426 P.3d 63 (Okla.Jud.Eth. 2018), 2018-2, Judicial Ethics Opinion 2018-2

Docket Nº:2018-2
Citation:426 P.3d 63, 2018 OK JUD ETH 2
Party Name:JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 2018-2
Case Date:June 14, 2018
Court:Oklahoma Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 63

426 P.3d 63 (Okla.Jud.Eth. 2018)

2018 OK JUD ETH 2

JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 2018-2

No. 2018-2

Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel of Oklahoma

June 14, 2018

Editorial Note:

The Opinions of the Ethics Advisory Panel are advisory only and can be relied by the Council on Judicial Complaints while recommending discipline of a Judge or a Judicial Candidate and not binding on the Council or Courts in the exercise of their judicial discipline responsibilities.

OPINION

[¶1] 1. FACTS: A lawyer appearing before the judge is currently a member (not an officer) of that judge’s campaign committee, has given a donation to the committee consistent with other attorneys and citizens in the area ($1,000) and has publicly endorsed the candidate. The judge did not know the amounts given by anyone until the issue arose when he was advised of the amount given by the attorney.

[¶2] 2. Question #1: What is the judge’s ethical requirement for recusal and disclosure?

[¶3] 3. We Answer As to Disclosure: YES

[¶4] 4. Discussion: As was thoroughly discussed in Judicial Ethics Opinion 2001-5, 2001 OK JUD ETH 5, 73 P.3d 270, "disclosure is still appropriate and an attorney should not be forced to seek out such information [about individual campaign contribution]."

[¶5] 5. We Answer As to Recusal: NO

[¶6] 6. Discussion: Canon 1 "A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety."

[¶7] 7. Rule 2.11(A)(4) provides "Contributions within the limits allowed by the Oklahoma Ethics Commission will not normally require disqualification unless other...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP