JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 2026-3

JUDICIAL ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL

JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 2026 - 3

May 12, 2026

¶1. FACTS

     The inquiring Municipal Judge describes how his Court has compiled a list of private attorneys to give to defendants who either do not qualify for a public defender or who wish to hire a private attorney. The attorneys on the list frequently work in the Court but, upon request, attorneys can be added to it. Giving the list is accompanied by an oral disclaimer that the attorneys frequently work in the Court but not for the Court, and no specific referral is made to any attorney on the list.

¶2. QUESTION

      May a Judge give a list of select private attorneys to defendants, either Sua sponte or upon request? Does it matter if placement on the list is available to all attorneys who wish to be put on it?

¶3. ANSWER

      No as to both questions.

¶4. AUTHORITIES

1. Canon 1 § Rule 1.3: Avoiding Abuse of Prestige of Judicial Office

A judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so.

     The inquiring Judge accurately notes one of the issues will be ... "whether the giving of the list can be seen as endorsing specific attorneys via the "prestige of judicial office to advance the listed attorney's personal or economic interests?

2. Canon 1 § Rule 1.2: A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

¶5. DISCUSSION

      The Advisory Panel's opinion is that by this Judge giving a list of selected private attorneys to defendants in effect, endorses these attorneys and can reasonably be expected to advance the personal or economic interests of these attorneys who would be representing individuals charged with crime in this Judge's Court. We find this to be problematic even though the list is available for other attorneys to be placed on the list if they so choose.

     Note (2) to this Canon states that "a judge may provide a reference or recommendation for an individual based upon the Judge's personal knowledge...." The context of this Note refers to when a Judge is asked to provide a reference or recommendation for a particular individual to be admitted to, for instance, law school, etc., and not directly related to Judicial matters such as the hiring of attorneys, who then would appear in the same Judge's Court.

      The Advisory Panel also notes Rule 1.2 might be implicated by this Judge providing an attorney list as it could result in an unintended consequence of public scrutiny that could challenge the conduct as bearing on the integrity and independence of this Court potentially affecting impartiality. Our standard of impartiality is strict and includes even the "appearance of impropriety".

¶6. OPINION

     In our opinion we find a Judge, here a Municipal Judge, should not give a list of selected private attorneys to defendants as described in his question, even though they do not qualify for a public defender.

Dated this 12^th day of May, 2026.

Honorable Patricia G. Parrish, Chair
Honorable William C. Hetherington
Honorable Richard Miller
Honorable Allen McCall
Honorable Sheila Condren

ALL PANEL MEMBERS CONCUR