A part-time county court judge can also work a second job as a prosecutor outside of his jurisdiction, the Colorado Supreme Court’s ethics panel concluded last week.

The Colorado Judicial Ethics Advisory Board, which consists of lawyers, judges and non-attorneys, responded to a question from an unnamed judge who realized the prosecutor appearing in front of them was a part-time county court judge in a neighboring judicial district.

The judge who submitted the question elaborated that county court judges are able to send messages to their counterparts across the entire state to ask for feedback. The judge was concerned the part-time prosecutor, part-time judge would see messages about his current case or his district attorney’s office and receive information he was not normally entitled to.

“Defense counsel in the case is concerned about the part-time prosecutor’s ability to access private or advantageous information relating to the matter as well as the appearance of impropriety given the access to such nonpublic information,” the ethics panel summarized in its July 25 opinion.

The panel noted the Code of Judicial Conduct precludes part-time judges from practicing law in the same jurisdiction where they preside. Other states have similar provisions in their judicial codes.

“The prohibition does not extend to other judicial districts – only the judicial district on which the judge serves,” the advisory board wrote. “Based on the language of the Code, the part-time judge may serve as a part-time prosecutor in a different judicial district.”

The panel explained the prohibition’s purpose is to avoid the appearance that a judge is receiving “preferential treatment” when they appear as an attorney in front of their colleagues.

“The concern with preferential treatment given to judges appearing as attorneys in the same judicial district does not exist when a judge serves in one district and appears as an attorney in another,” the opinion concluded.

The panel added that the part-time prosecutor, part-time judge may not use any information for his personal gain that is “unavailable to the public,” which he acquired through his status as a judge.

Anne K. Woods, a former La Plata County Court judge, was skeptical of the advisory board’s reasoning. She worried about the decreased confidence the public might have in the judiciary if some judges simultaneously took on advocacy roles. Woods pointed out that judges are often held in “special stature,” and their status is not erased when a judge steps off the bench.

“The practice also too easily lends itself to actual impropriety and to abuse of the prestige of judicial office. What happens when, during aggressive negotiations in a case, the lawyer blurts out, ‘You shouldn’t talk to a judge like that?'” Woods wondered. “It doesn’t matter that the lawyer is a judge in a different place in the state.”

Tom Raynes, executive director of the Colorado District Attorneys’ Council, told Colorado Politics he was unaware of the advisory opinion, but found it to be “well reasoned and practical.”

“It is also clear and appropriate that the analysis would apply to any part-time judge acting as a defense attorney or as a part-time public defender in another jurisdiction,” he said.

The Colorado Criminal Defense Bar and the union representing public defenders did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated with additional commentary.