Related to:

Opinion CJE Opinion No. 95-7

Date: 07/21/1995
Organization: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

The following is an archived advisory opinion of the Committee on Judicial Ethics (CJE) from the time period of 1989 through 2014, and the Code of Judicial Conduct that was in effect from October 1, 2003 to December 31, 2015. Archived advisory opinions also include the Code that was in effect through September 30, 2003. The Supreme Judicial Court adopted a new Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct, effective on January 1, 2016. A judge should not rely on any pre- 2016 CJE Advisory Opinion without contacting Supreme Judicial Court Senior Attorney Barbara F. Berenson, counsel to the Committee on Judicial Ethics, at or 617- 557-1048.

Acceptance and Use of Amtrak Rail Pass

You have requested advice from this Committee on whether you may accept and use a "Special Rail Travel Privilege Card" issued by the board of directors of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, commonly referred to as "Amtrak." Prior to your appointment as a judge, you had served as a member of that board of directors. This Rail Travel Privilege Card ("pass") would provide you and your wife with "free and unlimited personal rail travel on any train within the Amtrak system with the exception of Metroline Service and Auto Train," including sleeping car accommodations. All former board members are issued such passes.

This Amtrak pass for you and your wife is in the nature of deferred compensation in recognition of your past services as a director. The relevant provision of the Code of Judicial Conduct would appear to be Canon 5(C)(1) which provides:

"A judge should refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on his impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of his judicial position, or involve him in frequent transactions with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court on which he serves."

It would not appear that your use of the pass would "interfere with the proper performance of [your] judicial position." Moreover, we infer from your request that Amtrak's interests have not up to now come before you. We are not in a position to know whether they are "likely to come before [you]." Given the jurisdiction of your Court, it is certainly possible that Amtrak's interests might come before you. However, "possibly" is not synonymous with "likely." Accordingly, we advise you to review the dockets of your court. If there appear to be no, or very infrequent, cases involving Amtrak, Canon 5(C)(1) would not be violated by your receipt of the pass. However, you must report the value of the pass on your Annual Report of Extra-Judicial Income which all Massachusetts judges are required by Canon 6 to file with the Supreme Judicial Court. You should also recuse yourself (as you indicate you would) in the unlikely event that a matter involving Amtrak were to be assigned to you. However, if such matters were more than sporadic, recusal would not suffice and your acceptance and use of the pass would be prohibited. Thus, it will be necessary that you regularly review your dockets to determine if you may properly continue to accept the pass.

Finally, we note that your obligation to report under Canon 6 is separate and distinct from any obligation to report to the State Ethics Commission under Chapter 268B of the General Laws.


Did you find the information you were looking for on this page? * required
We use your feedback to help us improve this site but we are not able to respond directly. Please do not include personal or contact information. If you need a response, please locate contact information elsewhere on this page or in the footer.
Tell us what you think