CJEO Formal Opinion No. 2026-032 — Ethical Considerations When Appointing the Spouse of a Judicial Colleague as Minor's Counsel

1
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINIONS
350 McAllister Street, San Francisco, California 94102
www.JudicialEthicsOpinions.ca.gov
CJEO Formal Opinion 2026-032
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN APPOINTING THE SPOUSE OF
A JUDICIAL COLLEAGUE AS MINOR’S COUNSEL
I. 	QUESTION
What are the ethical guidelines a judge must consider when appointing the
attorney spouse of a judicial colleague as minor’s counsel in a case before that judge?
II. 	FACTS
A judge sitting in a family law assignment asks if it would be ethical to appoint an
attorney who is married to a judicial colleague as minor’s counsel in family law matters
that come before the requesting judge. When the court appoints an attorney as minor’s
counsel, the court selects from a list of qualified counsel. The attorney married to the
judicial colleague has completed minor’s counsel training and is well-qualified to serve in
this capacity. Generally, the court determines how the parties will pay for minor’s
counsel pursuant to rule 5.421 of the Rules of Court. If the parties cannot afford the fees,
the court will pay for the fees at a set rate.
The judicial colleague also sits in a family law assignment at the same courthouse
as the requesting judge. Other than the requesting judge and the judicial colleague in

2
question, there are two other judges at the courthouse in family law assignments. On
occasion, in situations of disqualification, recusal, or absence, some of the matters before
the requesting judge are sent to the judicial colleague to be heard (and vice versa). The
requesting judge and the judicial colleague rarely socialize outside work. The requesting
judge may have attended one or two events in the past two years that were put on for the
entire family law division and their spouses.
III. 	ADVICE PROVIDED
A judge is not ethically barred from appointing the attorney spouse of another
judge as minor’s counsel, even though the court will set, and may even pay, the
attorney’s fees and expenses under rule 5.241 of the Rules of Court.1 A judge is not
required to disqualify unless additional facts raise impartiality concerns, such as a close
personal relationship with the judicial colleague and their attorney spouse, a financial
interest in the attorney, or a subjective assessment under section 170.1(a)(6) of the Code
of Civil Procedure. Disclosure is not required, though a judge may choose to disclose to
underscore the integrity and impartiality of the court.
IV. 	AUTHORITIES
A. Applicable Canons
Canon 3C(5): “A judge shall not make unnecessary court appointments. A judge
shall exercise the power of appointment impartially, on the basis of merit, without bias or
prejudice, free of conflict of interest, and in a manner that promotes public confidence in
the integrity of the judiciary. A judge shall avoid nepotism and favoritism. A judge shall
not approve compensation of appointees above the reasonable value of services
rendered.”
1 This opinion does not address the ethical considerations for the process of selecting an attorney
from the list of those qualified to act as minor’s counsel, only the question of whether or not they
may appoint the attorney spouse of a fellow judge as the same. As with all judicial activities, the
process of selecting which attorney shall serve as minor’s counsel must be independent,
impartial, and avoid impropriety or the appearance of impropriety.

3
Canon 3E(1): “A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in
which disqualification is required by law.”
Canon 3E(2)(a): “In all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the record
as follows:
“(a) Information relevant to disqualification. A judge shall disclose
information that is reasonably relevant to the question of disqualification under
Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, even if the judge believes there is no actual
basis for disqualification.
B. Rules, Statutes, and Other Authorities
California Judges Association, Judicial Ethics Update (Mar. 2007).
California Judges Association, Judicial Ethics Update (Feb. 2002).
California Judges Association, Judicial Ethics Update (Jan. 1998).
California Judges Association, Judicial Ethics Update (Jan. 1997).
California Judges Association, Opinion 63: Disqualification and Disclosure
Requirements of a Hearing Judge When a Judicial Colleague (Or the Colleague’s Family
Member) or an Employee of the Court has an Interest in the Case (Jul. 2009) (Opinion
63).
California Judges Association, Opinion 51: Disqualification and Disclosure
Requirements Related to Positions in the Legal Community Held by Family Members of
Judges (Sep. 2001) (Opinion 51).
California Rules of Court, rule 5.421. Compensation of counsel appointed to
represent a child in a family law proceeding.
Code of Civil Procedure, sections 170-170.9. Disqualification of Judges.
Rothman, et al., California Judicial Conduct Handbook (4th ed. 2017)
(“Rothman”), sections 6:25, Appointment powers and nepotism; 7:45, Spouse and other
family members: Activities as lawyers; and 7:54, Other relationship issues.

