Utah Supreme Court
Can a judge call an attorney privately about a pending case? In re Young Explained
Summary
Judge Young engaged in an ex parte telephone conversation with an attorney representing the school district while a motion for attorney fees remained pending in the case. The Judicial Conduct Commission found that Judge Young violated multiple canons of judicial conduct and recommended a public reprimand.
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in In re Young provides a stark reminder about the boundaries of judicial conduct and the prohibition against ex parte communications. The case arose when Judge David Young privately contacted an attorney about a case involving attorney fees that remained pending before the court.
Background and Facts
Judge Young had presided over a case involving a student expelled for bringing a gun to school. After dismissing most of the case, a motion for attorney fees remained pending when Judge Young’s assignment to Summit County ended. Following a newspaper article about the case, Judge Young called the school district’s attorney from his chambers to discuss the matter, without including opposing counsel in the conversation. During this call, Judge Young expressed his views about the pending fee request and his displeasure with the school district’s reported plans.
Key Legal Issues
The Judicial Conduct Commission charged Judge Young with violating multiple provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon 3B(7) prohibiting ex parte communications concerning pending proceedings, Canon 3B(9) forbidding nonpublic comments that might substantially interfere with fair proceedings, and Canon 3E(1)(a) requiring disqualification when impartiality might be questioned.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court upheld the Commission’s findings that Judge Young violated Canons 3B(7) and 3B(9). The court determined that Judge Young acted in a judicial capacity during the phone call because it arose in connection with his judicial office. The case remained a “pending proceeding” because the attorney fee issue was unresolved. The court found that Judge Young’s private comments gave one party inside information that could provide an advantage in settlement negotiations, thereby jeopardizing the integrity of the court system.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces fundamental principles of judicial ethics. Judges must avoid any ex parte communications about pending matters, regardless of whether they are currently assigned to the case. For practitioners, the decision emphasizes the importance of immediately reporting any improper judicial communications to opposing counsel and the court. The case also demonstrates that even well-intentioned judicial conduct can result in disciplinary action when it violates ethical canons designed to ensure fair proceedings for all parties.
Case Details
Case Name
In re Young
Citation
1999 UT 81
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 970032
Date Decided
August 27, 1999
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A judge who engages in ex parte communications with an attorney about a pending proceeding violates the Code of Judicial Conduct and may be publicly reprimanded for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Standard of Review
The court reviews the commission’s proceedings as to both law and fact and will not overturn the Commission’s findings of fact unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or plainly in error, but grants no deference to the Commission’s ultimate decision as to what constitutes an appropriate sanction
Practice Tip
Judges should avoid any ex parte communications about pending matters with attorneys, and practitioners should immediately report such communications to opposing counsel and the court.
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.