The first three requests for advisory opinions received by the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee evolved around the issue of nepotism. In each case the requesting judge asked if the continued employment of his spouse or relative under the unique circumstances of each employment situation was a violation of Canon 3B(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. In each of these instances, the requests did not meet a threshold requirement to go before the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee. That threshold requirement is that the request for an advisory opinion relate to prospective conduct only.

The first three requests for advisory opinions received by the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee evolved around the issue of nepotism. In each case the requesting judge asked if the continued employment of his spouse or relative under the unique circumstances of each employment situation was a violation of Canon 3B(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. In each of these instances, the requests did not meet a threshold requirement to go before the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee. That threshold requirement is that the request for an advisory opinion relate to prospective conduct only.

The Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee issued an advisory opinion stating that a judge may serve on a bank’s advisory board, that the judge’s ownership of approximately 2% of the voting stock of the bank constitutes a financial interest that requires disqualification in all cases in which the bank is a party, and that the judge should consider divesting the stock and resigning from the board if frequent disqualification is required. The Committee also advised that the judge must disqualify himself from cases filed or tried by his brother-in-law, the city attorney, and must not issue warrants at the request of his brother, the deputy prosecuting attorney. The Committee also advised that the judge is not precluded from appointing his wife as an unpaid deputy clerk but that it would be better not to do so, although she could still occasionally do general secretarial or administrative work. The committee stated that if the judge still considers appointing his wife as a clerk, he should do so only if she is qualified, the position is a deputy position, the position is temporary and part-time, the appointment is on a volunteer and philanthropic basis with no perceived present or future financial benefits (either direct or fringe) to the relative or the judge, and the volunteer service provided by a relative is not considered with respect to increases in the judge’s salary. In response to a question about what financial reports judges must file, the Committee stated that the request was not made in accordance with Procedural Rule 3 because it was not accompanied by a concise memorandum setting forth the judge’s own research and conclusion.

The Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee issued an advisory opinion stating that a judge may not solicit funds in person, by telephone, or by letter from individuals or corporations to support a reception to be held following a continuing legal education seminar sponsored by the Arkansas Association of Women Lawyers nor may the judge solicit funds on personal stationery from her residence, but the judge may suggest to the organization the names of potential donors and participate in the planning of fund-raising, and non-judicial members or employees of the organization may contact donors if they are careful not to suggest that they are acting on behalf of or with the knowledge of the judge. The Committee noted that Canon 4C implies that a judge may personally participate in “private” fund-raising, but stated that private fund-raising should be interpreted as limited to narrow situations involving, for example, fund-raising among relatives and other judges.

The Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee issued an advisory opinion stating that 1) because a press release issued by a judge prior to his request for an ethical opinion is a past event, the propriety of the press release falls as a matter for the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission, not the Committee, 2) because motions for recusal based on the press release made in two pending cases were properly within the jurisdiction of the chancery court and appellate review is available, the Committee would not address the issue of recusal in those cases, and 3) because the matter of future disqualification based on the press release is an issue of law that should be resolved in an adversary setting, the Committee would not address that issue. In the press release, the judge had criticized a consent decree signed by a United States judge resolving a voting rights act challenge to judicial districts, announced his intention to run for re-election in 1992 in the newly created sub-district, and commented on race relations in the judicial district. The motions to recuse in two pending cases were brought by the plaintiff in the federal suit, his law partner who had represented him in the federal action, and the Jefferson County Child Support Enforcement Unit. One member of the three member committee dissented from the advisory opinion, stating that he did not find any evidence of bias, prejudice, or judicial impropriety in the press release.

In response to a request for an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that it did not have authority to respond to a judge’s request for an opinion regarding a pending motion for recusal.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that a judge may not speak at a dinner sponsored by a college to try to develop ways to persuade more young people to attend the college where the ticket sales receipts will be used in part to fund workshops for future training sessions for the same purpose and to pay other speakers for future events sponsored by the college.

In response to a request, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that a judge is disqualified from cases involving lawyers who practice with a lawyer the judge has hired to defend the judge in another case. Noting that it had reconsidered its earlier decision not to give advice regarding disqualification issues, the Committee concluded that it should answer the ethical problem that runs concurrent with the legal problem in the disqualification questions. One member dissented from the Committee’s decision to address disqualification issues.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Committee stated that a judge may serve as a referee or official at junior and senior high school football games in the area in which the judge resides and accepts less than $50 per game as compensation.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Committee stated that Arkansas judges who hold offices filled by election may purchase tickets to and attend the inaugural ball for Bill Clinton regardless whether the ball is considered a celebration or a political gathering and regardless whether the admission charge is used to defray the costs of the event, is given to a charitable organization, or is used to support Democratic Party activities.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Committee stated that, where a judge’s sibling is an attorney employed in the litigation division of the state attorney general’s office, the judge may sit in cases that involve the office of the attorney general, except those in which the sibling will appear of record as attorney or assists in any way in the preparation or trial. However, the Committee advised that it may be a wise course for the judge to always disclose the relationship on the record and invite the parties and attorneys to offer any additional facts that could possibly require disqualification.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Committee stated that a judge may not serve on an advisory group for a state hospital program that provides intensive care for persons who have been excused from criminal conduct by reason of mental incapacity.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Committee stated that a part-time municipal judge may not represent an individual in a domestic relations matters when the adverse spouse of that individual has an outstanding fine balance owed the municipal court over which the judge presides and may not represent a client such as a bank in a debt collection action against an individual who has an outstanding fine balance with the municipal court.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Committee stated that a judge may not serve on an advisory group for a state hospital program that provides intensive care for persons who have been excused from criminal conduct by reason of mental incapacity.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Committee stated that a part-time municipal judge may not represent an individual in a domestic relations matters when the adverse spouse of that individual has an outstanding fine balance owed the municipal court over which the judge presides and may not represent a client such as a bank in a debt collection action against an individual who has an outstanding fine balance with the municipal court.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Committee stated that a judge may serve on the board of directors of Associated Marine Institutes, a non-profit organization that has a contract with the State of Arkansas to operate a residential program for juveniles who have been designated serious offenders.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Committee stated that a band of which a judge is a member may play at a fund-raising radio broadcast performance for a public radio station where neither the judge’s name nor position will be mentioned and no person being solicited would even know that the judge is performing.

Clarifying its advisory opinion 93-04, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that the requirement in Canon 5C(2) of the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct, effective July 5, 1993, that a judge must return any campaign fund surplus to the contributor or turn it over to the state treasurer applies to any and all campaign surplus funds, without exception or exclusion, including the time of its accumulation or variance with legislative acts or other rule of law. Advisory opinion 93-07 had advised that a judge’s campaign committee may not maintain a surplus to be used as a filing fee in the next election. The Committee noted that the question whether a legislative enactment can override a Canon or a Canon override a legislative enactment was a question of law upon which it could not comment.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that a judge may take a public stand in favor of, opposed to, or indifferent to an upcoming bond election in which county voters will decide whether to increase the sales tax to pay for a new courthouse and jail and the judge may be a member of a committee formed to promote passage of the sales tax, although there are limits on the judge’s involvement in fund-raising.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that a judge may not be a speaker at a banquet sponsored by a church where the portion of the proceeds from ticket sales that exceeds the cost of the banquet will go to the church’s scholarship fund.