Can a law firm invite local judges to a firm golf outing and pay their expenses along with clients and prospective clients?

Plain-English summary

A law firm planned a golf outing for current and prospective clients and local judges, including dinner and prizes, at an average cost above thirty dollars per person, all borne by the firm. The committee was asked whether the firm could appropriately invite judges and pay their expenses.

The committee concluded it could not. It found that the presence of local judges at a firm outing with the firm's attorneys and clients presented such an appearance of impropriety as to violate Canon 9, and that this appearance would exist regardless of whether the firm or the judges bore the cost. The committee then turned to former Rule 7-110(a), which barred a lawyer from giving or lending anything of value to a judge, official, or employee of a tribunal, except a campaign contribution. Paying the judges' expenses under these circumstances would be giving something of value within that prohibition.

The committee stressed that the rule draws no distinction based on the amount given or, outside the campaign-contribution exception, the purpose of the gift; it is designed to prevent even the possibility of undue influence. It noted its Opinion 547 from about ten years earlier, which had read Rule 7-110(a) to bar even seasonal gifts to county officials and courthouse employees.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in July 1987, under the former Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility and before Illinois adopted the 1990 (and later 2010) Rules of Professional Conduct. The ISBA Board of Governors affirmed the opinion in July 2010 as generally consistent with the 2010 Rule (Rule 8.4(f)), while cautioning that the specific standards referenced may differ from the 2010 Rules. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a firm pay for judges to attend its golf outing?

A: The opinion concluded no; bearing the judges' expenses gives a judge something of value barred by former Rule 7-110(a), and the setting creates an appearance of impropriety under Canon 9.

Q: Does it matter how small the expense is, or that there is no improper purpose?

A: No. The committee stated the rule draws no distinction based on the value given or, apart from campaign contributions, the purpose; it aims to prevent even the possibility of undue influence.

Q: Would having the judges pay their own way fix the problem?

A: Per the opinion, no; the committee found the appearance of impropriety would exist regardless of who bore the expense.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Illinois Code Rule 7-110(a) (giving anything of value to a judge) and Canon 9 (appearance of impropriety). The Board's 2010 affirmation maps the analysis to current Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(f), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 8.4(f) on knowingly assisting a judge in conduct that violates judicial rules.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Illinois Code Rule 7-110(a) (giving anything of value to a judge, applied in the opinion)
• Illinois Code Canon 9 (appearance of impropriety)
• Illinois RPC 8.4(f) (2010 equivalent per the Board's affirmation)
• MR 8.4(f) (knowingly assisting a judge in violating judicial rules)

Other opinions cited:

• ISBA Opinion 547: Rule 7-110(a) bars even seasonal gifts to county officials and courthouse employees

See also

• ISBA Ethics Op. 86-19: Judges as Bar Dinner Guests
• NY State Bar Op. 706: Law Firm Holiday Party for Judges
• NY State Bar Op. 953: Contributing to a Judge's Portrait

Source

• Landing page: https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/8618