Opinion ID: 1119933
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Petitioner's Use of Chambers Stationery Created an Appearance of Impropriety.

Text: We agree with the Commission that petitioner's use of chambers stationery for the three private letters created an appearance of impropriety. We find by clear and convincing evidence [5] that a reasonably objective person would believe that the stationery was an attempt to influence opposing counsel and other viewers of the letters or that it had this effect. Petitioner defends his use of the stationery by claiming he used chambers stationery, not official stationery, and by pointing out that the court system lacks any written policy restricting the use of chambers stationery. These arguments are weak. An objectively reasonable person would not know the difference between the two types of stationery or whether any policy existed. [6] Moreover, individual judges have an obligation to follow ethical constraints concerning the use of judicial stationery, notwithstanding any court system policy or lack of policy. Petitioner next claims that the intended recipients of the letters were not influenced in fact by the chambers stationery. We find this fact irrelevant to the opinions of the thinking public who might see the letters in the public records. We find the stationery as used likely to cause members of the thinking public to believe that petitioner was unable to distinguish his judicial activities from his personal ones. This failure to maintain separate interests could lead a reasonable person to believe that petitioner's judicial decision-making ability similarly might be flawed. Petitioner easily could have avoided risking a negative effect on the confidence of the public in the administration of justice. Petitioner could have used CMC's own stationery or plain stationery. Either would have avoided creating an appearance of impropriety.