Boatnik

A magistrate may participate in a documentary about women in boating per an opinion of the South Carolina Advisory Committee on Standards of Judicial Conduct

A full-time magistrate inquires into the propriety of participating in a documentary series that involves professional women who love boating. The series includes boater training and safety classes and will highlight unique personalities, achievements, and camaraderie as the boats are maneuvered on the water. The series will also highlight teamwork, induvial strengths, commitment to serving the community, as well as philanthropy, self-improvement, and maintaining healthy and professional relationships. The inquiring judge is in an investor and anticipates compensation if the documentary series is picked up by an agency, cable network, or media outlet.

Sail away!

In Opinion 29-1994, we found that a circuit court judge could provide color commentary for a sporting event is, as it was, in essence, speaking on a non-legal subject, and as long as it did not detract from the dignity of office nor interferes with the performance of judicial duties. We found that as long as the judge’s commentary was limited to the specific sporting event, there is little chance that his commentary will harm the integrity or impartiality of the judiciary. Furthermore, as a color commentator, the judge would be afforded very little opportunity to discuss matters that would even remotely affect the judicial system. Thus, we concluded a judge may give color commentary without harming the public confidence in the integrity and the impartiality of the judiciary. However, the broadcast should avoid any reference of his judicial office, so that there is virtually no possibility that the radio station would benefit from the prestige of the judge’s office.

Similarly, the judge’s participation in a documentary series about women in boating is, in essence, speaking on a non-legal subject. There is little chance that it will harm the integrity or impartiality of the judiciary or interfere with the judge’s judicial duties. However, the judge should avoid discussing matters that affect the judicial system while on camera and must also avoid any reference to her judicial office. In addition, any marketing of the series should not disclose the judge’s position. See, Op. No. 12-2011 (Finding that while a judge may publish and sell an updated edition of a book written by the judge before ascension to the bench, the judge could not state his or her official position in an advertisement to promote the book).

Canon 4H allows a judge to receive compensation for extra-judicial activities permitted by the Code. The compensation should be a reasonable about and not exceed what a person who is not a judge would receive for the same activity. Of course, the judge must disclose any such compensation as set forth in Canon 4H(2). Furthermore, this opinion is limited to the specific facts presented and does not stand for the proposition that all tv appearances would be permissible.

(Mike Frisch)