Utah Supreme Court
Can Utah judges submit affidavits in cases before other courts? In re McCully Explained
Summary
Juvenile Court Judge Sharon McCully submitted an affidavit in support of a guardian ad litem’s motion to quash a legislative subpoena, expressing her opinions on the ultimate legal issues before the district court. The Judicial Conduct Commission found this conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and recommended public reprimand, which the Utah Supreme Court affirmed.
Analysis
In In re McCully, the Utah Supreme Court addressed the ethical boundaries for judicial testimony and reaffirmed that judges must avoid conduct that appears to influence proceedings before other courts.
Background and Facts
During a legislative audit of Utah’s foster care system, Legislative Auditor sought records from guardian ad litem David Littlefield. When Littlefield moved to quash the legislative subpoena in district court, he contacted Juvenile Court Judge Sharon McCully to explain the role of guardians ad litem. Rather than testifying live, Judge McCully prepared an affidavit containing her opinions on whether non-lawyers could perform guardian ad litem functions and whether guardians must protect attorney-client records. The affidavit was filed with the district court and used to support Littlefield’s motion, which was ultimately granted.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Judge McCully’s submission of an opinion affidavit in litigation before another judge constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under Utah Code § 78-7-28(1)(e). The court also addressed whether the judicial conduct statute was unconstitutionally vague and violated the judge’s First Amendment rights.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court found Judge McCully’s conduct violated Canon 3(B)(9) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits judges from making “public comment that might reasonably be expected to affect [the] outcome” of pending proceedings. The court emphasized that Judge McCully acted in her official capacity and that her statements were “at least in part intended to influence Judge Wilkinson’s ultimate decision.” While acknowledging her good faith, the court concluded this conduct brought the judicial office into disrepute and warranted public reprimand.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that Utah judges must exercise extreme caution when asked to provide testimony in proceedings before other courts. While judges may provide factual testimony when properly subpoenaed, they should avoid expressing opinions on ultimate legal issues that could influence outcomes. The court distinguished between factual testimony about court operations and opinion testimony that effectively advocates for one side. Attorneys should be aware that requesting judicial opinion testimony may create ethical violations, even in cases involving matters of public concern or inter-governmental disputes.
Case Details
Case Name
In re McCully
Citation
1997 UT
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 960308
Date Decided
July 8, 1997
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A juvenile court judge committed conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by submitting an affidavit containing opinions on ultimate issues in litigation pending before another judge, violating Canon 3(B)(9) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Standard of Review
The court will not overturn the Commission’s findings of fact unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or plainly in error, but reserves the right to draw inferences from the basic facts and grants no deference to the Commission’s ultimate decision as to appropriate sanction.
Practice Tip
When requested to provide testimony in proceedings before other courts, judges should limit themselves to factual testimony if subpoenaed and avoid expressing opinions on ultimate legal issues that could influence the outcome.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.