State of Washington

Ethics Advisory Committee

Questions

1. May a judicial officer belong to a national judges’ organization composed of judicial officers when the national judges’ organization funds part of its annual meeting’s social events with unsolicited monetary contributions from a legal publisher who profits from court-generated opinions and rules? May a judicial officer belong to the organization and attend the educational programs but not the social events of the annual meeting when the judges’ organization funds part of the social events with unsolicited monetary contributions from the legal publisher?

2. Do the answers to the questions above change if retired judicial officers solicit monetary or other contributions?

3. Based on questions 1 and 2, would it suffice for the judicial officer to attend the social events and report the individual value of the social event on the judicial officer’s public disclosure statement as judicial officers do for locally sponsored organization events such as recognition lunches or dinners?

4. May a judicial officer attend a national judges’ organization annual meeting social event where the event is sponsored by: (1) a law firm whose members practice in the judicial officer’s court; (2) a law firm whose members will never practice in the judicial officer’s court because they practice in a different state; (3) a vendor that may contract to provide a product or service to the judicial officer’s court; or (4) any entity likely to have cases in the judicial officer’s court?

5. Based on question 4, would it suffice for the judicial officer to attend the social events and report the individual value of the social event on the judicial officer’s public disclosure statement as judicial officers do for locally sponsored organization events such as recognition lunches or dinners?

6. Does written or verbal recognition of any sponsorship by a donor¹ at a national judges’ meeting or social event require that a judicial officer not attend the meeting or event?

7. Does participation by the donor in the annual meeting or social event require that the judicial officer not attend the meeting or event?

8. Does the fact that the judicial officer’s statewide court system is contemporaneously negotiating with a donating national legal publisher for a contract affect the propriety of (1) the judicial officer’s attendance at a social event sponsored in part by the publisher or (2) membership in the national judges’ organization?

9. Does the fact that the judicial officer’s statewide court system has already contracted with a donating national legal publisher affect the propriety of the judicial officer’s attendance at a social event sponsored in part by the publisher or affect the propriety of membership in the national judges’ organization?

10. How do any answers to the above change if any unsolicited contributions are made to the National Center for State Courts which then allocates funds to national judges’ organizations?

Answer

CJC Canon 2(A) provides in part that judges should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Canon 2(B) provides in part that judges should not convey or permit others to convey the impression they are in a special position to influence them. Canon 4 provides that judges may engage in quasi-judicial activities, if in doing so they do not cast doubt on their capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before them. Canon 4(C) provides in part that judges may serve as members of an organization devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system and the administration of justice and they may assist an organization in fund raising and may participate in the management and investment, but they should not personally solicit contributions from the public.

Based on the provisions of the Code cited above, the responses to the questions submitted are:

1. A judge may belong to a national judges’ organization composed of judicial officers when the national judges’ organization funds part of its annual meeting’s social events with unsolicited monetary contributions from a legal publisher who profits from court-generated opinions and rules provided the contribution is not disclosed to the judges or publicly acknowledged in program materials. A judicial officer may belong to the organization and attend the educational programs but not the social programs of the annual meeting when the social events are funded by contributions from a legal publisher if the contribution is disclosed to the judge or publicly acknowledged in program materials.

2. The answers to question 1 do not change if retired judges solicit monetary or other contributions because the ethics concerns are not rooted in who makes the solicitation. Those arise if the vendor’s contribution is revealed to the judicial officers or is publicly acknowledged in a program because it undermines the public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary by creating an appearance of partiality toward the vendor or by lending the prestige of the office to advance the interests of the vendor.

3. The fact that the judicial officer reports the value of the social event on a public disclosure statement may be a sufficient disclosure if the amount of the value of the event is not significant and the sponsorship of the event was not recognized in a way that would lend the prestige of the office in a way that benefited the vendor or would cause the judicial officer’s impartiality to be called into question.

4. A judicial officer may attend a national judges’ organization annual meeting social event sponsored by a law firm whose members practice in the judicial officer’s court if the value of the social event is not significant and if the sponsorship is not acknowledged in a way that would lend the prestige of the judicial office in a way that benefited the law firm or would call the judicial officer’s impartiality into question.

5. If the requirements set forth in answer 4 are not met, reporting the attendance at the event and the value of it do not mitigate the impropriety of attending the event.

6. Recognition of the conference/social event donor does affect the propriety of attending the event if the donor’s sponsorship casts doubt on a judicial officer’s capacity to decide any issue that may come before them or would permit others to convey the impression they are in a special position to influence the judges attending the event. The judicial officer should be aware of how the recognition will be handled and make sure that it does not convey the impression that the judicial officer is lending the prestige of the office to advance the private interests of the contributors.

7. Participation by the donor in the conference or social event affects the propriety of attending the event because it conveys the impression they are in a special position to influence the judges attending the event.

8. A judicial officer, whose court is contemporaneously negotiating with the vendor for a contract, should not attend an event if the judicial officer is aware that the vendor is a significant contributor to the event because it creates an appearance of a conflict of interest and undermines the public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. These same circumstances may affect the propriety of belonging to the organization and should be examined by the judicial officer to determine if the membership creates the appearance of partiality or undermines the public confidence in the judiciary.

9. A judicial officer, who serves in a jurisdiction with statewide court system has already contracted with the donating national legal publisher, may belong to a national judges’ association or attend a social event sponsored in part by the legal publisher provided the conditions set forth Answer # 3 are met.

10. The fact that the contributions are made to the National Center for State Courts instead of directly to the national judges’ association does not change the answers to these questions because the concern is not to whom the contribution is made but rather the impact the contribution has on the public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.

Also see Opinions 07-04 and 08-07.

Opinion 08-08

09/30/2008