JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 2026-4

JUDICIAL ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL

JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 2026 - 4

September 17, 2026

¶1. FACTS

The wife of a current District Court Judge owns an LLC and is a grant professional, writing and advising non-profits and government agencies on federal and local grants. He is not listed on the LLC, and he does not have a role in her business. The local District Attorney's office has requested to contract with her for some grant writing. The District Court Judge presides over a criminal docket.

¶2. QUESTION

Would his wife's grant writing relationship be a conflict? Should the Judge disclose his wife's (potential) relationship with the District Attorney's Office?

¶3. ANSWER

Yes.

¶4. AUTHORITIES

All citations are from the Code of Judicial Conduct, Title 5. Oklahoma Statutes, Chapter 1, App.4. Pursuant to CANON 2 of the Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct.

CANON 2

A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially, Competently, and Diligently.

Additionally, Rule 2.11 provides:

RULE 2.11: Disqualification.

(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:

(2) The judge knows that the judge, the judge's spouse, a member of the judge's

household, or a person within the third degree of relationship to any of them, or the spouse of such person is:

(c) a person who has more than a de minimus interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding; or

Comment [1} to Rule 2.11 provides:

Under this Rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific provisions of (A)(1) though (6) apply.

Comment [2} to Rule 2.11 provides:

A judge's obligation not to hear or decide matters in which disqualification is required applies regardless of whether a motion to disqualify has been filed.

Lastly, Comment [5] to Rule 2.11 provides:

A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for disqualification even if the judge believes there is no basis for disqualification.

Lastly, Judicial Ethics Opinion 2025-1

Where the Judicial Advisory Panel concluded the judge had the obligation to disclose on the record that his wife was the CEO of an organization that was involved in the prosecution of child abuse cases, specifically in forensic interviews; that the duty to disclose regardless of whether a motion to recuse has been filed and even if the judge believes there is no basis for the recusal.

¶5. DISCUSSION

That the judge's wife would be contracted with the District Attorney's Office indicates she would clearly be involved with that office. Even if she would have no direct involvement in actual criminal cases she would possibly be involved in funding of the office and any programs sponsored by the office. It can be assumed that she has a direct financial relationship with the District Attorney's Office. A reasonable person may question whether a Judge's relationship with the DA's office is affected by his wife's ongoing financial relationship with that office.

¶6. CONCLUSION

In all cases involving the Office of the District Attorney, if his spouse contracts with that office to write grants, the judge has an obligation to disclose on the record that his wife is the owner of the LLC that is contracted to write grants for the District Attorney's Office, regardless of whether a motion to recuse has been filed, even if the judge believes this is no basis for recusal. See Rule 2.11, Comments 2 and 5.

The Committee offers no opinion as to the application of Rules 2.11(A)(2) (c) and (d) and/or Rule 2.11(A)(3), to any specific factual situation, as that would involve a legal opinion. ¹ Should the judge determine the facts mandate his disqualification, he is permitted to disclose on the record the basis of the disqualification in order to allow parties an opportunity to waive disqualification. See Rule 2.11 (C).

Dated this 17^th day of September, 2026.

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

ALL PANEL MEMBERS CONCUR

FOOTNOTES

¹ Pursuant to 5 O.S. § Rule 7, Appendix 4D -- Rules of the JEAP: Advisory opinions shall address only whether an intended, future course of conduct violates the Code of Judicial Conduct and shall provide an interpretation of the Code concerning the factual situation presented. The opinion shall not address issues of law nor shall it address the ethical propriety of past or present conduct. The identity of the requesting party shall not be disclosed in the opinion. (Emphasis added.)