Ohio Board Advisory Opinion Op 87-013

The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 3370, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6105
(614) 644-5800 FAX: (614) 644-5804
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
OPINION 87-013
[Former CJC Opinion-provides advice under the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct which is superseded by the
Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, eff. 3/1/2009.]
[Not Current- subsequent rule amendments to Canons 1 through 6, Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, eff. May 1, 1997]
SYLLABUS: Under Canon 5G of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge should not accept
appointment to a governmental committee that is concerned with issues of fact or policy other than
the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.
TO: Judge Robert P. Ringland, Clermont County Court of Common Pleas
FROM: The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Judiciary
DATE: June 22, 1987
We have before us your request for an informal advisory opinion on whether your
membership on the Clermont County Hazardous Materials Task Force would violate the Code of
Judicial Conduct (the "Code"). In your request letter, you state that the purpose of the committee is
to review and make recommendations relative to hazardous material and the ability of the county to
respond to incidents and spills.
As you point out in your request letter, Canon 5G is applicable to your situation. Canon 5G states:

Op. 87-013 2
A judge should not accept appointment to a governmental committee,
commission, or other position that is concerned with issues of fact or
policy on matters other than the improvement of the law, the legal
system, or the administration of justice. A judge, however, may
represent his country, state, or locality on ceremonial occasions or in
connection with historical, educational, and cultural activities.
Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 5G (1973).
The commentary to Canon 5G provides some insight to the limitations on extra-judicial
assignments as set forth in the Canon. The commentary states:
Valuable services have been rendered in the past to the states and the
nation by judges appointed by the executive to undertake important
extra-judicial assignments. The appropriateness of conferring these
assignments on judges must be reassessed, however, in light of the
demands on judicial manpower created by today's crowded dockets
and the need to protect the courts from involvement in extra-judicial
matters that may prove to be controversial. Judges should not be
expected or permitted to accept governmental appointments that
could interfere with the effectiveness and independence of the
judiciary.
Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 5G Commentary (1973).
The rationale for the adoption of Canon 5G was that the "time and prestige of the judiciary
should not be expended on the resolution of non-judicial public issues." E. W. Thode, Reporter's
Notes to Code of Judicial Conduct, 90 (1973).
In an article on this issue, Dean McKay commented in part that:
[w]henever issues that are highly visible and sensitive are entrusted to
a public commission for resolution or

Op. 87-013 3
recommendation, the results are unlikely to satisfy all the critics,
perhaps none. Participation in such a process by members of the
judiciary is less likely to settle a troublesome public issue than to lend
credence to the all-too-common charge that the courts are part of the
political process . . .
McKay, The Judiciary and Non-judicial Activities, 5 Law & Contemp. Prob. 9, 25 (1970).
Given the language of Canon 5(G), its commentary, the reasoning behind the adoption of
Canon 5G, and Dean McKay's comments, we are of the opinion that you should not serve on the
Countywide Hazardous Materials Task Force. This is especially true in light of the fact that you
may be presiding over a case involving county landfills.
Therefore, it is the opinion of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of
the Judiciary, and you are so advised, that membership on the Countywide Hazardous Materials
Task Force would be in violation of Canon 5G of the Code, as adopted by the Supreme Court of
Ohio.
This opinion is advisory in nature, is based upon the facts as presented and is limited
to questions arising under the Code of Judicial Conduct.
James W. Mason, Esq.
Secretary, Board of Commissioners
on Grievances and Discipline