Ezel / Ethics Opinions / ISBA
ISBA June 1, 1987

Can a bar association pay the expenses of sitting judges who attend its luncheons and annual dinner as invited guests?

Short answer: The opinion concluded yes; a bar association may bear the cost of having judges attend its functions as guests, because open exchanges between an organized bar and the judiciary do not raise the undue-influence concern that private outings do.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1987. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1987
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A bar association held monthly luncheon meetings with educational programs and an annual dinner, inviting sitting judges as free guests. The committee was asked whether the association could appropriately bear the expense of having judges attend its functions.

The committee distinguished its companion Opinion 86-18, which read former Rule 7-110(a) and Canon 9 to bar a law firm from hosting judges at a firm outing because the rule was meant to prevent even the possibility of undue influence. By contrast, the committee did not read Rule 7-110(a) to bar an established bar association from having judges attend its functions or from bearing their expenses. It pointed to its earlier Opinion 548, which had permitted an organized bar to sponsor functions with judges as guests at no cost, and found that rationale still sound. The presence of judges at bar gatherings open to all members, the committee reasoned, does not create the undue-influence possibility present in private golf outings or boat rides.

The committee added that contact between the organized bar and the judiciary should be encouraged, while echoing Opinion 548's caution that such activities avoid the appearance of impropriety even as bar associations have grown more diverse in orientation. It acknowledged that bar associations in Michigan, Kansas, Oregon, and Alabama had reached the opposite conclusion, and noted that under Canon 5(c)(4)(a) of the Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct, effective January 1, 1987, a judge may accept an invitation to a bar function devoted to improving the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in June 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)), referencing also Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 65(c)(4), 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: May a bar association pay for sitting judges to attend its events?

A: The opinion concluded yes; a bar association may bear the expense of judges attending its functions as guests, because open bar gatherings do not raise the undue-influence concern targeted by former Rule 7-110(a).

Q: Why is this different from a law firm hosting judges?

A: Per the companion Opinion 86-18, a private firm outing with judges raised the possibility of undue influence; the committee found that concern absent at a bar association function open to all members.

Q: Did the committee acknowledge contrary views?

A: Yes. It noted that bar authorities in Michigan, Kansas, Oregon, and Alabama had reached the opposite conclusion, but adhered to the reasoning of its own Opinion 548.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Illinois Code Rule 7-110(a) (gifts to or influence on judges) and Canon 9 (avoiding the appearance of impropriety), and referenced the then-new Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5(c)(4)(a). 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) (gifts to or influence on judges, applied in the opinion)
  • Illinois Code Canon 9 (appearance of impropriety)
  • Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5(c)(4)(a)
  • 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 86-18: a law firm bearing the expense of a golf outing for clients and judges
  • ISBA Opinion 548: an organized bar sponsoring functions with judges as guests
  • Michigan Opinion CL-567 (1980); Kansas Opinion 81-39 (1982); Oregon Opinion 467 (1982); Alabama Opinion 82-666: contrary conclusions

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1987 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.