A judge whose wife works at a law firm may not drive a car that has the firm’s logo affixed to the side, nor may he park the vehicle in front of his home, the state’s judicial ethics panel advised last week.

The judge may, however, ride as a passenger “occasionally,” the panel added.

The Colorado Judicial Ethics Advisory Board, which consists of judges, lawyers and a non-attorney, cited multiple reasons why the judge’s affiliation with the promotional vehicle would be problematic, including the perception that the specific law firm is in a position to influence the judge.

“Thus, although a judge may minimize the risk of showing any actual partiality in favor of his spouse’s employer by recusing from all cases that involve the firm, the judge driving a vehicle prominently displaying advertising for the law firm could, in the mind of a reasonable person, create an appearance of partiality,” the panel wrote in its April 17 opinion.

An unidentified judge asked the advisory board for guidance about the implications of a potential vehicle purchase. His wife’s employer pays a stipend for automobile expenses if she drives a black car, under five years old, that displays the law firm’s logo on the side. The judge and his wife are considering buying a car that meets those criteria, but he wanted to know if the Code of Judicial Conduct permits him to drive the car, park it in front of his home or even ride as a passenger.

The ethics panel advised that even if the judge were not handling cases litigated by his wife’s law firm, a judge may not “convey or permit others to convey” the impression that someone is in a position of influence over them.

“Even if the risk is subtle, a judge should avoid giving such an impression,” the advisory board wrote.

It cited a 2005 opinion that held a judge could not even drive a car with a bumper sticker for their spouse’s political campaign. While slightly different than the promotional vehicle scenario, the underlying principle is “judges cannot use the prestige of their office to promote the economic interests of themselves or others,” the panel wrote.

In that same 2005 opinion, the advisory board also gave the thumbs-down to a judge placing a campaign sign for their spouse on “jointly owned” property. 

“In our view, allowing a vehicle to be parked in front of the judge’s home when the vehicle is prominently marked with the logo of a law firm is akin to allowing a spouse to post a political yard sign on property jointly owned by the judge,” the panel wrote in its latest opinion. “Such an action risks the perception that the judge is improperly using the prestige of the judicial office to benefit another entity and creates an appearance of partiality and a possible perception that the law firm is in a position to influence the judge.”

As for whether the judge could ride as a passenger in the promotional car, the ethics panel noted judges are allowed to accept benefits “incidental” to a family member’s job, like attending a work conference as their spouse’s guest. A judge riding in a promotional vehicle for their spouse’s employer would fall into that category, the ethics board concluded, so long as it happened “occasionally.”

“We caution that a judge should be careful, however, to avoid regularly riding in such a vehicle as that would risk the same appearance of partiality already discussed,” the board wrote.