State of Washington

Ethics Advisory Committee

Question

May a judicial officer hear matters involving an expert who shares office space with the judge’s spouse who is involved in the same profession as the expert?

Should the judge disclose to the parties and their attorneys the shared office arrangement prior to conducting any hearings of cases in which the expert is involved?

Should the judge avoid appointing the expert in cases pending before that judge?

Should the judge avoid any social interaction such as attending an “office warming” party to announce the relocation of the practice?

Answer

A judicial officer should not hear matters involving an expert who shares office space with the judge’s spouse who is involved in the same profession as the expert as such undermines the public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. (CJC Canon 2(A)).

Since it is not proper for a judicial officer to hear matters involving an expert who shares office space with the judge’s spouse who is involved in the same profession as the expert, the second question need not be addressed.

The judicial officer should avoid appointing the expert in cases pending before the judge as the spouse’s office sharing arrangement could give rise to an appearance that the spouse’s relationship is influencing the judicial decision. (CJC Canon 2(B)).

Finally, no provision in the Code of Judicial Conduct requires the judge to avoid any social interaction such as attending an “office warming” party to announce the relocation of the practices.

Opinion 87-09

10/23/1987