Opinion
No. 99-64.
December 29, 1999.
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering an amendment of Canon 7 of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct. Before determining whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford any interested person the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal. We welcome the views of all who wish to address the proposal or who wish to suggest alternatives. Before adoption or rejection, this proposal will be considered at a public hearing by the Court. The Clerk of the Court will publish a schedule of future public hearings.
As whenever this Court publishes an administrative proposal for comment, we emphasize that publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.
[The present language would be amended as indicated below.]
CANON 7 A JUDGE OR A CANDIDATE FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE SHOULD REFRAIN FROM POLITICAL ACTIVITY INAPPROPRIATE TO JUDICIAL OFFICE
A. [Unchanged.]
B. Campaign Conduct.
(1) [Unchanged.]
(2) These provisions govern a candidate, including an incumbent judge, for a judicial office.
(a) [Unchanged as amended effective January 1, 2000.]
(b) [Unchanged.]
(c) The following limitations apply to committees established under Canon 7B(2)(b).
(i) Such committees are prohibited from soliciting campaign contributions from lawyers in excess of $100 per lawyer, but may solicit public support from lawyers. It is not a violation of this provision for a committee, in undertaking solicitations that are not directed exclusively to lawyers but may in fact go to lawyers who are members of a group or found on a mailing list, to solicit more than $100 per person, provided that the following disclaimer appears on the letter or on a response card, in print that is at least the same size as the remainder of the print in the letter or the response card:
"Canon 7 of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits a judicial campaign committee from soliciting more than $100 per lawyer. If you are a lawyer, please regard this as informative and not a solicitation for more than $100."
(ii) Such committees shall not solicit or accept a contribution from a lawyer who, within the preceding two years, has been appointed by the judge to represent a party in any matter. If such a lawyer is inadvertently solicited, the judicial candidate must return the contribution immediately. For a period of two years from the date a lawyer makes a political contribution to a judge's candidate committee, that judge shall be precluded from appointing such a lawyer to represent a party in any matter.
(d)-(f) [Unchanged as amended effective January 1, 2000.]
(3) [Unchanged.]
C. [Unchanged as amended effective January 1, 2000.]
D. [Unchanged.]
Staff Comment: The proposed amendment of Canon 7 forbids the solicitation and acceptance of contributions form lawyers who have been appointed by the judicial candidate within the last two years. The proposal also precludes a judge from appointing a lawyer for a two-year period after the date the lawyer made a political contribution.
The amendment is proposed as a response to the comments made to the Court suggesting that some lawyers feel undue pressure to contribute to judges in order to remain or become eligible to obtain court appointments to represent parties.
The staff comment is published only for the benefit of the bench and is not an authoritative construction by the Court.
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption in its present form. Timely comments will be substantively considered and your assistance is appreciated by the Court.
A copy of this order will be given to the secretary of the State Bar and to the State Court Administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201. Comments on this proposal may be sent to the Supreme Court Clerk within 60 days after it is published in the Michigan Bar Journal. When filing a comment, please refer to our file No. 99-64.