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.

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.