JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINION 2025 v. << (2025)

¶1. FACTS

The wife of a current District Court Judge serves as the CEO of the non-profit, ABC Agency (“ABC”). ABC provides forensic interviews of children who may be victims of child abuse. The judge's wife does not conduct and has no involvement in the forensic interviews. The District Judge presides over a criminal docket, and it would not be unusual to have the forensic examiner testify before him. In a recent case the Judge's wife was listed as a witness and the Judge struck her name, as well as others who were listed solely to provide testimony on the policies and procedures of their respective groups on the basis that the topic was irrelevant.

¶2. QUESTION

Should the Judge disclose his wife's relationship (CEO) with ABC in any case wherein ABC may be involved?

¶3. ANSWER TO QUESTION

Yes.

¶4. AUTHORITIES

All citations are from the Code of Judicial Conduct, Title 5, Oklahoma Statutes, Chapter 1, App.4.

Pursuant to CANON 2 of the Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct:

CANON 2

A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially, Competently, and Diligently.

Additionally, Rule 2.11 provides:

RULE 2.11: Disqualification.

(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:

(2) The judge knows that the judge, the judge's spouse, a member of the judge's household, or a person within the third degree of relationship to any of them, or the spouse of such person is:

(c) a person who has more than a de minimus interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding; or

(d) likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

(3) The judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge's spouse, parent or child, or any member of the judge's household, has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy, or is a party to the proceeding. (Emphasis added.)

Comment [2] to Rule 2.11 provides:

A judge's obligation not to hear or decide matters in which disqualification is required applies regardless of whether a motion to disqualify has been filed.

Lastly, Comment [5] to Rule 2.11 provides:

A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for disqualification even if the judge believes there is no basis for disqualification.

¶5 DISCUSSION

According to ABC's website, the mission of ABC is to streamline the child abuse investigation process while minimizing trauma to the child. In doing so, ABC partners with Police Department's Child Crisis Units, Department of Human Services, and District Attorney's offices. According to ABC, it serves an important role in identifying and prosecuting child abuse. One of the main services of ABC is to conduct forensic interviews which is the first step in the investigation of the suspected child abuse.

ABC's mission is obviously a worthy one. However, ABC is clearly involved in the prosecution of a child abuse case, and specifically the forensic interview which is the first step in the investigation. Although the judge's wife may have no direct involvement in the actual forensic interviews, as CEO it can be assumed everyone ultimately reports to her.

Also, ABC, and therefore the CEO, may have a direct or indirect financial and/or reputational interest in the outcome of the trial.

CJE Opinion No. 2003-04 (Massachusetts Supreme Court Judicial Court, 03/14/2003), involved a somewhat similar situation. The judge's wife was to become a program manager in a non-profit who provides services to litigants who appear before the judge. The Opinion concluded mandatory recusal is not required because: the spouse is “not an officer, director, or trustee of the agency”; as a salaried employee her current income will not be contingent on․the resolution of specific cases that may come the court”; and the wife does not “manage or supervise” employees of the nonprofit who may be substantive witnesses. The facts herein are inapposite to CJE Opinion No. 2003-04.

¶CONCLUSION

In all cases involving ABC, the judge has the obligation to disclose on the record that his wife is the CEO. This duty to disclose exists, regardless of whether a motion to recuse has been filed and even if the judge believes there is no basis for recusal. See, Rule 2.11, Comments 2 and 5.

The Committee offers no opinion as to the application of Rules 2.11(A)(2) (c) and (d) and/or Rule 2.11(A)(3), to any specific factual situation as that would involve a legal opinion.  ¹ Should the judge determine the facts mandate his disqualification, he is permitted to disclose on the record the basis of the disqualification in order to give parties an opportunity to waive disqualification. See, Rule 2.11(C).

Dated this 11th day of September, 2025.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Pursuant to 5 O.S. § Rule 7, Appendix 4D - Rules of the JEAP: Advisory opinions shall address only whether an intended, future course of conduct violates the Code of Judicial Conduct and shall provide an interpretation of the Code with regard to the factual situation presented. The opinion shall not address issues of law nor shall it address the ethical propriety of past or present conduct. The identity of the requesting party shall not be disclosed in the opinion. (Emphasis added.)

Honorable Patricia G. Parrish, Chair Honorable William C. Hetherington Honorable Glenn D. Adams Honorable Allen McCall Honorable Sheila Condren ALL PANEL MEMBERS CONCUR