Opinion  Opinion 2026-1

Date:	03/23/2026
Organization:	Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Ethical Opinions for Clerks of the Courts

Running for District Attorney

Dear Clerk-Magistrate _____________:

You are presently serving as the appointed Clerk-Magistrate of the __________ District Court. It is your intention to run for the Office of District Attorney for ______ County. The position you seek is in a different county than the position for which you are appointed.

You request an opinion from the Advisory Committee on Ethical Opinions for Clerks of the Courts as to whether there is violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Clerks of the Courts (herein after “Code”) if you run for the Office of District Attorney for ______County while you are still acting as the Clerk-Magistrate of __________ District Court.

It is the opinion of the Committee[1] that running for the Office of District Attorney for _____ County while you are an appointed Clerk-Magistrate for the _________ District Court presents concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest and the appearance of impartiality, which are the fundamental principles underlying all the provisions of the Code. Canon 4 of the Code requires a Clerk-Magistrate to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judicial branch of government.” 

The Office of District Attorney, although outside the Judicial Branch, plays a critical role in the justice system. The elected District Attorney is, in essence, an arm of law enforcement, as the position requires presentations before grand juries and prosecution of cases that begin with law enforcement. The position of a Clerk requires the Clerk and his or her Assistants who are supervised by the Clerk to preside over Magistrate hearings involving police officers and the public. These matters can involve issuing search warrants for State and local police and other types of Magistrate hearings involving the police and the public.

While the Committee recognizes that the position which you are considering is in a different county than your appointed Clerk position, the Committee has concerns that while law enforcement investigations may start in one county, they may eventually cross-over into other counties. You or one of the Assistant Clerks who you supervise may have to decide whether to issue a search warrant that involves an investigation in the neighboring county where you are seeking election as the District Attorney. Delegating these decisions to your assistant clerks would not cure the potential conflicts. You are ultimately responsible for all of the work of the Clerk's Office. Thus, even if you are not personally involved in decisions relating to matters in criminal cases, the public could reasonably perceive that you have overall responsibility for those matters. As the committee has often stated, the appearance of impartiality is as important as actual impartiality in promoting public trust and confidence in the courts.  See Opinion 2014-3.

The Committee also notes that a District Attorney position is political, often requiring candidates to take positions that could violate the fundamental obligations of a Clerk to be neutral and impartial. Canon 6 prohibits Clerks, except for elected Clerks, from engaging in political activity, including seeking elective office if there is a substantial likelihood that matters involving that office will come before the court where the Clerk serves.

Therefore, it is the opinion of the Committee that your running for District Attorney, even in a different county, would cast doubt on your ability to impartially decide issues that may come before you in any official capacity. For the reasons noted above, the Committee is of the Opinion that your seeking the Office of District Attorney in _________ County while in your position as an appointed Clerk-Magistrate would not be consistent with the Code.

Sincerely,
Christine P. Burak, Esq.
Secretary, Advisory Committee on Ethical Opinions for Clerks of the Courts

[1] One member was recused from this opinion