This Advisory Opinion concerns the following issues as formulated from facts and/or circumstances furnished by a requestor. The Commission approved this opinion on February 6, 2004, basing its approval solely on the facts and circumstances stated herein.
 

ISSUE 1:  May a judge endorse a product using his name, title and a picture of him in his robe in an advertisement?

ISSUE 2:  May a Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court hear an appeal from a law firm that is currently representing said Justice in an ongoing legal proceeding?

State law restricts the Mississippi Ethics Commission to interpreting and issuing opinions on Sections 25-4-101 through 25-4-119, 1972 Mississippi Code Annotated and Article IV, Section 109, Mississippi Constitution of 1890.  Therefore, this opinion does not address the Mississippi laws outside the Commission’s jurisdiction nor the governmental entity’s internal rules and regulations.

The pertinent conflict of interest laws to be considered here are:

Code Section 25-4-101 states:
 

“The legislature declares that elective and public office and employment is a public trust and any effort to realize personal gain through official conduct, other than as provided by law, or as a natural consequence of the employment or position, is a violation of that trust.  Therefore, public servants shall endeavor to pursue a course of conduct which will not raise suspicion among the public that they are likely to be engaged in acts that are in violation of this trust and which will not reflect unfavorably upon the state and local governments.”

Code Section 25-4-103(d), (e), (g)(iv), (h), (l), (p)(i) and (q) states:
 

“(d) ‘Business with which he is associated’ means any business of which a public servant or his relative is an officer, director, owner, partner, employee or is a holder of more than ten percent (10%) of the fair market value or from which he or his relative derives more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) in annual income or over which such public servant or his relative exercises control.

(e) ‘Compensation’ mean money or thing of value received, or to be received, from any person for services rendered.

g) ‘Governmental’ means the state and all political entities thereof, both collectively and separately, including but not limited to:

(iv) All courts.

(h) ‘Governmental entity’ means the state, a county, a municipality or any other separate political subdivision authorized by law to exercise a part of the sovereign power of the state.

(l) ‘Pecuniary benefit’ means benefit in the form of money, property, commercial interests or anything else the primary significance of which is economic gain.  Expenses associated with social occasions afforded public servants shall not be deemed a pecuniary benefit.

(p) ‘Public servant’ means:

(i) Any elected or appointed official of the government.

(q) ‘Relative’ means the spouse, child or parent.”

Code Section 25-4-105(1) states:
 

“(1) No public servant shall use his official position to obtain pecuniary benefit for himself other than that compensation provided for by law, or to obtain pecuniary benefit for any relative or any business with which he is associated.”

I am requesting two ethic opinions.  I would like an opinion as to whether it is an ethical violation for a judge to endorse a product using his name, title and a picture of him in his robe in an advertisement.  Also I would like to know if it is an ethical violation if a Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court hears an appeal from a law firm that is currently representing said Justice in an ongoing legal proceeding.

Based solely on the facts and circumstances presented by the requestor, the Commission’s opinion is as follows.

ISSUE 1:  The use of his or her title and the appearance of the judge in his or her robe in an advertisement constitutes use of his or her official position, under Code Section 25-4-105(1), cited above. If the judge, any of his or her relatives or any business with which he or she is associated receives a pecuniary benefit for this endorsement, then the judge will have violated Code Section 25-4-105(1).

ISSUE 2:  This issue raises questions which lie outside the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission and which would be better addressed by the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance and/or the Ethics Committee of the Mississippi Bar. The requestor is advised to contact both those entities for further information.
 
 

Scott Rankin
Executive Director