In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that a judge is not required to recuse from cases involving an attorney who shares office space with the judge’s sibling-in-law where the two attorneys’ practices are separate and they are not partners in a firm.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that a judge may serve on the advisory committee of a public technical college where the committee recommends changes in the college curriculum, assists in planning, supports the program at the local level, and offers suggestions to the college authority, and where political activity is not anticipated.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that judicial candidates shall not personally solicit or accept campaign contributions or personally solicit publicly stated support. The opinion goes on to note specific acts that may or may not be done by the candidate or the candidate’s campaign committee. 1.) A judicial candidate may not personally ask a supporter for a contribution, for permission to put the supporter’s name in an advertisement, or for permission to place a sign on the supporter’s property. 2.) At any time, a candidate may send a letter, either by bulk mail or individually addressed, to all the attorneys in the state or a district or to other members of the electorate with information about the candidate’s background, reasons for seeking office, and plans for office and that asks for advice, support, and his or her vote. A candidate may make similar requests by telephone or in person. 3.) A candidate, as long as he or she does not take the initiative and seek publicly stated support, may respond to a supporter’s offer of such support, for example, by telling the supporter to contact the campaign committee; giving the name of the supporter to the committee; giving the supporter a bumper sticker; asking if the supporter would be willing to have his or her name appear in an advertisement; asking the supporter to put in a good word for the candidate with friends; asking if the supporter would be willing to have a campaign sign in the yard and erecting the sign. 4.) A candidate may personally contact important individuals to ask for their private support (for example, asking them to send post cards to friends encouraging support of the candidate). 5.) A candidate or potential candidate may personally contact potential supporters to ask them to serve on a campaign committee, which can be formed at any time.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that judges are in a unique position to contribute to the improvement of the legal system and may lecture on matters concerning the legal system. The opinion goes on to note that such teaching may be done as time permits and as long as it does not interfere with the performance of judicial duties.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that a judge is not disqualified from cases involving a deputy prosecuting attorney who is the uncle of the judge’s part-time secretary.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that a judge may serve on a policy and planning board, required by the Department of Human Services, that will determine the services needed for delinquents, families in need of services, and at risk juveniles, will determine what organizations will provide the services, and will establish the amount of money to be awarded.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that a candidate for judicial office who is unopposed in the primary election may solicit contributions for 45 days after the filing deadline for party candidates or the filing deadline for independent candidates, whichever is later.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that a judge may permit an artist to use the judge’s likeness in a commissioned painting by a local artist that will be based on Rembrandt’s painting “The Night Watch” with the faces of people depicted in Rembrandt’s painting replaced by those of local citizens where the judge’s name will not appear, there will be no identification of the judge or the other faces, the judge will not be paid, and the judge is not paying to be included.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that a judge may be one of the authors of a book that is intended to provide practical guidance for Arkansas lawyers and solicit attorneys to work on the project where the contract requires the publisher to adhere to ethical standards in using the judge’s name and qualifications in marketing the book and permits the judge to give speeches, participate in conferences, and publish on the subject of the work, although the contract bars the judge from writing or assisting in another project that may injure, hamper, or adversely affect sales.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney who had been nominated for a Circuit Chancery/Juvenile Judgeship (the position was unopposed) from the same district could continue in the present position as Deputy Prosecutor until the swearing in of the judge without violating the Code of Judicial Conduct.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that the Committee should not address such matters as the recusal of a trial judge with regard to a pending motion, as they are Aissues of law@ to be resolved in an adversary setting rather than by an advisory committee.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee was asked whether there would be a conflict of interest and the necessity for disqualification when a judge hired a certified court reporter who was married to an attorney who practices before this court. The opinion of the Committee was that disqualification was not required. In each instance in which the spouse of the court reporter is the attorney of record, the judge should disclose on the record the relationship between the court reporter and the attorney. The obligation then shifts to the opposing party to make any motions deemed necessary.