COMMITTEE ON CODES OF CONDUCT
ADVISORY OPINION NO. 20

 


Stockholdings.

A district judge, whose spouse owns 150 shares of stock worth about $10,000, in one of the largest American corporations, has inquired whether it is proper to hear and decide a case to which that corporation is a party, where the judge told all the lawyers in advance of the spouse's holdings, asked if they objected to the judge's hearing the case, and was told by the lawyers for both sides that they had no objection.

Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides, "[a] judge should perform the duties of the office impartially and diligently," and Canon 3C, Disqualification, further provides:
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:


*  *  *

(c) the judge knows that, individually or as a fiduciary, the judge or the judge's spouse or minor child residing in the judge's household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.
These provisions are similar to those found in title 28, United States Code, section 455(b)(4), which require a judge to disqualify under the circumstances set forth above. While the Committee is not authorized to interpret the statute, the Committee does have authority to interpret the provisions of the canon, which it should be noted are substantially identical to section 455(b)(4).

It is clear that under the provisions of Canon 3C(1)(c) a judge must disqualify himself or herself in any case in which the judge's spouse or minor child residing in the household owns stock in a party to the proceeding. Canon 3C(3)(c) provides that a financial interest "means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small," with certain exceptions not applicable to this inquiry. Ownership of even one share of stock would require disqualification.

Due to the mandatory language of the canon, remittal of disqualification is not permitted.

January 21, 1970
Revised July 10, 1998