The Ethics Advisory Committee has been asked for its opinion on the question of whether the Code of Judicial Conduct permits a trial judge to teach a business law class at a university business school. The class is scheduled for spring quarter, April through June, and will be taught from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. four days a week. The judge indicates that he has refused this particular offer to teach, but would like guidance concerning similar teaching opportunities in the future.

It is the committee's opinion that the Code permits a judge to teach a business law class at a university business school as long as the judge's teaching does not interfere with the performance of the judge's official duties. In the present case, however, where the judge's proposed teaching activities would require a full-time trial judge to be away from the courthouse a minimum of six hours per week during regular court hours, such an activity would interfere with the performance of judicial duties and is prohibited by the Code.

The pertinent provision of the Code is Canon 4 which generally governs a judge's quasi-judicial activities and specifically permits judges to teach classes concerning the law. That Canon provides:

                    A judge, subject to the proper performance of his judicial duties, may engage in the following quasi- judicial activities, if in doing so the judge does not cast doubt on the capacity to decide impartially any issue that may be involved in matters before the court.

                    A. A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice. Applying the language of Canon 4 to the proposed teaching activity, the judge would be participating in a quasi-judicial activity by teaching a class concerning the law and the legal system as defined and permitted by Canon 4.

The interim Advisory Committee on Judicial Activities has permitted judges to teach such courses on several occasions. In Advisory Opinion No. 1, the committee approved of a judge teaching part-time as a special lecturer in law at a university law school for compensation. The committee commented that "limited work of this kind, to a judge so disposed can be a source of refreshment and perspective. "

Again in Advisory Opinion No. 7, the committee approved a judge's participation as a faculty member of the National College of State Trial Judges. The judge received no compensation for the teaching activities, but was reimbursed for his travel and other expenses. In Advisory Opinion No. 79, the committee noted that teaching provides "intellectual enrichment for the judge, [is] an important source of improvement for the justice system, and [is] fully consistent with the public's perception of the appropriate role for judges in our society."

In Informal Opinion No. 89-9, this committee approved of a judge teaching part-time at a community college as long as the teaching did not interfere with the performance of the judge's official duties.

In the present case, the judge serves on a limited jurisdiction court which was created for the purpose of providing full-time judicial assistance. Utah Code Ann, ~ 78- 4-1. The court has jurisdiction over all classes of misdemeanors and exercises the powers and jurisdiction of a magistrate, including conducting preliminary hearings, issuing commitments prior to trial and ordering release on bail. Utah Code Ann. ~ 78-4-5.

The class in question is taught four days a week from 3:30 to 4:30 in the afternoon, during regular court hours. While the proposed teaching activity is permitted by Canon 4, the critical issue is whether the activity will interfere with the judge's performance of official duties. Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states: "The judicial duties of a full-time judge take precedence over all other activities." Thus, a judge must carefully avoid quasi-judicial commitments of such magnitude that they detract from the time the judge is able to devote to judicial duties. In achieving that balance, a judge must consider the fact that the performance of judicial duties not only requires conducting schedule hearings, but also requires that a judge be available during regular court hours to issue warrants, set bail and deal with other legal issues as they arise.

This committee has expressed concern in previous opinions about extra-judicial activities interfering with the proper performance of judicial duties. In Informal Opinions 89-4 and 89-9, the committee explained that because there were no leave or absentee policies which govern state court judges, and without knowing what other extrajudicial commitments a judge may have made, the committee could not conclusively determine whether the judges' teaching activities at issue in those opinions were permissible. In Informal Opinion No. 89-11, this committee concluded that where an extrajudicial activity required the judge to be away from the courtroom one day a week, detracting from the minimum time the judge ordinarily spent at work, the time-commitment would interfere with the performance of judicial duties and was therefore prohibited by the Code.

This committee recognizes that generally the individual judge is the only one who can determine whether an outside activity will interfere with the performance of judicial duties. In the present case, however, it is the committee's opinion that where the proposed teaching activities would require a full-time trial judge to be away from the courthouse during regular business hours a minimum of six hours per week, such a time-commitment would interfere with the judge's ability to perform official duties.

Accordingly, it is the committee's opinion that the Code permits a trial judge to teach a business law class at a university business school as long as the teaching does not interfere with the performance of the judge's official duties. However, where the judge's teaching activities require a minimum of six hours per week away from the courthouse during regular court hours, such an activity interferes with the performance of judicial duties and is prohibited by the Code.