The Judge's Bank Stock, Her Nephew, and the Advisory Board Invitation
After a three-day bench trial in Varga v. Ridgeline Bank, Judge Marsh is preparing her ruling. Three facts surface before she rules. First, her brokerage account, which a financial adviser manages with discretion, holds about $28,000 of Ridgeline Bank stock; she never noticed the holding, but she now knows of it. Second, her nephew Toby is a first-year associate at the firm representing Ridgeline; Toby has not appeared and has billed no time to the matter. Third, Ridgeline's chief executive has written to thank her for her "fair handling of the case" and invited her to join the bank's community advisory board, which pays a $5,000 annual stipend and meets twice a year. Ridgeline's lawyer tells her the bank will waive any objection if she simply finishes the case; Varga's lawyer says she is "not comfortable" but will follow the judge's lead.
1. Must Judge Marsh disqualify herself because of the stock and the nephew?
Read the worked answer
The stock is disqualifying; the nephew is a disclosure-and-analysis problem, not an automatic bar.
- Stock (Rule 2.11(A)(3)): A judge must disqualify herself where she knows that she or her spouse or minor child has an economic interest in a party or the subject matter in controversy. She now knows. The discretionary adviser's management does not excuse her; the Code expects judges to make reasonable efforts to stay informed about their financial interests (and Rule 3.15 requires periodic financial disclosure). The $28,000 holding in a party bank is not de minimis.
- Timing: The disqualification attaches before ruling. She cannot finish the case, and divesting after the fact does not retroactively cure the duty; a new judge must decide on the record or the case must be retried. Divestiture is still required going forward.
- Nephew (Rule 2.11(A)(2)): A nephew is within the third degree of relationship, but the automatic bar applies when the relative is a party or officer of a party, is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding, has more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected, or is likely to be a material witness. Toby appears in nothing and has billed nothing, so there is no per se violation.
- But Rule 2.11(A)'s catch-all applies: Would a reasonable observer question her impartiality knowing her nephew's firm stands to benefit from a ruling for Ridgeline? She should disclose on the record and let the parties weigh in.
2. Ridgeline's lawyer offers a written waiver, and Varga's lawyer says she will go along. May the judge accept it and finish the case?
Read the worked answer
No. A party's waiver cannot do the work here.
- Remittal under Model Code Rule 2.11(C) is narrow: it is available only for the specific grounds the rule enumerates, only after disclosure on the record, only by the written agreement of all parties and their lawyers acting independently of the judge, and never for personal bias or for a situation in which the judge's impartiality has been reasonably questioned on non-enumerated grounds.
- Two independent problems: (1) The judge has a direct economic interest in a party, which the Code treats as a ground requiring disqualification rather than a bargaining chip; (2) Varga's counsel has already said she is "not comfortable" - a waiver procured from a lawyer who is deferring to the judge is not an independent agreement, and the judge must not create the impression that a litigant risks her case by declining.
- The judge also should not have solicited, or allowed a litigant to solicit, a waiver of her own disqualification.
- Proper course: Disclose the basis on the record, disqualify herself, take no further substantive action, and ensure the case is reassigned. If the parties genuinely want to preserve the record, that is a matter for the successor judge.
- Note the jurisdiction's own code or case law may be stricter than the Model Code; the judge should consult the judicial ethics committee rather than rely on the parties' stipulation.
3. May Judge Marsh accept the seat on Ridgeline's community advisory board?
Read the worked answer
No - not while this case is pending, and probably not at all if the bank litigates before her.
- Rule 3.13(A): A judge may not accept gifts, benefits, or other things of value if acceptance is prohibited by law or would appear to undermine the judge's independence, integrity, or impartiality. A $5,000 stipend from a party that just appeared before her is squarely covered.
- Rule 3.11: A judge may not engage in financial and business dealings that may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judicial position or that involve her in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with persons likely to come before the court. A standing advisory relationship with a bank is a continuing business relationship.
- Rule 3.1: Extrajudicial activities must not cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially, demean the office, or lead to frequent disqualification. Accepting would do all three.
- The thank-you letter itself is a communication from a party about a pending matter. The judge should not respond on the merits and should place the letter in the court file or disclose it, not accept its invitation.
- If she wants to serve on civic boards generally, she should confine herself to organizations unlikely to appear before her, disclose the affiliation as required, and recuse when the organization appears.