2009-17 (May 26, 2009)
Appearance of Impropriety; Membership; Canons 2, 3,
4 & 5
IssueI May a
Judicial Official join the American Board of Trial
Advocates (ABOTA) in the “Judge” category?
Response: ABOTA is an
organization whose stated purposes include, inter
alia, elevating the standards of integrity, honor
and courtesy in the legal profession, aiding in the
education and training of trial lawyers, preserving
the jury system, and promoting the efficient
administration of justice and constant improvement
of the law. ABOTA has adopted over 40 resolutions on
a variety of topics, as well as taking a position
with respect to certain legislation and filing
briefs as amicus curiae in various cases. Membership
in ABOTA is limited to those who have attained
certain levels of jury trial experience and who are
approved by the membership and board of the local
chapter and the national board. (Judges only need
meet the experience criteria and be approved by the
national board.)
Based upon the information
available, four of the Committee’s members
determined that ABOTA is a Canon 4 organization
devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal
system, and the administration of justice and that
membership is permissible subject to the following
conditions: (1) if there is a sponsoring member and
that member appears before the Judicial Official,
the Judicial Official must disclose the relationship
for a reasonable period of time, but not less than
one year from the date on which the sponsoring
member recommends the Judicial Official; (2) the
Judicial Official is cautioned that, consistent with
the Commentary to Canon 5 (b), due to the changing
nature of some organizations and of their
relationship to the law, the Judicial Official
should regularly reexamine the activities of ABOTA
to determine whether it is proper for the Judicial
Official to continue his or her relationship with
it; and (3) if an issue comes before the Judicial
Official for decision that involves a matter on
which ABOTA has taken a public position (such as by
adopting a resolution or filing an amicus curiae
brief), the Judicial Official should consider
whether recusal is necessary.
One member of the Committee
expressed strong reservations about whether it would
be prudent for a Judicial Official to accept a
membership invitation to ABOTA, even if not a
technical violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The reservations were based on ABOTA’s prerequisites
for membership, which effectively preclude many
attorneys/judges from being invited to join, and its
lobbying and advocacy. These facts may create a
perception that ABOTA is a partisan organization
that does not reflect the many different segments of
the bar or represent various sides of professional
issues. In addition, as an ABOTA member the Judicial
Official may have to devote a fair amount of time to
monitoring the organization’s lobbying and advocacy
activities and may have to avoid particular
assignments, for example in complex litigation, as a
civil presiding judge or a civil trial judge, to
avoid a conflict with either Canons 2 or 3.