1998 OK JUD ETH 4•JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 1998-4
JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 1998-4
1998 OK JUD ETH 4Judicial Ethics Advisory PanelMar 26, 1998
Full text
JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 1998-4
1998 OK JUD ETH 4
Decided: 03/26/1998
Oklahoma Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel
Cite as: 1998 OK JUD ETH 4, __ P.2d __
JUDICIAL ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
Judicial Ethics Opinion 98-4
May 8, 1998
¶0 QUESTION: If a Judge and his wife purchase a non-legal related business, can the Judge list his name as an owner of the business in newspaper and telephone advertising?
¶1 WE ANSWER: No.
¶2 A Judge may manage and participate in a business closely held by the Judge or members of the Judge’s family, Canon 4 (D)3(a), so long as it is a non-legal related business (as in the instant case) and not engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the Judge. Canon 4(C)3(a). For example, a Judge may participate in or mange a company engaged in investing family resources.
¶3 Canon 4(D)1, provides: "A Judge should not engage in financial dealings that :
a. May reasonably be perceived to exploit the Judge’s judicial position …"
¶4 The Judge’s name must not be used to the advantage of the business. Even though there may be no intentional or purposeful exploitation of the Judge’s name, the Judge’s position is compromised by the appearance of exploitation.
¶5 Use of the Judge’s name in any type of advertising would reasonably be perceived as exploitation.
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.