So many conflicts

If you’re a judge, I know what you’re thinking these days — how in the heck do I decide if I need to recuse myself? It’s so hard!

Those of us who are not judges may smugly think it’s not really that hard, but we’re clearly wrong. There are so many questions to answer before deciding whether there’s a conflict of interest.

I know this because the U.S. Judicial Conference’s Committee on Code of Conduct last month issued an updated advisory opinion on this topic and it’s 256 pages long.

Unfortunately, no one is going to read this opinion — because it’s 256 oddly specific pages long.

Fortunately, I’m here to point out some of the highlights.

No. 32: Limited Solicitation of Funds for the Boy Scouts of America. No, there’s no problem soliciting for the Girl Scouts. If you spot a judge munching cookies on the bench, you don’t need to report them.

The “limited” exception is for hitting up family members and other judges. I’m guessing those people are really annoyed by this.

No. 47: Acceptance of Complimentary or Discounted Club Memberships. This is surprisingly complicated and “difficult in the abstract to draw a bright line regarding which memberships are acceptable.”

This shouldn’t have been this hard. Groucho Marxist doctrine makes more sense: “I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.”

No. 51: Law Clerk Working on Case in Which a Party Is Represented by Spouse’s Law Firm. It turns out that this rule doesn’t apply to judges, so I don’t know why it’s there.

Law clerks will not appreciate the shout out — they get no respect: “As a rule, they are not as steeped in or sensitive to the ethical issues that govern a judge’s conduct and are not likely to have the same level of judgment as the more experienced judges for whom they work.”

Law clerks should probably avoid marriage.

No. 64: Employing a Judge’s Child as a Law Clerk. It’s not often you see discussions of child labor in courthouses.

Actually, that’s wrong — you never see discussions of child labor in courthouses. Is this a real problem?

I don’t know but the title of the section is misleading. It’s not about judges’ own children.

“This opinion discusses whether it is proper for a federal judge to employ as law clerk the son or daughter of another federal judge. We consider the issue vis-à-vis judges on the same court, judges on related courts, and judges on courts in different districts or circuits.”

There are all kinds of judicial children. If I were a judge’s child, I’d keep it secret. The job market is tough enough.

No. 72: Use of Title “Judge” by Former Judges. This is curious on several levels. First, obviously, this applies to former judges, so why is it in a code for judges? Do former judges need to recuse themselves from being past judges?

Yes, it also relates to current judges calling former judges “judges” in court. One reason is that “application of the same title to advocates and to the presiding judicial officer can tend to demean the court as an institution.”

Because we can’t tell them apart? The robe should be a clue.

No. 94: Disqualification Based on Mineral Interests. Bet you haven’t thought of that one before. The committee, however, has given it a lot of thought — the section goes on at some length and includes this sentence:

“We have said that a $0.60 per month increase would not have a substantial effect on a judge’s utility bill, but that the doubling of a utility bill from $10 to $20 per month would be substantial.”

Hard to argue with that.

No. 98: Gifts to Newly Appointed Judges. Gifts to older judges aren’t the same.

Subscribe to our columns

Want new op-eds sent directly to your inbox? Subscribe below!

Email *

Author

Submit