CJEO Oral Advice Summary No. 2013-001 — Disclosure When a Judges Spouse Serves on a City Commission

1
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINIONS
350 McAllister Street, Room 1144A
San Francisco, CA 94102
(855) 854-5366
www.JudicialEthicsOpinions.ca.gov
CJEO Oral Advice Summary No. 2013-001
[Issued September 4, 2013]
DISCLOSURE WHEN A JUDGE’S SPOUSE SERVES ON A CITY
COMMISSION
I. Question:
Is disclosure required when a judge’s spouse has been appointed as a city utility
commissioner and the judge hears cases involving the city?
The question was asked by a judge whose spouse was recently nominated by the
mayor to serve as a city utility commissioner. Commissioners are responsible for setting
policy only as to the utility itself. As a proprietary department, the utility manages and
controls its own assets and funds. Commissioners are volunteers; they are not paid and
are not city employees. The commissioners meet as a board once or twice per month.
The judge frequently hears cases involving the city, but questioned whether disclosure is
necessary when the utility itself is not a party and neither the actions nor policies of the
utility are implicated in the dispute.

2
II. Oral Advice Provided:
Disclosure is required when a judge’s spouse has been appointed as an unpaid
commissioner of a city utility and the judge hears cases involving the city. As a general
rule, information relevant to the question of disqualification must be disclosed. (Cal.
Code of Jud. Ethics, canon 3E; Rothman, Cal. Judicial Conduct Handbook (3d ed. 2007),
§ 7.72, p. 380.) In this instance, disqualification would be required when the city is a
party only if the judge’s spouse were employed by the city or if the spouse had a
relationship with the city as a director, advisor or other active participant in city affairs
(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 170.1 subds. (a)(3) & (a)(4), 170.5 subd. (b); Rothman, supra, §
7.16, pp. 307-308.) The facts presented do not mandate disqualification every time the
city is a party because the judge’s spouse is not a city employee nor an active participant
in the affairs of the city itself. Reaching that conclusion necessarily requires
consideration of the spouse’s relationship to the city and whether he or she is an active
participant in policy and affairs. Consideration of those distinguishing facts makes them
relevant to the question of disqualification, thereby requiring disclosure whenever the city
is a party. (Canon 3E.)

This oral advice summary is advisory only (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.80(a), (e);
Cal. Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., Internal Operating Rules & Proc. (CJEO) rule 1(a), (b)). It
is based on facts and issues, or topics of interest, presented to the California Supreme
Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions in a request for an opinion (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 9.80(i)(3); CJEO rule 2(f), 6(c)), or on subjects deemed appropriate by the
committee (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.80(i)(1); CJEO rule 6(a)).