Should a Judge Recuse When An Attorney Has Contributed To Judge's Campaign? (The Opinion)

.
In 2002, the State of Nevada Commission on Judicial Disciplinen published the following response to a question from judges. Legally UnBound will review this opinion tomorrow, in light of recent Supreme Court Case Law. The Opinion was ISSUED: March 14, 2002 as OPINION: JE02-001)

PROPRIETY OF JUDICIAL RECUSAL WHERE ATTORNEY HAS CONTRIBUTED TO JUDGE’S ELECTION CAMPAIGN

The Opinion states, in part, basing its decision upon the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct: Canons 3E

"A judge is not required to and, indeed, should not recuse himself or herself from presiding in a matter because an attorney involved in the proceeding has contributed to the judge’s campaign, or has endorsed the judge’s candidacy or has been listed on campaign literature as a member of the judicial candidate’s election committee.

Absent an extraordinary contribution in terms of amount, or a more substantial involvement in the candidate’s campaign, such as by holding a high campaign office or position, a judge is not required to disclose an attorney’s contribution or support to parties when the attorney appears in a proceeding before the judge.

Where the attorney has made a contribution that is extraordinary in amount, as compared to other contributions, or has held a high campaign office or position, disclosure should be made and the judge should determine under the circumstances whether recusal is required because of a reasonable question of impartiality and/or because the judge concludes he or she could not act impartially in matters involving that attorney."

What is "extraordinary" when the CAP on contribution is $10,000? Well, you have to look at other contributions. More tomorrow.

The Complete Opinion
.