Monday, August 19, 2013

Judge Cannot Serve As "Tie-Breaker"

A new judicial ethics opinion from South Carolina:

ADVISORY  COMMITTEE
ON STANDARDS OF  JUDICIAL CONDUCT

RE:      Propriety of a family court judge serving  as a “tie-breaker” for friend if the co-trustees/co-executors cannot agree on  an issue.

FACTS

A  family court judge has an elderly family friend who has appointed her two  children as co-executors of her will and co-trustees of her property.  The judge has known the friend for many years  and while their relationship is one of friendship and respect, the judge does  not consider this friend to be like a member of the family.  The judge’s friend has asked that the judge  serve as a “tie-breaker” if the co-trustees/co-executors cannot agree on an  issue.  The judge would not actually  serve as personal representative/executor or trustee and would only be required  to take action if there is a tie vote between the other executors/trustees. The  judge inquires as into the propriety of such service.

CONCLUSION

A  judge may not serve as a “tie-breaker” vote between two executors or trustees  for a family friend.

OPINION

The Code of Judicial Conduct states that “[a]  judge shall not serve as executor, administrator or other personal  representative, trustee, guardian, conservator, attorney in fact or other  fiduciary.”  Canon 4E(1).  Here, while the judge would not be formally  appointed as an executor or trustee, the “tie-breaker” position would fall into  the category of “other fiduciary” as the judge would be making decisions that  affect the friend’s estate and property. 

  The Code provides a limited  exception to the prohibition against serving as a fiduciary, stating, “[a]  judge may serve in one of these capacities for the estate, trust or person of a  member of the judge’s family, but only if such service will not interfere with  the proper performance of judicial duties.”   However, the canon only allows a judge to serve in such a fiduciary  capacity for a “member of the judge’s family.”   In the “Terminology” section of the Code of Judicial Conduct, this  phrase is defined as: “a spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent or  other relative or person with whom the judge maintains a close familial  relationship.” Rule 501, SCACR (emphasis added).  While the Code allows a judge to act as a  fiduciary for a non-family member, that person must be someone with a close  familial relationship with a judge.   As  stated in Opinion 14-2011, if the relationship is merely friendship, the judge  should not serve in the fiduciary capacity.

Here,  while the judge has maintained a long-time friendship with the person who seeks  to appoint him as tiebreaker, the nature of the friendship is not one of a  close familial relationship.  Thus, the  judge should decline to serve as the tiebreaker.

(Mike Frisch)

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2013/08/judge-cannot-serve-as-tie-breaker.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef01901ee06382970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Judge Cannot Serve As "Tie-Breaker":

Comments

Post a comment