Ethics committee rules lunch with judges cannot be auctioned for charity

By Cy Ryan

Wednesday, July 7, 2010 | 2:05 a.m.

CARSON CITY — A District Court judge may not be auctioned off to attend a luncheon date with the winning bidder to raise money for a nonprofit research organization, the state’s judicial ethics committee ruled.

Several judges, some of whom are up for re-election, have been asked by an unidentified research organization to attend a luncheon at which the silent auction will be held.

The Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics and Election Practices said the silent auction to raise the money may be for a “philanthropic and worthy purpose” but it is “fraught and ethical peril.”

The committee, in an opinion signed by its chairman, Dan Reaser, said the judge cannot control who purchases the luncheon date with him. It may be a person involved in a legal matter before the judge.

Reaser, a private attorney in Reno, said the situation could create “actual or perceived questions as to judicial independence or impartiality.

“Likewise, the judge cannot control the amount bid for the luncheon event with the judge, which in itself risks the public trust by suggesting that access to a judge, even if only social and for good purpose, is something that can be auctioned for any reason.”

The opinion also said the bidding process for the luncheon with the judge “may taint the judicial office.”

Neither the names of the judges nor the non-profit organization were revealed in the opinion issued Tuesday.

In a second opinion, the commission said District Court judges can be paid for speaking or teaching at continuing professional education seminars conducted by a nonprofit organization that imposes admission fees.

“A judge is permitted to accept compensation for extrajudicial activities, provided the compensation is reasonable and commensurate with the task performed and the acceptance of compensation does not violate the law prohibiting honoraria,” the commission said.

The opinion, also signed by Reaser, said the judge must see that his judicial duties take precedence over other activities.

The opinions by the committee are advisory only and are not binding on the judges and the persons who asked for them.