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.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that a judge may take a public stand on a proposed constitutional amendment that would make judicial elections non-partisan and would impose limits on judicial terms.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that, where an attorney appearing before a judge is an announced candidate for the position of the judge, the judge must recuse even if no one before the court objects.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that a retired judge, who receives retirement pay, may participate in the campaign of a candidate who is running for judge to the same extent and with the same limitations as any other attorney regardless whether the retired judge is subject to recall to service.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that a judge need not disqualify from cases in which an assistant prosecutor who has announced her intention to run against the judge appears where the judge hears all the juvenile delinquency cases for two counties and special judges may not be feasible or appropriate for juvenile matters, particularly those that extend over months or years. The committee noted that the attorney had been hired on a part-time contract basis by the prosecutor to handle felonies and some misdemeanors and typically appeared before the judge in 10-20 cases a week and that none of the other assistant prosecutors typically represented the government in delinquency proceedings. The committee noted that there may be some specific cases where the judge must disqualify, for example, cases in which the campaign might be relevant; the parties object; or the judge’s own subjective evaluation of the situation requires recusal.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that a judge is not disqualified from a case in which a subsidiary of AT&T is a party by the fact that the judge is the executor and one of the three beneficiaries of an estate that holds approximately 1,000 shares of an equity income fund about 18% of which is invested in AT&T. The issue before the court was whether a city had appropriately levied a franchise tax or fee. Noting that AT&T has one billion, three hundred million outstanding shares, the Committee concluded that the judge’s relatively small share of the fund’s relatively small investment in one of the world’s largest corporations was a de minimis interest that did not require disqualification.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that a judge may not serve on the ad hoc fund-raising committee of a local boys/girls club where the fund-raising will involve lobbying government officials.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that judges may write letters of recommendation but must do son on personal stationery and that judges may permit their names to be used as references and may respond to an inquiry using judicial letterhead.