Can a former judge running for office reference their prior judicial service in campaign materials?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether lawyers who run for public office may use information about their prior judicial service in their campaigns. It concludes that an attorney who is a former judge may do so where the campaign materials list the candidate only as a "former" judicial officer and identify the specific position along with the length and location of the service.

The opinion notes the question is not answered by a single provision of the Model Rules, the Alaska Rules, or the Code of Judicial Conduct, so it draws on the rules governing communications about a lawyer's services and letterhead (Rules 7.1 and 7.5) and, by analogy, the judicial-conduct principle against the appearance of impropriety (Canon 2). Rule 7.1 bars false or misleading communications, including those creating an unjustified expectation of results, and Rule 7.5 prohibits letterhead that violates Rule 7.1. The Committee reasons that a candidate may include readily verifiable but circumscribed information: that he or she is a "former" judge, and the specific court, length, and location of the service.

The opinion distinguishes a former judge campaigning who calls himself a "former ___ court judge" from a lawyer in private practice who calls himself "Judge ___." The latter raises a Rule 7.1 problem because it may create an expectation of results a non-former-judge cannot achieve, or a false impression about professional status and access to judicial decision-making. The opinion cites authority on both sides about retaining judicial titles in private practice. It cautions that "former judge" carries definite status implications and could be misleading without the position, length, and location limitations.

In practice

Under this opinion, as the Alaska rules stood at the time, a lawyer who is a former judge and is campaigning for public office may reference prior judicial service in campaign materials only by stating they are a "former" judicial officer and identifying the specific court, the length, and the location of the service. The opinion treats an unqualified "Judge ___" reference, or one omitting those limits, as potentially misleading under Rule 7.1 (and Rule 7.5 for letterhead). It frames the permitted information as readily verifiable and circumscribed.

Common questions

Q: Can a former judge mention their judgeship while running for office?

A: Yes, in a limited way. The opinion concludes a former judge may reference the service if the materials say "former" judge and give the specific position, length, and location.

Q: Can the candidate just call themselves "Judge"?

A: No. The opinion distinguishes a private-practice lawyer calling himself "Judge ___," which it treats as raising a Rule 7.1 problem of unjustified expectations or a false impression of status.

Q: Why must the position, length, and location be included?

A: The opinion reasons that "former judge" has definite status implications and could be misleading without that readily verifiable, circumscribed detail.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1 (false or misleading communications, analog of Model Rule 7.1) and 7.5 (letterhead, Model Rule 7.5), informed by the appearance-of-impropriety principle in Canon 2 of the Alaska Code of Judicial Conduct. It draws on ABA Formal Opinion 95-391 and opinions from several states on the use of judicial titles.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Alaska RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications)
• Alaska RPC 7.5 (letterhead)

Codes:

• Alaska Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2 (appearance of impropriety)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Op. 95-391; NJ Eth. Op. 698; MI Eth. Op. RI-327; PA, IL, OH, FL, and NY opinions on judicial titles

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 95-391: Former Judge Using the Title "Judge"
• AL Bar Op. 1994-12: Letterhead and Business Cards

Source

• Landing page: https://alaskabar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/adopted-ethics-opinions-chronological/
• Original PDF: https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2006-4.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

ALASKA BAR ASSOCIATION
ETHICS OPINION NO. 2006-4
Use of Information Relating to Prior Judicial Service
by Lawyers Who Campaign for Elected Office1
Question Presented
May lawyers who run for public office use information relating to their
prior judicial service in their campaigns?
The Committee concludes that an attorney who runs for public office
may use information indicating prior judicial service where the campaign
information (e.g., campaign flier or mailing) only lists the candidate as having
been a “former” judicial officer, and identifies the specific position along with
the length and location of such service.
Analysis
The issue cannot be addressed solely by reference to a specific provision
either in the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct,
the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct, or by way of analogy, the Alaska
Code of Judicial Conduct. The Committee therefore has based its conclusion
on those rules of professional conduct that set forth the guidelines for
communications concerning a lawyer’s services and letterheads, and the rules
of judicial conduct concerning the appearance of impropriety.2
Both the Model Rule and Alaska Rule 7.1 provide in pertinent part that
“[a] lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the
lawyer or the lawyer’s services” if it “is likely to create an unjustified
expectation about results the lawyer can achieve, or states or implies that the
lawyer can achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional
Conduct or other law.”3 Correspondingly, both Model Rule and Alaska Rule 7.5
prohibit the use of letterhead that violates Rule 7.1.4
Canon 2 of the Alaska Code of Judicial Conduct, similar to its ABA
counterpart, further provides that a judge “shall” avoid the “appearance of
1
It is assumed for purposes of this opinion that the lawyer is a former judge. See
Alaska Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5(d)(2) (“A judge shall resign upon becoming a
candidate in either a primary or general election for any non-judicial office except the office of
delegate to a state or federal constitutional convention.”)
2
Cf. ABA Comm. On Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Op. 95-391
(1995).
3
See MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 7.1(b) (5th ed. 2003); Alaska R. Prof. C.
7.1(b).
4
See MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 7.5 (5th ed. 2003); Alaska R. Prof. C. 7.5.

