Opinion No. 96-14

July 16, 1996 

TOPIC: Judge serving on an advisory committee appointed by an alderman to advise him or her on issues of domestic violence to suggest possible ordinances and comment on the legal propriety of ordinances. 

DIGEST: A judge should not serve on an alderman's advisory committee because it would bring into question the judge's impartiality and would give the appearance that the judge is engaging in prohibited political activity. 

REFERENCES: Illinois Supreme Court Rule 64B of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 4 (145 Ill.2d R. 64); Illinois Supreme Court Rule 67 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 7 (145 Ill.2d R. 67). 

FACTS 

An alderman is asking a judge to serve on a committee which he or she will appoint to advise him or her on matters that have to do with ordinances which the alderman or others might present to the City Council, especially in the area of domestic violence. The judge does not feel that this activity would interfere with his or her ability to be impartial when hearing these cases. The judge has long thought that some of the laws in this area should be changed, but has also recognized the obligation to follow the law as it is. 

QUESTION 

May a judge serve on an alderman's advisory committee? 

OPINION 

Various provisions of the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct allow judicial officers to engage in activities aimed at improving the law or the administration of justice. However, there are restrictions on even these activities if that conduct can be construed as compromising the judge's appearance of impartiality. 

A judge may appear at a public hearing before an executive or legislative body or official on matters concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice [Rule 64(b)]. The fact situation presented herein does not envision public hearings but does call for the judge to provide private advice on a variety of topics. Rule 64(b) only allows a judge to consult privately with an official on matters concerning the administration of justice. The stated purpose of the advisory committee clearly exceeds this limitation and would therefore be violative of Rule 64(b). 

Additionally while Rule 65(b) allows the judge to participate as a nonlegal advisor to an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization, Rule 67 prohibits the judge from engaging in any actions that could be considered as political activity. 

Clearly in this instance the judge would be acting as an advisor on an indefinite topical basis to an official whose political motives could be called into question. 

Service on this advisory committee could give both the appearance that the judge's impartiality could be called into question and that the judge is engaging in prohibited political activity, therefore service on this committee should not occur.