At issue are four donations made between May 27, 2004 and May 18, 2005, via check drawn on the business account of Durkin & Boggia of Ridgefield Park, where Boggia and Martin Durkin are the sole partners. Two $500 checks and one for $600 were made out to the Edgewater Democratic Campaign Fund, while another $600 went to the Bergen County Democratic Organization. * * * *
The ACJC charges Boggia violated Canon 7A(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which bars political contribution by judges, Rule 2:15-8(a)(5), which prohibits judges from "engaging in partisan politics" and Rule 2:15-8(a)(6), which prohibits judicial conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that beings the judicial office into disrepute.
* * * * While recognizing that Boggia, like most municipal judges, is part-time and also practices law, the ACJC said he is subject to the same absolute proscription from politics as a full-time judge. The committee disagreed that Durkin's First Amendment rights were implicated, saying Durkin was free to contribute, though not from the firm account, and whatever burdens that imposed on him were a "necessary consequence of a private law partnership with a part-time municipal court judge."This case raises many interesting questions. Under most pay to play rules and ELEC regulations, partnership contributions are attributable to each partner, depending on the corporate form and ownership interests. Individual contributions by such partners could also implicate the firm if the individual partners have an equity stake. Seemingly here, the ACJC would allow a law partner of a judge to contribute from his own checking account, but not the firm's business account. Is there really any difference with respect to addressing the ACJC's concerns? After all, contributions reported from an individual partner's checking account will still be linked to the law firm's name via their requisite employer reporting information and Business Entity Annual Disclosure Statements if they do public work; therefore, creating the same perception of political engagement by the firm. While it would be uncommon, what if the judge was an employee or associate of the firm with no equity interest?
