Pennsylvania Code › Title 207 - JUDICIAL CONDUCT › Part II - CONDUCT STANDARDS › Chapter 33 - CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT › Subchapter B - FORMAL OPINIONS › Section 19-1 - Ethical Considerations Regarding Court-Appointed Masters, Hearing Officers and Other Quasi-Judicial Officers

Current through Register Vol. 54, No. 28, July 13, 2024
The Ethics Committee of the Pennsylvania Conference of
					 State Trial Judges ("the Ethics Committee") provides guidance regarding ethical
					 concerns to judicial officers subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct ("the
					 Code"). Judges often inquire whether court-appointed masters, hearing officers,
					 and other quasi-judicial officers are subject to the Code, as well as the
					 ethical obligations judges have in supervising them. The Ethics Committee
					 issues this Formal Advisory Opinion because these questions and concerns
					 implicate the Code and are matters of general importance to the judiciary,
					 particularly to those judges who have supervisory authority over
					 court-appointed masters, hearing officers and other quasi-judicial
					 officers.
Courts use masters, hearing officers, and other
					 quasi-judicial officers in various ways. Some are full-time employees of a
					 county; others are contracted by the county or the court to preside over
					 certain cases or portions of cases. In some cases, they make findings of fact,
					 conclusions of law, and a recommended disposition to which only exceptions are
					 permitted;1 in other cases, their decision is merely
					 advisory.2
Masters, hearing officers, and other quasi-judicial
					 officers are not subject to the Code. The Application section of the Code
					 provides:
(1) The provisions of this
				  Code shall apply to all judges as defined in paragraph (2)
infra
.
(2) A judge
				  within the meaning of this Code is any one of the following judicial officers
				  who perform judicial functions, whether or not a lawyer: all Supreme Court
				  Justices; all Superior Court Judges; all Commonwealth Court Judges; all Common
				  Pleas Court Judges; all judges of the Philadelphia Municipal Court, except for
				  Traffic Division; and all senior judges as set forth in (3)
infra
.
Masters, hearing officers, and other quasi-judicial
					 officers who are "county-level court employees who are under the supervision
					 and authority of the President Judge" are subject to the Code of Conduct for
					 Employees of the Unified Judicial System ("Employee Code"). A footnote to (2),
supra
, notes:
. . .there is a Code of Conduct for Employees of the
					 Unified Judicial System ("Employee Code"). It applies to "employees" defined
					 as, "Employees of the Unified Judicial System" and includes 1) all state-level
					 court employees, and 2) all county-level court employees who are under the
					 supervision and authority of the President Judge of a Judicial District of
					 Pennsylvania, unless otherwise indicated by Supreme Court order or rule. .
					 ..
The footnote further provides that:
. . .This Code and the Employee Code do not apply to
					 nonemployee special masters, commissioners, and judges
pro
					 tem
.
Thus, masters, hearing officers and other quasi-judicial
					 officers used on a contract basis are not employees and are not subject to the
					 Code or to the Employee Code.
Nonetheless, a judge who has supervisory "direction and
					 control" over a master, hearing officer, or other quasi-judicial officer,
					 whether that person is a court employee or a non-employee, has responsibility
					 to ensure that the master, hearing officer, or other quasi-judicial employee
					 acts in a manner that is consistent with the judge's obligations under the
					 Code.
Rule
					 2.12 of the Code provides:
Supervisory Duties.
(A) A judge shall require court staff, court
				  officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control to act in a
				  manner consistent with the judge's obligations under this code.
A non-exclusive list of these obligations includes:
					 complying with the law, Rule 1.1; promoting confidence in the judiciary, Rule
					 1.2; avoiding abuse of the
					 prestige of one's position, Rule
					 1.3; being impartial and fair,
					 Rule 2.2; performing one's duties
					 without bias or prejudice, Rule
					 2.3; avoiding external influences
					 on one's conduct or decisions, Rule
					 2.4; performing one's work
					 competently and diligently, Rule
					 2.5; ensuring the right to be
					 heard, Rule
					 2.6; requiring order and decorum
					 in proceedings, Rule 2.8; avoiding
ex parte
communications,
					 Rule 2.9; and disqualifying oneself
					 when appropriate, Rule 2.11.
In short, while masters, hearing officers, and other
					 quasi-judicial officers are not subject to the Code, some of them are subject
					 to the Employee Code. In any event, judges who have supervisory "direction and
					 control" over masters, hearing officers, and other quasi-judicial officers are
					 subject to Rule
					 2.12 of the Code, which requires
					 those judges to ensure that those masters, hearing officers and other
					 quasi-judicial employees act in a manner that is consistent with the applicable
					 obligations of the judge.
Although the Supreme Court designated the Ethics Committee
					 as "the approved body to render advisory opinions regarding ethical concerns
					 involving judges, other judicial officers, and judicial candidates subject to
					 the Code of Judicial Conduct," Code, Preamble (8), the Employee Code provides
					 for state-level court employees having questions regarding the Employee Code to
					 contact their employing judge, their employing court's Executive Administrator,
					 or AOPC Human Resources, and for county-level court employees to contact their
					 President Judge or District Court Administrator.
The "Rule of Reliance"
This Formal Advisory Opinion is intended to provide judges
					 with broad guidance regarding an issue of general concern among Pennsylvania's
					 judges. Because this Formal Advisory Opinion does not address the specific
					 facts of a particular case, a judge does not receive the benefit of the "rule
					 of reliance" by reviewing the Committee's general advice. If a judge has
					 questions concerning the application of these guidelines, the judge should make
					 a written request for advice from a member of the Committee, ordinarily from
					 the representative for the zone in which the judge sits. The Code provides
					 that, although such opinions are not
per se
binding on the
					 Judicial Conduct Board, the Court of Judicial Discipline, or the Supreme Court
					 of Pennsylvania, action taken in reliance thereon shall be considered in
					 determining whether discipline should be recommended or imposed. Code, Preamble
					 (8).