Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Judicial Conduct Advisory
Committee
Date Issued: February 26, 2013
Opinion 13-1
ISSUE
May circuit court judges utilize legal research
services of an attorney employed by the county who regularly practices before
them?
ANSWER
No.
FACTS
The county at issue does not have the resources to
maintain a full-time law clerk to assist the judges in conducting legal
research. As such, the judges have
selected and the county has hired and entered into a contract with a local
attorney to occasionally conduct legal research for the judges on a per-hour
basis. That attorney also takes public defender and indigent criminal defendant
appointments in the county and has cases before the judges to whom he provides
research services.
DISCUSSION
The Committee concludes that the issue presented is
governed by the provision of SCR 60.03(2), which provides as follows:
A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all of the judge's activities.
(1) A judge
shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner
that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary.
(2) A judge may
not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the
judge's judicial conduct or judgment. A
judge may not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private
interests of the judge or of others or convey or permit others to convey the
impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge
may not testify voluntarily as a character witness.
…
SCR
60.03(1) sets the standard for dealing with the public’s perception of the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
The test for the appearance of impropriety is the perception which the
conduct would create in reasonable minds.
These appearances are viewed from the perspective of the public, which
expects a high standard of conduct on the part of judges.
The Committee empathizes with those counties that do
not have the resources to hire full-time legal researchers. The Committee understands it may be difficult
to find a qualified individual willing to fulfill research duties on a sporadic
basis if the individual does not also practice in the county. However, convenience cannot be allowed to
override the duty to demonstrate propriety at all times.
The
Committee concludes that in specially selecting an attorney to act as a
researcher and provide assistance in interpreting and applying the law, a judge
is creating a relationship that, at a minimum, has the appearance of
influencing judicial conduct or judgment.
That the attorney might one day be in the judge’s chambers providing
assistance in interpreting the law, receiving the judge’s candid opinions, and
the next day appear before that judge in a case would create in reasonable
minds the idea that the judge is less likely to be impartial and more likely to
rule favorably for the attorney based on the special advisory relationship. In order to avoid any appearance of
impropriety, the judge should employ only legal researchers who do not
contemporaneously practice before the judge.
CONCLUSION
The
Committee concludes that judges should not utilize the legal research services
of an attorney who regularly practices before them.
APPLICABILITY
This
opinion is advisory only. It is based on
the specific facts and questions submitted by the petitioner to the Judicial
Conduct Advisory Committee and is limited to the questions arising under the
Supreme Court Rules, Chapter 60, Code of Judicial Conduct. This opinion is not binding on the Wisconsin
Judicial Commission or the Supreme Court in the exercise of their judicial
disciplinary responsibilities. This
opinion does not purport to address provisions of the Code of Ethics for Public
Officials and Employees, subchapter III of Ch. 19 of the statutes.
I
hereby certify that this is Formal Opinion No. 13-1 issued by the Judicial
Conduct Advisory Committee for the State of Wisconsin this 26th
day of February, 2013.
____________________________________
The
Honorable Wayne J. Marik
Chair