The VLW Blog

A Virginia judge can pass the collection plate at church, but the judge may not want to preach during the stewardship campaign, according to a new ethics advisory opinion for judges.

Virginia’s Canons of Judicial Conduct clamp down on fund-raising activity for fear the prestige of the judge’s office will be perceived as leverage to solicit funds.

Virginia’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, in its May 28 Opinion 08-1, said a regular religious service is not a “fund raising event” merely because it traditionally includes collection of small donations.

But it’s clear, the committee said, that a religious service is a “fund raising event” if it involves soliciting money for a special purpose, such as a building fund, or if it includes a call for a pledge of future contributions at a certain level.

The facially neutral ethics rules limit judges’ involvement in religious organizations in the same way as other organizations. It’s the nexus of public activity and fund raising that causes concern. Judges can help plan fund raising and help manage an organization’s funds, but generally they may not personally participate in the solicitation of funds.

Judges can speak of their personal religious faith, but a judge should not act as a pastor or minister at a regular church service, or take a position during a religious service on issues of public controversy, such as abortion, the environment or criminal sentencing matters, the committee opined.

Evangelically inclined jurists may want to study the advisory opinion, which examines whether a judge when preaching may encourage others to become Christians or to become a member of a particular church.

A judge may engage in one-on-one solicitation only if the solicited persons or those affiliated are not likely ever to appear before the court on which the judge serves, the committee concluded.

Judges probably understand better than anyone the committee’s admonition that they are “the subject of constant public scrutiny.”

Four of the nine committee members dissented from the majority’s conclusion that a judge should not act as a pastor at a regular church service, saying the majority went too far, making Virginia the “only state whose ethics advisory committee would prohibit judges unequivocally from acting as ministers.”
By Deborah Elkins

With so many mediators out there mediating, ethical issues are bound to arise.

Over the past few years, mediator complaints and ethics issues have prompted governing bodies to consider revisions to the various guidelines, standards and procedures related to certification of mediators, mentors and training programs, according to the Virginia Supreme Court’s Office of the Executive Secretary.

The Executive Secretary’s Office of Dispute Resolution Services has appointed an Ethics Committee to consider the need for revisions to governing procedures. Members of the new committee include: Lawrie S. Parker and lawyers Ernest W. DuBester, Lawrence H. Hoover Jr., Samuel S. Jackson Jr., Frank W. Morrison, Jeannette P. Twomey and Paula M. Young.

The committee first met in late March and plans to meet monthly to study the scope of the pertinent standards of ethics, the impact of convictions or loss of license on mediator certification, grounds and procedures for removal of a mediator from a court-certified roster, and possible adoption of model standards for mediators.

A lawyer might understand a distinction between “illegal conduct” by a judge and a lack of statutory authority for judicial action, but everybody at a Republican breakfast in Virginia Beach on Feb. 3 probably wasn’t a lawyer.

Or maybe it’s a distinction without a difference to Virginia Beach’s nine circuit judges.

The Virginian-Pilot reports that Bryant acknowledged in a news release that he mentioned to the gathering that he was keeping track of instances in which judges act without statutory authority.

But he insisted that he had not accused the judges of illegal conduct.

He said the judges have filed a complaint with the Virginia State Bar that the alleged “illegal conduct” comment violates legal ethics.

Bryant issued the press release after he learned that the newspaper intended to run a story about the controversy and said at the most recent breakfast that he has been praying for the judges since the allegations was made. “Maybe I should have started a long time ago,” he said, according to The Virginian-Pilot. He did not say in the press release what the actions without statutory authority might have been.

Roanoke lawyer David Nixon claimed that two senators – Ken Stolle and Tommy Norment – broke the conflict of interest of rules when they worked to rewrite Virginia’s eminent domain laws during the past General Assembly session. Their firm, Kaufman & Canoles, represents a number of local governments that could benefit from the changed condemnation statutes, he said. Even though Attorney General Bob McDonnell said a vote would be OK, both Stolle and Norment abstained when the measure came to a vote. The Senate Ethics Advisory Panel looked at Nixon’s claims and even held a closed hearing last week. But as The Virginian-Pilot reports, the panel dismissed all the charges against Stolle and Norment.