4
V. 	DISCUSSION
Central to the question of whether a judge may appoint the attorney spouse of a
judicial colleague in a case before the judge are concerns regarding the impartiality of the
judge, the integrity of the court, and the fairness of the proceedings. To address these
concerns, a judge in this circumstance must consider the propriety of appointing the
attorney in question; whether the relationship between the judge, their judicial colleague,
and/or their colleague’s spouse requires disqualification; and if not, whether disclosure is
nevertheless required.
A. 	Court-Appointed Counsel Who May Be Compensated by the Court
Courts are permitted to appoint counsel to represent a minor child in a family law
proceeding pursuant to section 3150 of the Family Code. Rule 5.241 of the Rules of
Court govern compensation of minor’s counsel. The court’s duties include determining
reasonable compensation and expenses for appointed counsel, as well as the parties’
ability to pay. (Id. at subd. (a).) If the court finds that the parties are unable to pay all or
part of the attorney’s fees, the court must pay the remainder. (Id. at subd. (d).)
Canon 3C(5) states:
A judge shall not make unnecessary court appointments. A judge shall
exercise the power of appointment impartially, on the basis of merit,
without bias or prejudice, free of conflict of interest, and in a manner that
promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. A judge shall
avoid nepotism and favoritism. A judge shall not approve compensation of
appointees above the reasonable value of services rendered. [Asterisks
omitted.]
Various authorities have interpreted Canon 3C(5) and determined that a judge may
not appoint an attorney who (1) contributed to the judge’s campaign, (2) owns property
with the judge, (3) is the judge’s tenant, or (4) is the judge’s friend. (Rothman, et al.,
California Judicial Conduct Handbook (“Rothman”) (4th ed. 2017) § 6:25, p. 364.)
Neither are judges permitted to unnecessarily appoint attorneys to cases or use
appointments to reward or punish attorneys. (Id. at pp. 364-365.) The question of

5
whether it is appropriate for a judge to appoint another judge’s spouse to a case before
them has not been specifically addressed. However, there is nothing to indicate the
ethical considerations would be any different in determining the appropriateness of
appointing counsel from a court-approved list whether the appointee was or was not the
spouse of another judicial officer of that court.
One additional consideration, however, is whether the issue of attorney
compensation alters the ethical landscape. A judge may not select or appoint an attorney
with whom the judge has a financial relationship. (Rothman, supra, § 6:25, p. 365.) The
question is whether such a relationship exists here. Payment guidelines for court-
appointed counsel vary from county to county, district to district. Generally, court-
appointed counsel may be paid by the state, county, or a non-profit organization,
depending on the program(s) utilized by that court.2 Compensation for minor’s counsel,
on the other hand, is governed by rule 5.421 of the Rules of Court, wherein the court
itself “determine[s] the reasonable sum for compensation and expenses for counsel.” (Id.
at subd. (a).) In addition, if the court determines that the parties are unable to pay in part
or in full, the court will pay counsel directly. (Ibid.)
While the court has discretion to determine who pays minor’s counsel, the amount
of compensation is generally dictated by court order or other applicable fee schedule that
includes hourly rates and flat fees for various services.3 Further, if the court determines
2 See, e.g., San Diego County Office of Assigned Counsel [as of August 7, 2026]; California
Courts of Appeal, Court-Appointed Counsel Program [as of August 7, 2026]; Criminal Court
Appointed Attorneys Program (CAAP) [as of August 7, 2026].
3 See, e.g. Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, The Family Law Supervising
Judge’s Standing Order re: Appointment of Minor’s Counsel (Aug. 27, 2024); Superior Court of
California, County of San Bernardino, Appointed Attorney Fee Schedule (Jun. 26, 2024) p. 3;
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Form SDSC D-137 (Rev. 9/22), Declaration
and Order for Payment of Attorney’s Fees and Costs of Minor’s Counsel [as of August 7, 2026];
Superior Court of California, County of Solano, Billing Guidelines: Court Appointed Counsel
Pursuant to FC 3150 (Nov. 18, 2025).

