Judicial Ethics Opinion 2007-3, 2007-3.

• Decision Date: 14 May 2007
• Docket Number: No. 2007-3.,2007-3.
• Citation: 162 P.3d 986,2007 OK JUD ETH 3
• Parties: JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 2007-3.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

162 P.3d 986

2007 OK JUD ETH 3

JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 2007-3.

No. 2007-3.

Oklahoma Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel.

May 14, 2007.

JUDICIAL ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL

(Judicial Ethics Opinion 2001-5 has been superseded pursuant to the decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 122 S.Ct. 2528, 153 L.Ed.2d 694 (2002) and has been modified and reissued as Judicial Ethics Opinion 2007-3.)

¶ 1 QUESTION 1: If an attorney appearing before a judge was a worker or donor for the judge in a recent judicial campaign, what is the judge's ethical requirement as to recusal and disclosure?

¶ 2 SPECIFIC FACTS: The attorney appearing before the judge assisted the judge in a judicial campaign within a year prior to the appearance in Court; the work performed was relatively modest (put up yard signs) and made a modest donation of approximately $50.

¶ 3 WE ANSWER: As to recusal: No As to disclosure: No, with restrictions or qualifications

¶ 4 Canon 2: "A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all of the Judge's Activities"

¶ 5 Canon 3E(1): "A judge should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned . . ."

¶ 6 Our answer is based on the specific facts set out above. A judge should try to avoid recusal consistent with the judge's obligation to the Court system. On the other hand, the judge may have had moderate campaign assistance from many attorneys who regularly appear before the judge. The minimal assistance suggested in the specific facts would not cause a knowledgeable observer to suspect bias or undue influence. However circumstances may arise when the Judge is required to make disclosure to adverse counsel. Although campaign information concerning donations are readily available on the internet or directly from the Ethics Commission, an attorney should not be forced to seek out such information. The duty to disclose, as hereinafter discussed, falls upon the judge and not the lawyer.

¶ 7 In Pierce v. Pierce, 2001 OK 97, 39 P.3d 791, Para 16, our Supreme Court wrote ". . . mere fact of a lawyer's contribution to a judge's campaign does not per se require that judge's disqualification when the lawyer comes before him."

¶ 8 However, the Court held that the campaign contribution coupled with other campaign activities was sufficient to disqualify the trial Judge. We conclude the contribution of a substantial sum of money by a lawyer to a judge's campaign, without more, although not grounds for disqualification, does not relieve the judge of the duty to disclose to adverse counsel the fact of the contribution and any other facts concerning contributing lawyer's activities in the judge's campaign.

¶ 9 An additional question submitted with the original question is whether it makes a difference if the donation is $5 or $5,000. Yes. It is impossible for this panel to arbitrarily fix a "bright-line" dollar figure which...