Department of Mental Health, Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse. In that Opinion, the Commission determined:
The case of the St. Louis County Domestic and Family Violence Council is distinguished, however, from the Regional Advisory Council in that the St. Louis County Domestic and Family Violence Council does not provide any direct services or provide treatment or support programs for the victims or perpetrators of domestic violence and does not set up policies and procedures for an agency likely to appear as a witness or party before the court.
In addition, the Commission notes Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee Advisory Opinion 98-1, dated April 8, 1988, that reviewed a judge’s service on a similar family violence coordinating council. In approving the judge’s service, the Illinois Ethics Committee found that:
It is the opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline that a judge’s service on the St. Louis Count Domestic and Family Violence Council does not cast a reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge, demean the judicial office or interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties. Such service is a measure to improve the law, the legal system and the administration of justice. The Commission approves such service.
(Dated: January 23, 2001)
COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCIPLINE
OPINION 177
Issue:
May a state judge serve on the Domestic and Family Violence Council of St. Louis County?
Discussion:
The purpose and duties of the Domestic and Family Violence Council of St. Louis County is defined as follows:
111.220 Domestic and Family Violence Council.
1. There is hereby established the St. Louis County Domestic and Family Violence Council, the mission of which shall be to build a collaborative community process to increase the awareness and understanding of domestic and family violence and its consequences and to reduce the incidence of domestic and family violence.
2. The Council shall establish for itself such duties as will further the accomplishment of the following goals:
1. There is hereby established the St. Louis County Domestic and Family Violence Council, the mission of which shall be to build a collaborative community process to increase the awareness and understanding of domestic and family violence and its consequences and to reduce the incidence of domestic and family violence.
2. The Council shall establish for itself such duties as will further the accomplishment of the following goals:
(a) To effectuate communication and coordination between organizations, agencies, departments, and the courts that address domestic and Family violence issues;
(b) To promote effective prevention, intervention, and treatment strategies, plans and resources;
(c) To improve the timeliness and effectiveness of response to domestic and family violence by the entire community;
(d) To examine and make recommendations relative to domestic or family violence legislation;
(e) To promote public education regarding domestic and family violence;
(f) To promote effective training of all persons involved with the prevention, intervention and treatment of domestic and family violence victims and perpetrators;
(g) To facilitate the development of comprehensive and uniform data collection concerning domestic and family violence for courts, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, health care practitioners and other agencies in a manner that protects the identity of victims of domestic and family violence;
(h) To facilitate the development and implementation of uniform protocols and procedures.
(b) To promote effective prevention, intervention, and treatment strategies, plans and resources;
(c) To improve the timeliness and effectiveness of response to domestic and family violence by the entire community;
(d) To examine and make recommendations relative to domestic or family violence legislation;
(e) To promote public education regarding domestic and family violence;
(f) To promote effective training of all persons involved with the prevention, intervention and treatment of domestic and family violence victims and perpetrators;
(g) To facilitate the development of comprehensive and uniform data collection concerning domestic and family violence for courts, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, health care practitioners and other agencies in a manner that protects the identity of victims of domestic and family violence;
(h) To facilitate the development and implementation of uniform protocols and procedures.
The initial issue is whether such governmental committee is allowed pursuant to Canon 4C(2) that provides:
A judge shall not accept appointment to a governmental committee or commission or other government position that is concerned with the issues of fact or policy on matters other than the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice.
Heretofore the Commission has determined that the following activities would be considered matters concerning the law, the legal system or the administration of justice:
Opinion 44 – A steering committee of the Attorney General’s Council on Crime Prevention;
Opinion 128 – Participation in a media publicity campaign to recruit foster families for neglected, abused and abandoned children;
Opinion 166 – Meeting with public officials to discuss problems of violence and drug abuse in schools.
Opinion 128 – Participation in a media publicity campaign to recruit foster families for neglected, abused and abandoned children;
Opinion 166 – Meeting with public officials to discuss problems of violence and drug abuse in schools.
It is the opinion of the Commission that the judge’s involvement in the Domestic and Family Violence Council for the purposes outlined in the ordinance are matters having to do with the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice.
The second issue raised by the judge’s service on the Domestic and Family Violence Council is whether such service would risk a conflict of judicial obligations in violation of Canon 4. Canon 4A provides:
Extrajudicial activities in general. A judge shall conduct all of the judge’s extrajudicial activities so that they do not:
(1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge;
(2) demean the judicial office; or
(3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.
(2) demean the judicial office; or
(3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.
The Commission notes that the legislature has recently created the Missouri Domestic Violence Commission for the purpose: “to study solutions for domestic violence in the State of Missouri.” The statutory purposes of the Missouri Domestic Violence Commission are similar to those of the Domestic and Family Violence Council of St. Louis County. The state legislature has indicated its opinion of the value of judicial service on such committees by providing that the Missouri Domestic Violence Committee membership shall include a juvenile and a family court judge.
In addition, one of the commentaries to Canon 4 provides in pertinent part:
As a judicial officer and person specially learned in the law, a judge is in a unique position to contribute to the improvement of the law, the legal system and the administration of justice, including revision of substantive and procedural law and improvement of criminal and juvenile justice.
Heretofore in Opinion 164, the Commission reviewed the propriety of a judge’s service on the Regional Advisory Council for the State Department of Mental Health, Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse. In that Opinion, the Commission determined:
for a judge to be serving with the State Advisory Board which is setting up policies and procedures for alcohol and drug rehabilitation programs and also to require defendants to participate in such programs created a potential for conflict of interest and is an appearance of impropriety.
The case of the St. Louis County Domestic and Family Violence Council is distinguished, however, from the Regional Advisory Council in that the St. Louis County Domestic and Family Violence Council does not provide any direct services or provide treatment or support programs for the victims or perpetrators of domestic violence and does not set up policies and procedures for an agency likely to appear as a witness or party before the court.
In addition, the Commission notes Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee Advisory Opinion 98-1, dated April 8, 1988, that reviewed a judge’s service on a similar family violence coordinating council. In approving the judge’s service, the Illinois Ethics Committee found that:
The limitation imposed by Rules 64 and 65 – that judges by their activities do no compromise their impartiality – is not violated by a judge’s participation in the Family Violence Coordinating Council. Since the council addresses the broad social ramifications of family violence including the involvement of the legal system participation on a Family Violence Coordinating Council does not reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality or interfere with the judge’s impartiality. Similarly, Rule 65B(1) is not violated since the Council does not appear in court or provide testimony for any litigants. The Council takes neither side nor intervenes for a particular individual in a particular case. For these reasons, participating in a Family Violence Coordinating Council is not a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct nor is it improper for a judge.
It is the opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline that a judge’s service on the St. Louis Count Domestic and Family Violence Council does not cast a reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge, demean the judicial office or interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties. Such service is a measure to improve the law, the legal system and the administration of justice. The Commission approves such service.
(Dated: January 23, 2001)