6
that the parties are unable to pay, the attorney is paid with court funds designated for this
purpose; it is not as if the judge pays from their own pocket. As such, the judge has no
personal financial relationship with minor’s counsel that could undermine public
confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.
Based on the foregoing, the judicial colleague married to the attorney on the court
appointed counsel list may not appoint their own attorney spouse to represent a minor in
the case before them; the shared financial interest is just one of many grounds, noted
above. However, as long as there is no bias, prejudice, conflict of interest, nepotism, or
favoritism, there is no reason a judge would be ethically prohibited under canon 3C(5)
from appointing the attorney spouse of a judicial colleague as minor’s counsel, even
though the court is charged with determining the amount of compensation and ability to
pay, and may itself compensate the attorney with court funds where the parties are
deemed unable to pay as described above.
B. 	Disqualification
Next, we look to the disqualification statute and related canons to determine
whether anything there would prevent a judge from appointing the attorney spouse of a
judicial colleague as minor’s counsel. “A judge has a duty to decide any proceeding in
which he or she is not disqualified.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.) “A judge shall be
disqualified if any one or more of the following are true: [¶] … [¶] (3)(A) The judge has a
financial interest in the subject matter in a proceeding or in a party to the proceeding. (B)
A judge shall be deemed to have a financial interest within the meaning of this paragraph
if: (i) A spouse or minor child living in the household has a financial interest. (ii) The
judge or the spouse of the judge is a fiduciary who has a financial interest. [¶] … [¶] (5)
A lawyer or a spouse of a lawyer in the proceeding is the spouse, former spouse, child,
sibling, or parent of the judge or the judge’s spouse or if such a person is associated in the
private practice of law with a lawyer in the proceeding. (6)(A) For any reason: (i) The
judge believes his or her recusal would further the interests of justice. (ii) The judge
believes there is a substantial doubt as to his or her capacity to be impartial. (iii) A person

7
aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be
impartial. (B) Bias or prejudice toward a lawyer in the proceeding may [also] be grounds
for disqualification.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1, subd. (a)(3), (5)-(6).) Canon 3E(1)
reinforces section 170.1 with the requirement that a judge must disqualify in any
proceeding in which disqualification is required by law. The canon and disqualification
statute make clear that the judge married to the court-appointed attorney would not be
permitted to appoint their attorney spouse to represent a party to a case in his or her
courtroom and would need to disqualify from any case involving their attorney spouse.
The question, then, is whether a different conclusion is reached when the attorney
is married to another judge on the court. The California Judges Association (CJA) has
addressed similar issues several times and has generally found that a judge need not
disqualify if an attorney before them is married to a fellow judge, so long as the
relationship is within the realm of a professional contact, and the judge believes they can
act impartially. (Cal. Judges Assn., Opn. 51, pp. 2-3 [The mere fact that a judge’s family
member is appearing before another judge does not create a reasonable doubt that the
judge can be fair and impartial. However, if the nature of the relationship goes beyond
professional contacts and ‘a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt
that the judge would be able to be impartial,’ recusal would be required.”]; Cal. Judges
Assn., Judicial Ethics Update (Jan. 1998) p. 3 [So long as a judge believes they can act
impartially, they need not recuse because “[t]he attorney for one party is the spouse of a
colleague judge.”]; Cal. Judges Assn., Judicial Ethics Update (Jan. 1997) pp. 3-4 [a judge
is not required to recuse where a “[l]itigant’s spouse is represented by spouse of another
family law judge where [the] judge does not have a close association with [the] other
family law judge or his/her spouse.”])
Disqualification is not a given simply because an attorney in the case before the
court is the spouse of a judicial colleague. (See, Cal. Judges Assn., Opn. No. 63, p. 2.) A
judge may disqualify where they have substantial doubt as to their own ability to be
impartial, or if a person aware of the facts could reasonably doubt the judge’s ability to

8
be impartial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1, subd. (a)(6)(ii), (iii).) The judge must undertake
this analysis on a case-by-case basis. Important considerations include whether there is a
close relationship between the judge and the judicial colleague (and/or their spouse), and
whether the judge and the judicial colleague work in such close physical proximity that it
creates the appearance of a close relationship, whether or not one actually exists (e.g., on
a very small court where all of the judges know each other well). (Cal. Judges Assn.,
Opn. No. 63, supra, pp. 3-4.) A judge must also bear in mind the words of Judge
Rothman: “The practical need for there to be a judge who can hear cases requires rational
limits on the grounds for disqualification without impairing the need to ensure fairness.”
(Rothman, supra, § 7:3, p. 391.)
Here, the requesting judge notes that, including him and the judicial colleague,
there are four family law judges at their courthouse. However, the requesting judge and
the judicial colleague very rarely socialize outside of work, and have only attended one or
two events together in the past two years that were put on for the entire family law
division and their spouses. In this context, it is unlikely a person aware of the facts
would reasonably doubt the requesting judge’s ability to act impartially.
Finally, we revisit the issue of “financial interest” in the context of
disqualification. A judge is required to disqualify when the judge has a “financial interest
in the subject matter in a proceeding or in a party to the proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
170.1, subd. (a)(3)(A).) “A judge shall be deemed to have a financial interest within the
meaning of this paragraph if: [¶] (i) [a] spouse or minor child living in the household has
a financial interest[; or] [¶] (ii) [t]he judge or the spouse of the judge is a fiduciary who
has a financial interest.” (Id. at subd. (a)(3)(B); see also Rothman, supra, § 7:30, pp.
425-432 [discussing financial interest disqualification in detail].) As discussed above, the
requesting judge has no personal financial interest in the attorney in question. So long as
that is the case, financial interest disqualification under section 170.1(a)(3) does not
prevent a judge from appointing the attorney spouse of a judicial colleague as minor’s
counsel in a case before the judge.