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that an associate justice of the Supreme Court may hire a relative (second cousin) of the Chief Justice who was graduating from law school to be a law clerk of any associate justice of the Supreme Court or a judge of the Court of Appeals. It was held that assuming the hiring is based solely on merit and done wholly independently of the Chief Justice, such an employment would not violate the nepotism provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee addressed the ethical considerations surrounding the financial issues of a judge as he was leaving his law firm to assume judicial office. It was stated that after selection and prior to assuming the position as a full-time judge, the attorney may continue to practice law. The attorney may be compensated according to a partnership or employment agreement. The terms of a law partnership agreement may provide for compensation to the attorney regardless of when the work was performed. In the Committee=s opinion, a distinction must be drawn between work performed in the firm before the judge departs and work performed by members of the firm after departure. The departing attorney may receive compensation for work performed by anyone in the firm prior to the departure. However, no compensation may be paid to the judge for work performed after the judge=s departure from the firm. The opinion also addresses the question of whether a judge may receive Aclient attraction funds from the former firm if the judge makes a referral to the firm. The opinion states that once an attorney becomes a judge, he or she should never make a referral to any attorney.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that a judge elect, who was presently serving as a member of a state Commission, could not continue to serve as a member of that Commission while he was also serving as a judge. The primary purpose of the Commission was to set policy and budget for the operations of that Commission. It would be a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct even though the Commission is a governmental committee concerned with issues of fact or policy on matters not related to the administration of justice or the legal system. The Code prohibits a judge from being a member of such a Commission while also serving as a judge.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee stated that it would not be improper for an associate justice of the Supreme Court of Arkansas to write a recommendation for a prospective candidate for a federal judicial appointment and not wait to respond to an official inquiry concerning the person being considered. The recommendation could be written assuming that the judge had adequate knowledge of the character and capabilities of the subject individual and was satisfied that there was no undue intent to capitalize on the prestige of the judicial office.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee was asked if disqualification was necessary when a judge sold his personal law office property to a deputy prosecuting attorney, and also rents office space to that deputy prosecuting attorney, and when this same deputy prosecuting attorney practices in his court. The opinion states that reasonable individuals within and without the legal community might question the impartiality of a judge who has an on-going financial relationship as landlord of one of the attorneys. The judge should minimize the potential appearance of favoritism and avoid creating an appearance of exploitation of office. The alternative is disclosure of the relationship and the reason for the disqualification. If there is an agreement of all the parties that the judge should not be disqualified, this should then be incorporated into the record.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee was asked if a municipal judge, who is a Apart-time@ city court judge and has a private law practice, would be prohibited from representing the city in which he lives in a civil matter in any court, could he represent the city in a municipal court in the same county, or could he represent the city in circuit court where all of the judges are Afull-time@. The opinion states in matters affecting the image and integrity of the judiciary, judges should be very sensitive, and if deciding a close case, to err on the side of caution. In practicing law, extra case and effort must be made so as not to create the appearance of impropriety. It is the opinion of the Committee that the judge, representing the city that he serves as a municipal judge, could create a question concerning his ability to carry out his judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and competence. The Committee concluded that it would be inappropriate for a municipal judge to represent the city that he serves in any cases regardless of the forum. The judge=s law practice should be as far removed as possible from his court and the city that he serves. The public is not expected to understand the fine points of jurisdictional issues and would tend to look at the judge as both the attorney and the judge for the city.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee addressed the concern of individuals appearing before a judge, who owns and rents property under a partnership, to attorneys who practice in his court. A judge who is one of three partners in a general partnership that owns an office building is disqualified from cases in which one of the attorneys is a tenant in the building even if one of the other partners manages the building, the judge had no direct dealings with the tenants, and the attorney is only one of many tenants. If there is an agreement of all the parties that the judge should not be disqualified, this should then be incorporated into the record. An alternative is that the judge may make a full disclosure of the relationship.

In an advisory opinion, the Arkansas Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee was asked if a judge should recuse from a specific circuit court case because of bias. Canon 3 (E) provides that judges are presumed to be impartial. The party seeking disqualification bears a substantial burden to overcome that presumption. A mere allegation that a judge’s conduct has the appearance of impropriety is not sufficient. Bias is a subjective matter which is confined to the conscience of the judge. Accordingly, a judge who has declined to recuse from a case is not disqualified from other cases involving the same defendant if the judge has no bias against the defendant.