May a supreme court justice appear in judicial robes in an alma mater’s television commercial?

Plain-English summary

A university asked a supreme court justice to permit her still photograph in a brief opening collage of 20 to 25 notable alumni in television commercials. Neither her name nor title would appear. The Commission permitted the photograph, including an image in judicial robes, on those specific facts.

Canon 2C bars lending judicial prestige to private interests, but the Commission said this ad would not emphasize the justice’s office or single her out. It treated the photograph as an ordinary display of alumni accomplishments and found no substantial use of judicial prestige.

The Commission also found no conflict with Canon 5B because the campaign was not focused on fundraising or aimed specifically at donors, and the proposed appearance did not impair impartiality or judicial duties. It distinguished earlier disapproved commercial endorsements featuring judges.

In practice

The holding depends on a brief group collage without the justice’s name, title, or special emphasis and an ad not directed at fundraising.

Common questions

Q: Could the justice wear her robe in the photograph?

A: Yes. The Commission expressly permitted it in the proposed collage.

Q: Why was this ad allowed when others were not?

A: The justice would not be identified or singled out, and her office was not emphasized.

Q: Was the commercial a donor appeal?

A: The opinion says the campaign was not specifically directed at donors or focused on fundraising.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Canon 2C to use of judicial prestige and Canons 5B and 5B(2) to civic participation and fundraising.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canons 2C, 5B, and 5B(2)

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama Advisory Opinion 84-228, a clothing-store advertisement
• Alabama Advisory Opinion 87-295, a hospital-sponsored public-service announcement

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 06-871: Judge Leading a Marriage Organization
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 06-872: Retirement System as a Litigant

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 06-873

Original opinion text

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

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: November 30,2006 ADVISORY OPINION 06-873
APPEARING IN UNIVERSITYTELEVISION
COMMERCIAL
ISSUE
Maya supremecourtjusticepermitthe use of
her photographinatelevisioncommercialfor
her alma mater? Answer: Under the specific
circumstances described, yes.
FACTS
Ajustice on the Alabama Supreme Court has
been asked to appear in a television commer­
cial for her alma mater. She has been in­
formed thattheadvertisingagencyiscontact­
ing some outstanding alumni of the univer­
sity to seek permission to use a still photo­
graph in a 4 to 5-second customized opening
for a set of30-second commercials that will be
broadcast nationally. The commercials are
based on the Chancellor's message that "a
truly successful university is measured by
the success ofits alumni."
The justice's picture would be included in an
opening collage that will include other out­
standing university graduates; there will be
20 to 25 photographs rotating on and off
screen during this 4 to 5-second opening.
There will be no identifying elements
accompanyingthejudge'spicture, i.e., neither
her name nor her title will appear.
The justice inquires whether her
participation is permissible and, if so,
whether she may appear in herjudicial robe.
DISCUSSION
Canon 2C includes a provision that a judge
"should not lend the prestige of his office to
advance the private interests ofothers."
Canon 5B addresses civic and charitable
activities. Itpermits general participationin
activities that "do not reflect adversely upon
[thejudge's] impartialityorinterferewiththe
performance of his judicial duties." It also
permits a judge to serve as an officer or
director ofa charitable or civic organization
subject to certain limitations. The second
limitation states that it "is desirable that a
judge not solicit funds for any educational,
religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic
organization or institution, or use or permit
the use of the prestige of his office for that
purpose, but he may be listed as an officer,
director, ortrustee ofsuchan organization or
institution."
The Commission has previously held that
Canon 2C prohibits a judge from permitting
his photograph to be used in a commercial
advertisement. Advisory Opinion 80-92
(prominent display ofjudge's photograph on
business premises prohibited); Advisory
Opinion 84-228 (appearance in an ad for a
clothing store prohibited if identified as a
judge); Advisory Opinion 87-295 (appearance
in public service announcement with a drug
abuse prevention message sponsored by a
hospital with a chemical dependency unit
prohibited because the announcement could
be construed as an ad for the hospital).
The Commission has also held that the
canons did not prohibit participation in
advertisements supporting and/or
congratulating the Girl Scouts organization.
In Advisory Opinion 87-290, the Commission
decided a judge could appear in her judicial
robe in a public service announcement
congratulating a Girl Scout Chapter for its
75th
anniversary; the Commission noted that
theannouncementwasnot intendedaspartof
a fund-raising activity. In Advisory Opinion
93-496, the Commission concluded a judge
could appear in a public service video
announcement the theme of which was
"Believe in the future. Support Girl
Scouting." The judge was to appear in her
judicial robe but would not make any verbal
comment or be identified by name. In the
video, a child asks, "Mommy, can I really be
anything I want to be when I grow up?" The
Commission wrote that it did
ADVISORY OPINION 06-873
PAGE 2
not construe the phrase, "Support Girl Scout­
ing," as a discouraged solicitation offunds.
The ad described does not emphasize the
judicial office. Instead, it will simply include
the photographic fact that a judge is among
the university's graduates, inviting infer­
ences favorable to the university in a way
that can "fairly be viewed as a manifestation
ofthe ordinaryprideall institutionsofhigher
learningtake inthe accomplishmentsoftheir
highly successful graduates." CJE Opinion
No. 2000-6 (Massachusetts Committee on
Judicial Ethics); see also, Informal Opinion
01-3 (UtahEthicsAdvisory Committee). Since
the justice's name and title will not be used
and she will not be singled out for particular
attention, the Commission does not believe
the proposed ad would substantially use the
prestige of the judicial office to advance
private interests contrary to Canon 2C.
The Commission also does not find a conflict
with Canon 5B. Appearance in the ad would
notreflectadversely uponthejustice's impar­
tiality nor interfere with the performance of
herjudicialduties. Theadvertisingcampaign
inquestion is not specificallyfocused onfund
raising, it will not be specifically directed at
potential donors, and the justice's name and
title will not be used. See, Massachusetts
Opinion 2000-6 and Utah Opinion 01-3.
It is the opinion of the Commission that the
justice may permit the use ofher photograph
in the proposed commercial for her alma
materand that she may appear in herjudicial
robe. Under the particular facts presented,
the Commission finds no conflict with the
Canons ofJudicial Ethics.
REFERENCES
Advisory Opinions 80-92,84-228,87-290,87­
295, 93-496.
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canons
2C, 5B, and 5B(2).
CJE Opinion No. 2000-6 (Massachusetts Com­
mittee on Judicial Ethics).
Informal Opinion 01-3 (Utah Ethics Advisory
Committee).
This opinion is advisory only and is based on
the specific facts and questions submitted by
thejudgewhorequestedtheopinionpursuant
to Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Judicial Inquiry Commission. For further
information, you may contact the Judicial
Inquiry Commission, P. O. Box 303400, Mont­
gomery, Alabama 36130-3400; tel.: (334) 242­
4089; fax: (334) 353-4043; E-mail:
[email protected].