The Ethics Advisory Committee has been asked for its opinion on these questions: whether the Code of Judicial Conduct permits a judge to teach legal classes for peace officers or students attending a community college and whether the judge may receive compensation from the sponsoring organization for teaching the courses. The first class in involves teaching a general law class to criminal justice administration students at a community college. The curriculum would focus on the study of statutory provisions governing law enforcement. The second class is being taught to peace officers and would cover recent Utah Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court, and other appellate criminal law decisions. In both instances the judge's salary would be paid by the sponsoring organization and not by the students themselves. The judge's compensation for teaching the first course would be paid by the community college and the judge's compensation for the second course would be paid by the State of Utah through the Division of Finance, using the appropriation for the Peace Officers Standards Training Division.

It is the committee's opinion that the Code does not prohibit the judge from teaching the community college course and receiving compensation for teaching provided the judge does not, in any substantial degree, use judicial chambers, resources, or staff to research and otherwise prepare for the course. The Code does, however, prohibit the judge from conducting the training session for peace officers.

APPLICABLE CODE PROVISIONS
The pertinent provisions of the Code are Canons 4, 5C, and 6. Canon 4 permits judges to teach classes concerning the law. That Canon provides:

              A judge, subject to the proper performance of his judicial duties, may engage in the following quasi-judicial activities, if in doing so the judge does not cast doubt on the capacity to decide impartially any issue that may be involved in matters before the court.

              A. A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.

Canon 2 provides that a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities and, specifically, a judge should not allow relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment and should not convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position of influence. Canons 5C and 6 deal with the issue of compensation and will be discussed separately.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE COURSE
In the opinion request, the judge explained that the students attending the community college course are studying to become certified as private security guards, private investigators, constables, reserve peace officers and correctional officers. A smaller number of the students may be studying to eventually become full time peace officers in the State of Utah. The students are taught by a three-teacher team, one of whom would be a judge. The subject matter is divided among the teachers and includes instruction on the Utah court system, constitutional law, laws of evidence, criminal code, search and seizure, use of force, controlled substances laws, liquor control laws, and juvenile law and procedure. All examinations and evaluations of the students are conducted by the regular staff at the college and not by the three member teaching team. The classes are taught at night.

Applying the pertinent canons to this teaching situation. the judge would be teaching a class concerning the law and the legal system as permitted by Canon 4.

Inasmuch as the class is taught at night, there is no indication that teaching would interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties. Furthermore, because the subject matter of the course covers only general law topics and not current cases or issues before the court, it is unlikely that doubt would be cast on the judge's capacity to decide impartially any issue that may be involved in matters before the court.

Since the judge will simply be offering a series of lectures and not further interacting with the students nor evaluating their performance, no relationship should be created with the students that would convey the impression that the students are in a special position of influence with the judge. Although a few of the students may eventually become peace officers, it is a remote possibility that they would appear in this judge's court and, even if that were the case, there is no indication that the judge's participation in their basic training would place them in a special position of influence with him. Accordingly, Canon 2 does not prohibit the teaching of the course either.

The Interim Advisory Committee on Judicial Activities has permitted judges to teach such courses on several occasions. In Advisory Opinion No. 1, the committee approved of a judge teaching part-time as a special lecturer in law at a university law school for compensation. The committee commented that "limited work of this kind, to a judge so disposed, can be a source of refreshment and perspective. "

Again in Advisory Opinion No. 7, the committee approved of a judge's participating as a faculty member of the National College of State Trial Judges. That judge received no compensation,but was reimbursed for his travel and other expenses.

Advisory Opinion No. 79 discussed the use of chambers, resources, and staff for activities permitted by Canon 4. In that opinion, the committee noted that teaching provides "intellectual enrichment for the judge, [is] an important source of improvement for the justice system, and [is] fully consistent with the public's perception of the appropriate role for judges in our society. "

The committee further stated that receiving compensation for teaching is also appropriate but that care must be taken to avoid the fact or the appearance that such outside undertakings interfere with the prompt performance of judicial duties or exploit the judicial office. Part-time teaching at law schools or other educational institutions generally does not involve these dangers, according to the committee.

The use of the facilities and staff in a judge's chambers for the research or preparation of the teaching materials is another consideration. Where, as is the case here, the judge is being compensated for the teaching position, stringent limits on such use apply because of the danger that a judicial position will be or appear to be exploited for personal gain.

