Connecticut Committee on Judicial Ethics
Informal Opinion Summaries
2009-26 (Emergency Staff
Opinion issued August 11, 2009)
Practice of Law;
Canon 5
Issue:
A Judicial Official,
many years ago when in private practice, prepared a
document for a client. The client signed the
document, as did various witnesses, but the Judicial
Official failed to take the acknowledgment of the
witnesses with respect to their signatures. The
Judicial Official has now been asked to sign the
acknowledgment and inquires whether signing an
acknowledgment or providing an affidavit with
respect to their signatures would constitute the
practice of law in violation of Canon 5 (f).
Emergency Staff Opinion:
The
Judicial Official was advised that furnishing an
acknowledgment or equivalent affidavit would not
constitute the practice of law, but that he/she
should take care to ensure that the post hoc
circumstances of the acknowledgment are not
concealed or implicitly misrepresented. If the
Judicial Official has a clear recollection of
witnessing the signatures, the Judicial Official was
advised that he/she could sign the acknowledgment,
dating it with the present date, provided it is
accompanied by an affidavit explaining the time gap
and the basis of the recollection.
Committee on Judicial Ethics