Opinion No. 98-1

April 8, 1998

TOPIC: Judge serving on a family violence coordinating council.

DIGEST: A judge may serve on a broad-based family violence coordinating council that studies and proposes procedures for addressing issues of domestic violence.

REFERENCES: Illinois Supreme Court Rules 64A, 64C and 65B; Committee Comments to Rule 65; Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion Nos. 96-21 and 97-3.

FACTS

Two related fact situations have been propounded to the Committee.

1. The Chief Judge and other judges in the Circuit have been asked to convene and work with a family violence coordinating council, a multi-disciplinary body that includes representatives from law enforcement, prosecutors, public defenders, health service providers, the clergy and the education system. The council provides a forum for community representatives to develop systems, approaches, protocols and policies through cooperation and collaboration for family violence prevention treatment. The council is convened through judicial leadership to stimulate coordination among all aspects of the justice system and its work is done through various committees.

2. A judge who regularly hears domestic violence cases has been asked to join a broad-based circuit-wide council that will study the problem of domestic violence and its extent. The council will make and recommend procedures for more effectively dealing with domestic violence, including recommendations and procedure to be used by the courts in response to domestic violence.

Situations 1 and 2 appear to be functionally equal and will be treated as one item.

QUESTION

May a judge convene and work on a family violence coordinating council?

OPINION

"This is no life of cloistered ease to which you dedicated your powers. This is a life that touches your fellow man at every angle of their being, a life that you must live in the crowd, and yet apart from it, man of the world and philosopher by turns." Benjamin Cardozo

Rule 64 governs the scope of a judicial officer's activities in the improvement of the administration of justice. It states:

A judge, subject to the proper performance of his or her judicial duties, may engage in law related activities, if in so doing the judge does not cast doubt on his or her capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before him or her.

A. A judge may speak, write, lecture, and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice...

C. A judge may serve as a member, officer, or director of an organization or governmental agency devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice ...

Rule 65B provides limitations on the scope of a judicial officer's extrajudicial duties. It states:

A judge may participate in civic and charitable activities that do not reflect adversely upon the judge's impartiality or interfere with the performance of the judge's judicial duties.

(1) A judge should not serve if it is likely that the organization will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge or will be regularly engaged in adversary proceedings in any court.

This committee has previously issued opinions dealing with an interpretation of these sections. IJEC Opinion No. 96-21 concluded that "(a) judge may not accept appointment to a Citizens Advisory Council of his or her local school district." The Committee determined that the Council was more properly considered a "governmental committee, commission or other position connected with issues of fact or policy on matters other than the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice" as prohibited under Rule 65G, rather than a "civic" body under Rule 65B since an elected school board would appoint it.

IJEC Opinion No. 97-3 concluded that "(a) judge my not serve as a member of (a) local task force on sexual assault." The reason for that opinion was that the task force provided support to law enforcement agencies for the prosecution of sexual abusers, assisted victims and provided witnesses to testify at the request of the prosecution. Because of that affiliation, the judge's work with the task force would reflect adversely upon his or her impartiality, violating Rule 65B. In addition, since members of the task force would regularly testify and engage in adversarial proceedings, participation would violate Rule 65B(1).

Rules 64B and C say the judge may serve on a civic committee or in an organization concerned with the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. The Committee Comments to Rule 65 point out that separation of a judge from extrajudicial activities is neither possible nor wise; he or she should not become isolated from society. The limitation imposed by Rules 64 and 65 - that judges by their activities do not compromise their impartiality - is not violated by the judge's participation in the Family Violence Coordinating Council. Since the council addresses the broad social ramifications of family violence including the involvement of the legal system participation on a Family Violence Coordinating Council does not reflect adversely on the judge's impartiality or interfere with the judge's impartiality. Similarly, Rule 65B(1) is not violated since the Council does not appear in court or provide testimony for any litigants. The Council takes neither side nor intervenes for a particular individual in a particular case. For these reasons, participating in a Family Violence Coordinating Council is not a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct nor is it improper for a judge.