1998 OK JUD ETH 4•JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 1998-4
JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 1998-4
1998 OK JUD ETH 4Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel26.03.1998
Gesamter Gesetzestext
JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 1998-4
1998 OK JUD ETH 4
Decided: 03/26/1998
Oklahoma Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel
Cite as: 1998 OK JUD ETH 4, __ P.2d __
JUDICIAL ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
Judicial Ethics Opinion 98-4
May 8, 1998
¶0 QUESTION: If a Judge and his wife purchase a non-legal related business, can the Judge list his name as an owner of the business in newspaper and telephone advertising?
¶1 WE ANSWER: No.
¶2 A Judge may manage and participate in a business closely held by the Judge or members of the Judge’s family, Canon 4 (D)3(a), so long as it is a non-legal related business (as in the instant case) and not engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the Judge. Canon 4(C)3(a). For example, a Judge may participate in or mange a company engaged in investing family resources.
¶3 Canon 4(D)1, provides: "A Judge should not engage in financial dealings that :
a. May reasonably be perceived to exploit the Judge’s judicial position …"
¶4 The Judge’s name must not be used to the advantage of the business. Even though there may be no intentional or purposeful exploitation of the Judge’s name, the Judge’s position is compromised by the appearance of exploitation.
¶5 Use of the Judge’s name in any type of advertising would reasonably be perceived as exploitation.
Was bedeutet dieser Text für Ihre Situation?
Kostenlose und unverbindliche Beratung
Schildern Sie uns Ihre Situation. Unser Team meldet sich per E-Mail bei Ihnen für Ihre Beratung.
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.