Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1978 )

The Attorney General of Texas March 26, 1976 JOHN L. HILL Attorney General Honorable Henry Wade Opinion No. II- 114 5 Criminal District Attorney Dallas County Re: Compensation of former district Dallas, Texas 75202 judges who are assigned to hear cases. Dear Mr. Wade: You have requested our opinion regarding the manner of compensation of a former district judge who is assigned to hear cases. Prior to 1977, section 5a of article 200a, V.T.C.S., provided for the special assignment of retired district judges. The 65th Legislature added to the group available for assignment former district judges not yet retired, provided they meet certain requirements. You first inquire about the status of a former district judge who meets the tenure requirements for retirement but has not yet reached retirement age. For purposes of article 200a, a “retired district judge” is one who has retired pursuant to article 62284 V.T.C.S. If a former district judge is not fully eligible for retirement under the terms of that statute, he is clearly not a “retired district judge.” So long as he fulfills the other requirements of section 5a of article 200a, we believe that such an individual occupies the status of “former district judge.” -See Attorney General Opinion H-1021 (1977). You next ask what amount of compensation is to be paid by the state and what amount is to be paid by a county when a former district judge is assigned to a district court in that county. Article 200a provides: On certification of the presiding judge of the adminis- trative judicial district that a former district judge has rendered services under the provisions of this Act, the former district judge shall be paid, out of county funds and out of money appropriated by the legislature for such purpose, for services actually performed, the same amount of compensation, salary, and expenses p. 4653 . Honorable Henry Wade - Page 3 (H-1145) we do not believe that such a result can reasonably be harmonized with the language of article 2OOa, which clearly contemplates that the state and county will share this burden. Accordingly, it Is our view that a county is not required to assume the full expense of a former district judge’s salary when state funds appropriated for that purpose have been depleted. SUMMARY A person who meets the tenure requirements for retirement but has not yet reached retirement age is a “former district judge” rather than a “retired district judge” for purposes of article 200a, V.T.C.S. ‘Ihe respective contributions of the state and county to the salary of a former district judge serving on special assignment should be in the same proportion as In the case of a regular judge. A county is not required to assume the full burden of the salary of a former district judge serving on special assignment when state funds appropriated for that putpose have been depleted. ,,,,?&ZF&. JOHN L. HILL APPROVED: C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee p. 4655