State of Washington

Ethics Advisory Committee

Opinion 92-12

Question

Are any judicial conduct problems created for a judicial officer when one of the court employees is married to a law enforcement officer who files cases or appears regularly in the same court where the court employee works?

Answer

There is a potential for an appearance of unfairness or partiality when a court employee is a spouse of a law enforcement officer who files cases or testifies regularly in that same court. To the extent a judge does little or nothing to mitigate that potential, the judge may violate CJC Canon 1 and 2, and may be required to take action under CJC Canon 3(C)(1). While the judge's power to mitigate may be limited the judge should take all reasonable steps to eliminate or reduce the perception that a judge's impartiality is compromised by the special relationship between the court employee and the law enforcement officer. The factors to consider when taking steps to mitigate are, among others, the following:

    (a) the amount of the judge's control over personnel administration,

    (b) legal or policy restrictions on discriminatory hiring and firing practices,

    (c) whether the employee could be transferred to a civil section of the court, or assigned duties where contact with the law enforcement spouse is minimal,

    (d) whether cases filed by the law enforcement spouse can be conveniently transferred to another court for resolution,

    (e) the size of the court and/or staff, and the number of such relationships,

    (f) whether employee education and training could be utilized to heighten employee awareness concerning the potential for the appearance of unfairness or partiality.

NOTE: Effective June 23, 1995, the Supreme Court amended the Code of Judicial Conduct. In addition to reviewing the ethics advisory opinions, the following should be noted:

Opinion 92-12—CJC Canon 3(C)(1) is now 3(D)(1).

The Supreme Court adopted a new Code of Judicial Conduct effective January 1, 2011. In addition to reviewing the ethics advisory opinions, the following should be noted:

CJC 1.2
CJC 1.3
CJC 2.11(A)

Opinion 92-12

09/21/1992

 

Privacy and Disclaimer NoticesSitemap

© Copyright 2024. Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts.

S3