State of Washington

Ethics Advisory Committee

Question:

May a superior court judge maintain a webpage for the purpose of allowing the public to schedule wedding ceremonies, outside of court hours, online? And may a superior court judge post their picture wearing a robe on the webpage?

The webpage provides information about the judge; lists the logistical, technical, and legal requirements of a wedding; payment requirements; and includes a scheduling tool on the bottom of the page. The scheduling tool has a calendar that lists the dates and times outside of court hours that a judge is available to perform wedding ceremonies. The webpage also provides the cost for the judge's services. Users can sign up for an available time and pay a non-refundable deposit to reserve the time slot.

Examples of other Washington judges' and courts' current webpages provided with the inquiry have similar online scheduling tools and include a variety of information, including but not limited to, an individual judge's ability to perform weddings in languages other than English, varying fee schedules depending on the time of the ceremony (e.g., weekday vs. weekend), and an individual judge's availability to "officiate LGBTQ weddings."

Answer:

I. Washington Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC) Rules

CJC 1.2 provides that a judge should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid the impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

CJC 1.3 provides that a judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so.

II. Washington Ethics Advisory Opinion 91-14

91-14 - The EAC determined that the Code of Judicial Conduct does not prohibit a court from putting a telephone listing that reads "Wedding or Marriage Information Line" in the white pages of a telephone directory, but judicial officers should avoid any appearance that the they are using the listing to solicit weddings or otherwise personally benefit from the listing. The opinion also stated that use of court personnel to assist in wedding arrangements should not interfere with the ability of court personnel to perform their official duties.

III. Whether judges may maintain webpages for the purpose of allowing the public to schedule wedding ceremonies¹

The question of whether a superior court judge may maintain a webpage for the purpose of allowing the public to schedule wedding ceremonies is a seemingly simple question. The answer, however, is anything but simple. A webpage can contain, and is likely to contain, infinitely more information than just a judge's name and dates and times of availability for the solemnization of a marriage. However, the additional information may bring an otherwise proper scheduling tool for extrajudicial services into the realm of advertising or solicitation for an extrajudicial activity, which in turn implicates concerns related to the appearance of impropriety and abuse of the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal and economic interests of the judge.²

As Ethics Advisory Opinion 91-14 stated, the CJC does not prohibit the listing of a phone number in a telephone directory. However, the opinion cautioned that the listing should avoid any appearance that the listing is being used to solicit weddings or to otherwise benefit the judge personally. The same can be said of a webpage.

CJC 1.2 provides that a judge should act all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid the impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. And CJC 1.3 provides that a judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so. With information other than a list of judges available to perform wedding ceremonies and a phone number, the webpage begins to creep into the realm of advertising and solicitation and implicates the appearance of impropriety and an abuse of the prestige of judicial office to advance the economic interest of the judge.

"Advertising" is defined as the "action of drawing the public's attention to something to promote its sale." Black's Law Dictionary (11th Ed.). "Solicitation" is defined as the "act or instance of requesting or seeking to obtain something." Black's Law Dictionary (11th Ed.). The specific webpage presented to the EAC with the inquiry seems to fit within these definitions. The webpage featuring an individual judge draws the public's attention to that particular judge, promotes that individual judge's availability to perform wedding ceremonies, and seeks the public's use of the judge's service. The webpage does this by providing access just for the particular individual judge, as opposed to any other judge that may be available to perform wedding ceremonies. Clearly, the webpage involves a "sale" because the webpage requires a non-refundable down payment to reserve a date and time for the judge to perform a wedding ceremony. Even without the non-refundable deposit feature, the webpage promotes a sale of the individual judge's services as an extrajudicial activity because a fee is charged for performing a wedding ceremony.

A similar conclusion is reached with regard to many of the examples of court webpages provided with the inquiry. Those examples highlight the special services the individual judge provides (e.g., providing wedding ceremonies in languages other than English and availability to "officiate LGBTQ weddings"). While the additional information can be considered as simply information on the court's website, it may also serve the purpose of drawing the public's attention to the uniqueness of the individual judge to promote the sale of that judge's service of performing a wedding ceremony for a fee.

The webpages provided to the EAC also gives the appearance of impropriety and appears to abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the economic interests of the judge because none inform the public that the judges may be available to perform wedding ceremonies during court hours or that there is no fee for wedding ceremonies performed during court hours. See Ethics Advisory Opinions 90-05 and 94-11.

A directory of judges who are authorized to perform wedding ceremonies on a court website is similar to the listing in the white pages of a telephone directory. However, as EAO 91-14 stated, and CJC 1.2 and 1.3 direct, the appearance of impropriety through solicitation must be avoided. Accordingly, a listing of general services offered not tied to any specific judicial officer is acceptable, as is listing of all judges authorized to perform weddings with their phone numbers is allowed. Webpages that go beyond listing the name of the judges authorized to perform wedding ceremonies and a phone number, or providing general information about the wedding services offered by judicial officers in general, gives the appearance of impropriety and abuses the prestige of judicial office to advance the economic interest of the judge.

IV. Whether a superior court judge can post their picture wearing a robe on the webpage.

CJC 3.11 comment [1] cautions that it is improper for a judge to appear in judicial robes in business advertising. Based on this comment and the analysis above, a judge may wear a robe when pictured on their court's webpage displaying information about judges in their official court capacity; however, a judge may not wear a robe on a webpage not affiliated with the court which promotes the judge's information in order to profit from an extrajudicial activity. This distinction helps to ensure that the purpose for providing the judge's information is consistent with the judge's official duties rather than making extrajudicial or personal use of court resources and using the prestige of office to advance the economic interest of the judge.

¹  The question posed to the EAC pertains only to webpages maintained by judges, not webpages maintained by the courts. However, as acknowledged in Ethics Advisory Opinion 91-14, judicial officers need to be cognizant that information provided by courts may have CJC implications.

²  Although the question posed references a superior court judge, the EAC notes that judges from courts of limited jurisdiction are expressly prohibited from advertising in any manner that he or she is authorized to solemnize marriages and makes the violation of that prohibition a basis for forfeiture of office. RCW 3.66.110.

Opinion 20-01

01/27/2020