Opinion 207

18 Baylor L. Rev. 294 (1966)

PRACTICE OF LAW BY A DISTRICT JUDGE - SOLICITATION AND REFERRALS BY A DISTRICT JUDGE
A district judge may not properly sign pleadings or otherwise counsel in a district court case prior to a trial. A district judge may not properly solicit business for any member, though under some circumstances he may properly refer individuals to a particular attorney.

Canons 24, 25, 29.

Such action set out in subdivision violates Ethics.

Such action described in subdivision B hereof is improper and violates Canons 24 & 25 of the Texas Canons of Ethics. A hereof is improper and Canon 29, Texas Canons of

A.    Article 319, VACS, prohibits a district judge from appearing and pleading as an attorney in any court of record in this state. Section 2 of the Canons of Ethics states that the code of ethics is cumulative of the state laws, and accordingly this committee in Opinion No. 13, held that it is unethical for a county judge to practice law in violation of law. The inquiry states that the district judge signed pleadings and participated as counsel in a case after becoming judge; it seems this is a violation of Article 319, VACS, and unethical conduct.

Canon 29, Texas Canons of Ethics, states that "No client . . . is entitled to receive, nor shall any member render any service or advice involving disloyalty to the law, or disrespect of the judicial office. . . ." For a judge to render legal services in violation of Article 319 violates Canon 29.

B.    The Texas Canons above referred to are not necessarily violated by the conduct of a judge in referring individuals to a particular lawyer who took over the judge's practice when he went on the bench, assuming that there is nothing else involved, such as fee splitting or solicitations. A judge on many occasions may need to suggest to a layman that he consult a lawyer; and if the problem is viewed from the standpoint of enabling a layman to secure the most competent representation possible, the public good may well be served in many instances by permitting a judge to suggest a particular lawyer to the layman. In this instance, however, the inquiry also includes the statement that the judge, ". . . is openly soliciting business for this young lawyer. . . ." If this conclusion as to the judge's referral activities is true, it is a violation of Texas Canons 24 and 25, on the part of both judge and lawyer. Solicitation of business by a judge for a lawyer violates the canons regardless of whether the lawyer assumed the judge's former practice (9-0)