1

impropriety,” “act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity
and the impartiality of the judiciary,” and “shall not use or lend the prestige of
judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge.”5
Reasonably construed, these specific rules and codes of conduct indicate
that an attorney may include readily verifiable – albeit circumscribed –
information in a campaign flier or mailing. In other words, the lawyer can
indicate in the advertisement only that he or she is a “former” judge and
identify only the specific court along with the length and location of such
service.6
A lawyer campaigning for elected office who refers to himself or herself
either as a “former __ court judge” is distinct from the situation where a
lawyer in private practice refers to himself or herself as “Judge” ___.7 That is
because the latter reference raises an issue under Rule 7.1 as to whether the
lawyer either is (1) creating an expectation that he or she can achieve results
that a lawyer who is not a former judge cannot or (2) improperly creating a
false impression as to his or her professional status and access to the judicial
decision-making process.8
See MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT Canon 2 (1990); Alaska Code of Judicial
Conduct Canon 2 (1998). A false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the
lawyer’s services within this context also can be made through a visual statement such as a
photograph depicting the lawyer wearing a judicial robe as symbolic of his or her former
position. Compare ABA Comm. On Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Informal Op. C-719
(1964) (explaining that paid political advertisement picturing judge in judicial robes and
simultaneously advertising judicial position along with endorsement of another candidate for
judicial office violates canons of judicial ethics) with ABA Comm. On Ethics and Professional
Responsibility, Informal Op. 1450 (1980) (stating no violation of code of judicial conduct when
incumbent judge, in re-election campaign, allows use of photograph (including televised
photograph) of him- or herself where judicial robe, “if the photograph is otherwise proper and if
he [or she] normally wears the robe in the performance of his [or her] judicial duties”).
6
Cf. NJ Eth. Op. 698 at 2 (2005) (indicating that mailing describing sender as
“former Municipal Court Judge” is permissible only if attorney includes the years and
location(s) of service in advertisement).
7
See, e.g., MI Eth. Op. RI-327 (2001) (stating that former judge may not ethically
retain the title “Honorable” after entering private practice);
8
Id. See also PA Eth. Inf. Op. 99-156 (1999) (explaining that lawyer in private
practice referring to himself or herself as “Judge” improper under Rule 7.1(a) but that
designation of law firm member as “Former Judge” on letterhead does not create problem
where information is capable of verification); IL Adv. Op. 92-10 (1993) (discussing use of title
“Judge” in professional and personal relationships by former judge who is now a practicing
attorney); OH Adv. Op. 93-8 at 3 (1993) (explaining that it is unethical under Ohio code of
professional responsibility for former judge returning to private law practice to uses statements
as to prior judicial positions held or titles such as “Judge,” “Honorable,” or “Former Judge,” on
letterheads or business cards in connection with the practice of law); FL Eth. Op. 87-8 (1987)
(concluding that it would not be ethically improper for former chief justice of Florida Supreme
Court to identify himself as such below his signature on letters to attorneys and other
professionals regarding matters unrelated to the practice of law). But see NY Eth. Op. 637
(1992) (concluding that nothing in New York Code of Professional Responsibility as amended
prohibits listing lawyer’s prior judicial office, “on a letterhead or elsewhere, in a truthful and
5

2

Nevertheless, the Committee cautions that use of the phrase “former
judge” in the context of campaigning for public office “has definite status
implications in our society,” and could be misleading without the additional
limitations set forth previously.9
2006.

Approved by the Alaska Bar Association Ethics Committee on October 5,
Adopted by the Board of Governors on October 27, 2006.

G:\Ds\COMM\ETHICS\OPINIONS\2006-4.doc

non-misleading manner,” and overruling prior New York State Bar Association professional
ethics committee’s opinions to the contrary).
9
See note 2; note 7 at *2; IL Adv. Op. 92-10, OH Adv. Op. 93-8, and FL Eth. Op.
87-8, note 8, supra.

3