9
C. 	Disclosure
As to the issue of disclosure, the guidance is slightly less clear. In all trial court
proceedings, a judge must disclose on the record information reasonably relevant to the
question of disqualification even if the judge believes there is no basis for the same.
(Canon 3E(2)(a).) The California Judges Association previously advised “[a] judge need
not disclose that an attorney appearing before him or her is the spouse of a fellow bench
officer.” (Cal. Judges Assn., Judicial Ethics Update (Feb. 2002) § I.B.4, p. 1.) It would
follow, then, that the judge would not be required to disclose the relationship prior to
appointing the attorney spouse. However, CJA has also found that disclosure is
recommended, if not required, in several similar situations. (Cal. Judges Assn., Judicial
Ethics Update (Mar. 2007) § I.B.2, p. 1 [“Where [a] Commissioner in a small court is
married to a Sheriff’s Deputy who is the investigating officer on search and arrest
warrants, other judicial officers are not disqualified to hear cases where Commissioner’s
spouse testifies or is the investigating officer but should disclose the relationship between
the testifying deputy and Commissioner.”]; Opn. 51, supra, at p. 3 [“Canon 3E does not
require the disclosure of the “mere” fact that a judge’s family member is appearing before
another judge. However, Canon 3E generally requires disclosure on the record of
information relating to contacts with the judge and judge’s family member that go
beyond professional contacts, because the parties or their lawyers might consider this
information relevant to the question of disqualification.”])
The California Judicial Conduct Handbook explicitly queries, “Should judges
disclose when the spouse of another judge on the court appears in a proceeding as
counsel?” (Rothman, supra, § 7:54, p. 472-73.) Rothman disagrees with the implication
in Opinion 51 that a judge should disclose where the spouse of another judge on the court
is a government attorney who regularly appears before the court. (Ibid.) 	Rothman
asserts that a judge’s spouse appearing before another judicial officer is the same as any
other personal relationship that judicial officer might have with an attorney appearing in
their court. Disclosure is not required solely because the attorney is a member of another

10
judge’s family, unless the relationship between the attorney and the judicial officer
extends beyond the professional context. (Id. at p. 473; see also, § 7:51, p. 467 [“The test
for disqualification and disclosure involving social friendship is similar to the test for a
dating relationship: Is the relationship that of a mere ‘acquaintance,’ in which case even
disclosure is questionable, or is the person within the inner circle of the judge’s intimate
friends, such that disqualification is required?”]; but see § 7:52, p. 469 [“Where the party,
witness, or victim is a fellow judge or a family member of a fellow judge, there would at
least be a perception of bias, or a reasonable doubt that any judge on the same court
would be able to maintain impartiality”] italics added [note that attorney is not on this
list].) Ultimately, “[t]here is no basis to disclose simply because a lawyer appearing in
court is a family member of another judge in the courthouse unless there is something
more, i.e., there is a relationship beyond the professional happenstance.” (Id. at § 7:54, p.
473.) In light of this guidance, the committee advises that disclosure here is not required.
Nevertheless, “disclosure cannot hurt,” as it helps ensure public trust that the court is
committed to transparency and openness. (Ibid.)
VI. 	CONCLUSION
The committee concludes that a judge may, consistent with applicable ethical
obligations, appoint the attorney spouse of a judicial colleague to serve as minor’s
counsel, even though the court will determine, and may pay, counsel’s fees and expenses
under rule 5.241 of the California Rules of Court, provided no additional circumstances
warrant disqualification (e.g., a relationship beyond a professional acquaintance, a
personal financial interest in the attorney, or a subjective assessment under section
170.1(a)(6)). Disclosure here is not required, but is always permitted, and may help
dissuade any concerns regarding the public perception of the judge’s ability to be
impartial.

11

This opinion 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)). The conclusions expressed in this opinion are those of the committee and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the California Supreme Court or any other entity. (Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 9.80(b); CJEO rule 1(a)).)