Canon 4D of the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a "judge should not use in any substantial degree judicial chambers, resources, or staff to engage in activities permitted by this Canon. "

Accordingly, a judge who receives compensation to teach courses may not use the facilities or personnel of the judicial chambers for such work. This prohibition, however, does not extend to insubstantial uses of chambers and facilities for the preparatory work. Advisory Opinion No. 79 explains "Insubstantial or occasional uses of resources are permissible provided the judge does not take for personal use assets or services otherwise available only at significant cost, or interfere with the discharge of official duties." For example, Canon 4 would not prohibit the judge from using a court library for compensated research at a time that does not interfere with the prompt performance of judicial duties. The Canon would, however, prohibit the use of a government-supplied computer research service that would not be available elsewhere except at substantial expense. Although Utah did not adopt Canon 4D, the Utah Code of Judicial Conduct also prohibits a judge from engaging in financial dealings that tend to exploit the judicial position. Canon 5C(l). As explained in Advisory Opinion No. 79, use of the judge's chambers and personnel would exploit or give the appearance of exploiting the judicial position.

PEACE OFFICERS TRAINING
The second course the judge is considering teaching involves instructing peace officers for the State Division of Peace Officers Standards and Training on recent state and national criminal law decisions. One class would be taught in a geographic area outside of the judge's judicial district. The other class would be taught to peace officers from throughout the state. Because of the location of the first class outside of the judge's judicial district, the peace officers attending that course would not appear in the judge's court. The officers attending the second course would possibly appear before the judge. According to the judge, however, there is no substantial likelihood that they would appear because of the large number of officers in the state, the relatively few officers who will attend the class, the number of judges in this judge's judicial district, and the relatively few times that peace officers actually testify in court.

This committee has previously considered the propriety of instructing peace officers in Informal Opinion No. 88-5, September 15, 1988. In that opinion, the judge wanted to teach a course on the Utah Code and proper courtroom demeanor and testimony to peace officers. In holding that teaching such a course was prohibited, this committee relied on three factors. First, the judge was not teaching a course that would be attended by representatives from all components of the criminal justice system, instead the course was to be attended by peace officers only. It was accordingly not devoted to the improvement of the legal system overall, but was intended to serve the needs of peace officers. The committee felt that teaching such a course may create the appearance of impropriety when peace officers appear in the judge's court.

Second, this committee noted that the judge's district was rural and the course was being taught in this same rural area. The opinion pointed out that due to the small geographic area involved, the judge was likely to come in contact with these same officers on a regular basis in the courtroom.

The final area of concern was the subject matter of the course. The judge would essentially be instructing officers on how to appear in court and convince the judge that they are correct. The committee found that this could create the impression that the officers are in a special position of influence with the judge.

Applying these factors to the teaching request under consideration, it is true that the judge would still be teaching a course attended by peace officers only and not one devoted to the general improvement of the legal system. However, the concern expressed that teaching such a limited course may create the appearance of impropriety when peace officers appear in the judge's court is not a factor where, as here, such contact in the courtroom is extremely unlikely.

Similarly, here, the judge is not working and teaching in a small rural community where he or she is likely to come in contact with these same officers on a regular basis in the courtroom. Rather, the judge is teaching one course completely outside of the applicable judicial district. The second course, although within the judicial district, would still not be likely to produce courtroom contact between the judge and the students for the reasons mentioned previously.

Finally, the subject matter of the courses under consideration here, are of a much more general nature and would not involve the judge instructing peace officers on how to appear in court. This opinion request involves substantially different facts than those presented in Informal Opinion No. 88-5. Under the circumstances presented here, it would not be improper for the judge to teach the proposed courses. However, the same prohibition against the use of judicial resources and personnel to prepare for the courses would apply, since the judge is being separately compensated.

COMPENSATION
Compensation for the courses is governed by Canon 5C which provides that a judge should refrain from financial dealings "that tend to reflect adversely on impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties, exploit the judicial position, or involve the judge in frequent transactions with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court on which the judge serves." Canon 6 however, permits a judge to receive compensation and reimbursement of expenses for the quasi-judicial and extra-judicial activities permitted by the Code, so long as the source of the payments does not give the appearance of influencing the judge in the performance of judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety.

Here, the judge will receive payment from the community college where the first course is held; and from the State Division of Finance on behalf of the government agency sponsoring the training sessions. In neither case would the Judge's receipt of compensation reflect adversely on his or her impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties, exploit the judicial position, or involve the judge in frequent transactions with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court on which the judge serves, as proscribed by Canon 5C. Similarly, the source of the payments does not give the appearance of influencing the judge in the performance of judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety, as discussed in Canon 6.

Accordingly, there is no ethical impropriety in the judge receiving compensation for teaching the courses outlined in this opinion.

CONCLUSION
Given the language contained in the Code of Judicial Conduct and the specific fact situation presented, it is the committee's opinion that a judge may teach and be compensated for teaching a community college class involving various laws associated with law enforcement. Furthermore, the judge may instruct peace officers on recent state and national criminal law decisions. In both instances, however, since the judge will be separately compensated for teaching, the judge must avoid the use of judicial resources and personnel in preparing and teaching these courses.