PROBATE COURT INVESTIGATOR SERVING
SIMULTANEOUSLY AS MASTER IN THE SAME COURT
Opinion No. 175 (1994)
1. May a probate judge appoint a person to serve simultaneously in the same court as both a master under Section 574.0085 of the Health and Safety Code and as a probate court investigator under Section 25.0025 of the Government Code?
2. May a person appointed to be a probate court master simultaneously serve in the same court as a court investigator?
FACT ASSUMED: The person serving as statutory probate court investigator would file applications for guardianship for indigent incapacitated persons.
ANSWER TO QUESTIONS:
1. The Committee has previously declined to answer a question concerning who a judge may appoint as a master because that is a question of law as distinguished from a question of ethics. See Opinion No. 79 (1985). Whether a person is qualified to be appointed a master is a question of law. As we stated in Opinion No. 79, the only foreseeable ethical consideration would be if a judge knowingly appointed a person who was not qualified or made an appointment in disregard of
Canon 3C(4). Because the Committee assumes the judge would only appoint a qualified person and would follow the requirements of Canon 3C(4), the Committee declines to answer the question for the same reasons it declined to answer a similar question in Opinion No. 79.
2. No. In Opinion No. 104 (1987) and again in Opinion No. 127 (1989), the Committee concluded that a judge should not prepare pleadings to begin the process of civil commitment for mentally ill persons. The Committee adheres to those conclusions and concludes that a master should not do so for the same reasons stated in Opinions 104 and 127.
Even if the master does not prepare applications for guardianship or other pleadings, the Committee concludes that he should not simultaneously serve in the same court as an investigator. In Opinion No. 166 (1993), the Committee concluded that a master conducting probable cause hearings and mental commitment cases should not appear as an attorney on unrelated matters in the same court he serves as a master. Opinion No. 166 was based on Canon 6D, which provides that a part-time master should not "practice law" in the court in which he or she serves. Although the duties of a court investigator may not include practicing law and may therefore not be expressly prohibited by Canon 6D(2), such simultaneous service would contravene other code provisions. These include, at least, the following: 1) Canon 1, which requires a judge to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary, 2) Canon 2(A), which requires a judge to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, 3) Canon 2B, which provides that a judge should not allow any relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge, 4) Canon 3A, which requires that a judge's judicial duty takes precedence over all the judge's other activities, 5) Canon 3B(2), which provides that a judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism, 6) Canon 3B(5), which requires that a judge perform judicial duties without bias, 7) Canon 4D(1), which requires that a judge refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the judge's impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties, exploit his or her judicial position, or involve the judge in frequent transactions with persons likely to come before the court on which the judge serves, 8) Canon 4I, which provides that a judge may receive compensation if the source of such payments does not give the appearance of influencing the judge's performance of judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety, and 9) Canon 5(1), which provides that a judge shall not make statements that indicate an opinion on any issue that may be subject to judicial interpretation by the office which he holds. The Committee concludes that serving simultaneously as a master and court investigator would be likely to cause a conflict with all of these provisions.
In Opinion No. 173 (1994), the Committee cited all these provisions in concluding that a municipal court judge should not simultaneously serve as city attorney for the same city. The Committee believes that the same conflicts are inherent when a probate court master serves simultaneously as the court's investigator.
*All Canon references are to the Code of Judicial Conduct effective March 1, 1994.