Related to:
Opinion

Opinion CJE Opinion No. 99-5

Date: 01/15/1999
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 Barbara.Berenson@jud.state.ma.us or 617- 557-1048.

Writing Letter of Recommendation to a Judge

You have requested an opinion concerning the propriety of writing a letter of recommendation to a judge in another state on behalf of a prospective adoptive parent.

Canon 2(B) provides, in part, that a judge "should not lend the prestige of his office to advance the private interests of others . . .." It also specifies that a judge "should not testify voluntarily as a character witness."

We concur with advisory opinions that regard letters of recommendation in court matters as the equivalent of voluntary testimony as a character witness; and therefore conclude that such a letter is proscribed by the provisions of Canon 2(B). (See Nebraska Advisory Opinion 89-2, where the letter to a sentencing judge was regarded as voluntary testimony as a character witness; and Illinois Advisory Opinion 95-12, where the proscription on testifying also "prohibit[s] the voluntary submission of written character references.") The Florida Supreme Court, in rejecting an argument that a judge is not "testifying" by writing a letter because a letter is not under oath, held that the prohibition on testifying as a character witness was sufficiently broad to encompass a written statement voluntarily submitted with the knowledge and understanding that it may be used in an adjudicatory proceeding. Inquiry Concerning Fogan, 646 So. 2d. 191, 194 (Fla. 1994).

Canon 2(B) would not, however, prohibit a judge from responding to a request for information made by an out of state agency comparable to the Massachusetts Department of Social Services. The information provided to the Department of Social Services concerning the suitability of prospective adoptive parents is routinely recorded and, in contested matters, is subject to review by all parties as well as the court, thereby removing ex parte communication as an issue. See G.L. c. 210 § 5A. If the Department of Social Services contacted you concerning the suitability of a prospective adoptive parent, there would be no prohibition on sharing your personal knowledge and observations. Such information would be conveyed in response to an official request from an agency acting pursuant to laws enacted to protect the interests of children. We see no reason why a similar request from a comparable department of another state would warrant a different result.

Moreover, there is no prohibition in the Canons against providing character testimony in response to a summons to testify either at a trial or by deposition.

Feedback

Did you find what you were looking for on this webpage? * 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 the contact information elsewhere on this page or in the footer.
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 the contact information elsewhere on this page or in the footer.

If you need to report child abuse, any other kind of abuse, or need urgent assistance, please click here.

Tell us what you think