Can a former judge who now practices law use the title 'Judge' on his company's letterhead?

Plain-English summary

A practicing lawyer had served as a judge for about four months roughly nine years earlier and was commonly known in the community as "Judge." He practiced law and separately ran a company in financial matters as its president and board chairman. He asked (1) whether the separate business's letterhead could refer to him as "Judge" and (2) whether he had to forbid the business's employees from using the title when addressing outside persons.

The committee answered the first question "no" and the second "yes." Prior committee opinions had established that a practicing lawyer's use of the title "Judge" may be improperly self-laudatory under DR 2-101, and the committee read that rule's prohibitions on self-laudatory public communication to reach indirectly what a lawyer cannot do directly, so the title could not appear on the letterhead of a business dealing with the public of which the lawyer is chief executive. On the second question, following Opinions 73-27 and 70-63 [since withdrawn], the committee said the employees should be instructed to avoid using the title with outside persons, but may still address the lawyer himself as "Judge" if the title has in general usage become attached to him as part of his name. In cases of doubt, such as addressing an outsider and the lawyer at the same time, the doubt should be resolved against using the term; and the committee allowed that the title might still be used in the specific instance of correcting confusion with a same-named relative and business associate.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1977, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied the former Code of Professional Responsibility, which has since been replaced. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current Rules 4-7.13 and 4-7.21 before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a former judge who practices law put "Judge" on his business letterhead?

A: The opinion concluded he may not, reading DR 2-101's bar on self-laudatory public communication to cover letterhead of a business he heads that deals with the public.

Q: Can the lawyer's employees call him "Judge" in dealings with outsiders?

A: Per the opinion, the employees should be instructed to avoid using the title when communicating with outside persons; doubts should be resolved against using it.

Q: Can anyone still call him "Judge"?

A: The opinion allowed that employees may address the lawyer himself as "Judge" if the title has become attached to him personally, and that the title may be used to correct confusion with a same-named relative and business associate.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied DR 2-101 of the former Code of Professional Responsibility, which barred a lawyer from professionally self-laudatory public communication or commercial publicity. That subject corresponds to Model Rule 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services) and the letterhead and professional-designation concerns of Model Rule 7.5; the current Florida counterparts are Rules 4-7.13 (deceptive or inherently misleading advertising) and 4-7.21 (firm names and letterhead).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (as cited, former Code):

• CPR DR 2-101 (self-laudatory public communication and commercial publicity)

Other opinions cited:

• Florida Bar Opinions 70-63 [since withdrawn]; 73-27; 73-31

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 76-7: Own-Name Practice, Out-of-State
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 76-34: Out-of-State Address on Letterhead
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 76-42: Letterhead After a Merger

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-75-34/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-75-34-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 75-34
March 10, 1977
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A former judge who practices law and also serves as a corporate officer may not use the title "Judge" with his name on the corporation's stationery, nor should the corporation's employees refer to him as "Judge" in communications with third persons.
Note: Judicial conduct is governed by the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Judicial Ethics Committee issues opinions interpreting this Code.
CPR: DR 2-101
Opinions: 70-63, 73-27, 73-31
Vice Chairman Lehan stated the opinion of the committee:
A practicing lawyer had been a judge for a period of four months approximately nine years ago. He advises that he is commonly known in the community as "Judge ...." He engages in the practice of law and also separately in business as the president and chairman of the board of a company involved in financial matters and having regular dealings with the public. He asks:
(1) Whether his identification on the letterhead of the separate business may properly refer to him as "Judge …."
(2) Whether he must forbid the employees of the separate business to use the title "Judge" in referring to him when addressing outside persons.
The Committee answers the first question in the negative and the second question in the affirmative.
Prior opinions of this Committee have established that use of the title "Judge" by a practicing lawyer who was formerly a judge may be improperly self-laudatory under DR 2-101. As to the first question presented by this inquiry, the prohibitions of DR 2-101 against a lawyer participating in the use of any form of public communication containing professionally self-laudatory statements and against a lawyer publicizing himself as a lawyer through any means of commercial publicity are not restricted to statements or publicity directly incident to, or referring directly to, his law practice, such as identification of a lawyer as "Judge" on his law office stationery. Those prohibitions would include participation in any form in such statements or publicity which would be construed as professionally self-laudatory. A lawyer should not do, or permit others over whom he has control to do, indirectly what he cannot do directly under the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, those prohibitions would preclude identification of a practicing lawyer as "Judge ..." on the letterhead of a business which deals with the public and of which he is chief executive officer. See Opinions 70-63 [since withdrawn], 73-27, and 73-31.
As to the second question, Opinions 73-27 and 70-63 [since withdrawn] state that a former judge engaged in the practice of law should instruct his office staff to refrain from affirmatively placing third persons in an embarrassing position of dealing with "Judge ...." Opinion 70-63 [since withdrawn] also states that he should not be required to forbid his staff or others from addressing him as "Judge ..." if the title has become attached to the particular man, rather than the judicial office.
The Committee adheres to those former opinions and feels that under the circumstances of this inquiry there should be no valid distinction between the employees in question being those employed by a separate business of which the practicing lawyer is chief executive officer (as in this inquiry) or those employed by the lawyer's law office (as in the circumstances surrounding the former opinions; the instant inquiry does not refer to employees of the inquiring attorney's law office). Accordingly, the employees of the separate business referred to in this inquiry should be instructed to avoid using the title "Judge ..." in referring to the lawyer when communicating with outside persons. But such employees may address the lawyer himself as "Judge" if the title has in general usage become attached to him as part of his commonly understood name.
In any case of doubt, for example, where such employees are addressing both outside persons and the lawyer at the same time in the presence of both, the doubt should be resolved against use of the term "judge" with reference to the lawyer in question.
An additional aspect of this inquiry with regard to question (2) above is that the use of the title "Judge ..." may reduce confusion with the identity of a relative and business associate of the same name. The Committee does not feel that the possibility of such confusion would justify departing from the foregoing opinion of the Committee as to that question, especially in written correspondence and in answering the telephone. However, in specific cases of such confusion the Committee recognizes that it may be necessary to use "Judge ..." as a method of correcting the confusion.