State of Washington

Ethics Advisory Committee

Opinion 86-13

Question

Is it proper for a judge’s spouse to work as a volunteer probation person in the same court as the judge sits? Would the answer be any different if the spouse/volunteer probation person were assigned to another District Court in the same county?

Answer

Our answer is premised on the following representations made to the committee: 1) although the position is unpaid, the spouse/probation worker performs all the services of a paid probation officer; 2) the court has two other judges and the spouse is not permitted to work on the case of any defendant sentenced by the judge/spouse; 3) in the capacity of probation worker, the spouse uses her maiden name although not for any other purposes; 4) the District Court Probation Department is managed by a director who has the ultimate responsibility for hiring and firing all employees, but individual probation workers are assigned to various courts on a fairly permanent basis; and 5) which probation department is under the direct supervision of the District Court.

A judge does not violate the Code of Judicial Conduct when a fellow judge’s spouse works as a volunteer probation person in the same court as the judge sits.
CJC Canon 2 requires a judge to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety and also requires a judge not allow social or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment. CJC Canon 3 (C)(1)(d) requires the judge to disqualify himself or herself where the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The committee’s opinion is that under some circumstances the marital relationship between a fellow judge and he volunteer probation worker might give rise to a circumstance wherein the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

It is the committee’s opinion that the proper course of action for a judge faced with assigning or having responsibility for assigning to a defendant a probation worker who is the spouse of a fellow judge in he same court would be to notify the defendant of that relationship and to seriously consider a request for the assignment of another probation worker to the defendant’s case if the defendant chooses to make such a request.

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 86-13—CJC Canon 3(C)(1)(d) became (D)(1)(d).

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 2.4(B)
CJC 2.7
CJC 2.11(A)

Opinion 86-13

09/29/1986

 

Privacy and Disclaimer Notices Sitemap

© Copyright 2025. Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts.

S3