Perhaps you saw the disgusting pictures of a Judge hanging off a boat, most likely on drugs and alcohol, wearing a makeshift bra and generally acting like himself.
B. Attendance at Such Gatherings as Giving an Appearance of Impropriety
Once a judge determines that the invitation to the event constitutes ordinary social hospitality or
falls within another exception to the prohibition against receiving gifts, the judge must also consider
whether attendance would undermine public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. (Canons 2A and 4A(1); Commentary, Canon 4D(5).) “The test for the appearance of impropriety is whether a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to act with integrity, impartiality and competence.” (Commentary, Canon 2A.)
In determining whether attendance at a social event hosted by an attorney creates an appearance
of impropriety, judges should consider the following. Again, the list is not intended to be exhaustive.
1. Whether the attorney or a member of the attorney’s law firm is currently appearing before the
judge, has in the recent past appeared, or will in the near future. Being the guest of an attorney with
whom the judge has a professional relationship (e.g., with whom the judge serves on the local bar
association governing board) may generally be proper, for example, but may be inappropriate during the pendency of a trial in which the attorney is appearing in the judge’s court.
2. The frequency with which the attorney or a member of the attorney’s law firm appears before
the judge.
3. Whether the invitation is limited to the judge or a small number of judges as compared to
judges and/or members of the legal community at large.
4. Whether there is a personal friendship or professional relationship between the judge and the
attorney which exists independent of the event in question.
5. Any other circumstances relating to the event which, if the judge attended, might result in
future disqualification under Canon 3E. (Commentary, Canon 3E.)
C. Attendance at Social Events as Advancing the Private Interest of Others
Even if attendance at a social gathering hosted by an attorney does not involve the receipt of a
prohibited gift and does not cast a doubt on the judge’s ability to be impartial, attendance may not be
appropriate for the reasons stated in Canons 2B(1) and (2).
Canon 2B(1) provides:
A judge shall not allow family, social, political, or other relationships to influence the
judge’s judicial conduct or judgment, nor shall a judge convey or permit others to
convey the impression that any individual is in a special position to influence the judge.
Canon 2B(2) states in part:
A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the pecuniary or
personal interests of the judge or others:
A judge’s attendance at a social gathering hosted by an attorney may, under certain circumstances,
tend to advance private interests. On the one hand, a large gathering to which many segments of the bar are invited is not likely to have such an effect. On the other hand, a social event to which a number of the law firm’s clients or potential clients are invited, and where the attorney makes a point of introducing the judge to those persons, or where the judge otherwise plays a prominent role, would appear to involve the judge in advancing the personal interests of the firm.
D. Conclusion
The subject of judges accepting invitations to social events hosted by lawyers where food, beverage, or entertainment is provided without charge involves the interaction of a number of different canons. To the greatest extent possible, each judge must determine in advance of the event whether it is ethically proper to attend. A judge may not accept such an invitation without regard for ethical constraints and then simply decide to disqualify himself or herself if the occasion subsequently arises, for a judge has the affirmative duty to minimize the number of cases in which he or she is disqualified. (Canons 3A, 4D(3); Rothman, at 220.490.)12
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ETHICS
February 5, 1994, revised August 1996.
No comments:
Post a Comment