CJEO Oral Advice Summary No. 2014-007 — Judicial Review of Ex Parte Applications for Family Law Contempt Orders

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

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. 2014-007
[Posted May 2, 2014]

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EX PARTE APPLICATIONS FOR FAMILY LAW
CONTEMPT ORDERS

I. Question:

CJEO was asked to clarify or extend CJEO Formal Opinion 2014-004, or to

provide an independent opinion addressing judicial review of ex parte applications for

contempt orders. The request posed the following question:

Does a judicial officer breach the ethical obligations (as stated in CJEO Formal
Opinion 2014-004) to avoid having ex-parte communication with a party in viewing
family law contempt applications, i.e. reading them and/or signing them or rejecting

them, without prior notice having been given to the opposing party and or counsel?

CJEO made the discretionary decision to provide oral advice in response to this

request (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.80 (j)(1); CJEO Rules, rule 7(b)).

2
II. Oral Advice Provided:
CJEO Formal Opinion 2014-004 clearly states the ethical rule that ex parte
communications are prohibited unless expressly authorized by law under canon 3B(7)(c)
of the California Code of Judicial Ethics. The opinion also clearly states that it addresses
only the extent to which ex parte communications are authorized by the family law rules
of court governing ex parte applications for non-domestic-violence emergency orders
(Cal. Rules of Court, rules 5.151 et seq.). The opinion’s analysis is clearly limited to the
question of whether the screening procedures used under a specific local rule allow ex
parte communications that are not authorized by those family law rules of court. Given
these express limitations, there is no basis for a clarification or extension of CJEO Formal
Opinion 2014-004 to discuss ex parte applications for family law contempt orders, which
are governed by other laws pertaining to general civil and family law contempt
proceedings (Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1211(b), 1211.5; Family Law Code § 292). The
Judicial Council Forms mandated for use under those statutes provide procedures for
authorized judicial review of ex parte communications (Family Law Code § 292(c); JCC
FL-410, 411, and 412). An independent CJEO advisory opinion is not necessary to
explain those forms or otherwise provide a legal opinion interpreting the contempt
statutes.

This oral advice summary is advisory only (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 9.80(a), (e);
Cal. Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., Internal Operating Rules & Proc. (CJEO) rules 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 rules 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)).

3