May a judge directly solicit charitable donations from other judges and publish their names and titles?

Plain-English summary

A district judge on a charity board proposed asking municipal and state judges to fund his $1,000 campaign commitment. The charity would identify the contributing judges by name and title and collectively recognize them in its publicity. The Commission answered no.

The opinion says Alabama’s Canons contain no exception allowing judges to solicit funds directly from judicial peers. It discusses the possibility that a solicited judge could feel pressure from a more senior or influential judge, and that a contribution might appear to seek future favor.

The planned publicity created an additional objection: using judges’ names and titles to promote donors would put judicial prestige behind the charity’s fundraising campaign. The Commission concluded that the combined solicitation and publication plan was impermissible.

In practice

The holding concerns direct requests to fellow judges and later publicity identifying the judicial donors. The opinion treats both the peer solicitation and use of judicial titles as material.

Common questions

Q: Does Alabama make a peer-judge exception?

A: No. The Commission contrasts Alabama’s Canons with a model-code exception and says direct peer solicitation is inappropriate.

Q: Why did publicity matter?

A: Naming judicial donors with their titles would lend judicial prestige to the charity’s effort to attract more contributions.

Q: Did the opinion identify pressure among judges?

A: Yes. It discussed seniority, assignment authority, and dependence on colleagues as reasons peer requests could feel coercive.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Canon 5B(2) to direct charitable solicitation and Canons 2 and 5B(2) to use of judicial prestige in fundraising.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canons 2 and 5B(2)

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama Advisory Opinion 07-878, direct solicitation for a sentencing program
• Alabama Advisory Opinion 06-862, judicial position in fundraising

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 07-881: Judge’s Spouse in a Charity Campaign
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 07-882: Judge Selecting Justice Grants

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 07-880

Original opinion text

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

JUDICIAL INQillRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSlJED: ~~h9?2007
ADVISORY OPINION 07-880
A JUDGE'S DIRECT SOLICITATION OF
OTHER JUDGES FOR A CHARITY AND
PUBLICATION OF THE DONORS
ISSUE
May ajudgesolicit charitablecontributions from
otherjudges, wherethefact ofsaidcontributions
will be disclosed in the charity's publicity
campaign? Answer: No.
FACTS
A district judge is a board member ofa charity
that raises contnbutions through its "Heroes"­
for-the-charity fund-raising campaign. Each
"hero" commits to raise $1,000 and will be
spotlighted in the local newspaper and
highlighted in the charity's publicity efforts.
Each board member is encouraged to enlist as a
"hero." Thejudge proposes to raise his $1,000
commitment by soliciting contributions from
other judges - municipaljudges and state court
judges - and to have all contributing judges
conectively recognized as a "hero," as wen as
individually byname andjudicial title.
DISCUSSION
Canon 5B(2) states that "[i]t is desirable that a
judge not solicit funds" for any charitable
organization and that a judge may not ''use or
permit the use ofthe prestige ofhis office" for
such activities. In applying the Canons, the
Commission has consistently statedthat ajudge
js prohibited from directly soliciting charitable
contributions. See AlabamaAdvisory Opinions
97-~?2 e'thejudge~~~~ not cf.!r~t!~ ~.oli<.:it ...
donations');93-492 (Canon5B(2)providesthat
"ajudgeshould not become personally involved
in the direct solicitation of funds''); 86-262 (a
judge"shouldnothimselfsolicit funds"); 04-834
(..thejudgeshouldrefrainfrom personallyasking
for contributions when he has been identified
as a judge"). See,~, Alabama Advisory
Opinions 07-878 (ajudgemaynot send aletter
on. ~~dicial letterhead stationary directly
SOliCltID.g start~up supplies for his proposed
sentencmg program); 00-768 (ajudgemaynot
ask, by letter, members of the local bar
association for support for the Legal Aid
programeveniftheletteris onplainpaper and
mailed in a plain envelope with the judge's
home address, thejudgepays for postage, and
he does not use his judicial title). !!Y1 g
Alabama Advisory Opinion 88-324 ("direct
solicitation offunds is to be discouraged'1­
In determining whether the direct-solicitation
proln'bition encompasses peersolicitation, ie.,
jUdge-to-judge solicitation, it is noteworthy
thatAlabama'sCanons do not containajudge­
to-judge exception to the prolnbition of
personal, direct solicitation. Compare
American Bar Association, Model Code of
Judicial Conduct, Canon 4C(3)(b) (1990)
("[AJ judge ... shall not personally participate
in the solicitation of funds ..., except that a
judgemaysolicit funds from otherjudgesover
whomthejudgedoes not exercisesupervisory
or appellate authority."). Without an
exception inthe AlabamaCanons, it would be
inappropriate for a judge to directly solicit
from other judges for donations to charitable
causes. Cf. New York Advisory Opinion 96~
83.
Moreover, we are persuaded by the rationale
of Arizona Judicial Advisory Opinion 95-20.
~~ .o~~ tha! ~ona)s. ~pp~~l~
canon prohibitmg solicitation for charitable
organizations addresses dual concerns that
potential donors may be mtimidated into
making contributions or may expect future
filvors for their donations, the opinion states:
The issue of judges soliciting
their peers for charitable purposes
involves several ofthe same concerns.
The soliciting judge may be a senior
member of the bench, a judge having
assignment authority, or perhaps an
aggressivejudge. Likewise, thejudge
solicited may be new to the bench or
one dependent on other judges for
assistance. The potential of
coerciveness clearly exists.
C£ Advisory Opinions 06-862 and 03-808 (a
judge's participation in fund-raising activities
presents a danger that the prestige of the
judicial officewill be used and that the person
solicited will feel. obligated to respond
favorably).
Finally, thejudge'sproposed plan,particularly
thepublicationoftheresults ofthesolicitation
for the purpose of encouraging others to
contribute, would violate the rule that ajudge
may not use his official position, judicial title,
or official letterhead stationary in any fund­
raising activity. Alabama Advisory Opinion
06-862. See. ~ Alabama Advisory Opinion
00-753. Such recognition would lend the
prestige ofhisjudicialoffice, as well as that of
the otherjudges,to the charity for the purpose
ofsoliciting funds, contrary to Canons 2 and
SB(2). See Advisory Opinion 82-166 (a non­
judicial officer, rather than the judge who
founded a juvenile facility and serves as its
director, must accept a donation to the
building fund because the judge's acceptance
would create an unnecessary risk that the
prestige-ofhis office would be used, albeit
indirectly, fur fund-raising). See also Florida
Advisory Opinion 2003-15 (even in a
jurisdiction allowing judge-to-judge
solicitation, the results ofthat solicitationmay
not be published if the purpose is to use the
prestige of the judicial office to encourage
ADVISORY OPINION 07-S80
Page 2
others to contribute). In addition, public
recognition ofjudicialdonors collectively as a
"hero" for the charity would portray the
campaign as a project oflocaljudges and thus
place an official imprimatur uPon the charity
and its campaign. See Florida Advisory
Opinion 96-27.
In conclusion, a judgemay not directly solicit
charitable contnbutions from other judges, .
withthe planthat alist ofthedonors would be
promotedandpublicizedinfuture fund-raising
activities.
REFERENCES
Alabama Canons ofJudicial Ethics, Canons 2
and5B(2)
Alabama Advisory Opinions 07~878, 06-862,
04-834,03-808,00-753,97-682,93-492,88­
324,86-262, and 82-166
American Bar Association, Model Code of
Judicial Conduct, Canon 4C(3Xb) (1990)
Arizona Judicial Advisory Opinion 95-20
Aorida Advisory Opinion 2003~lS and 96-27
New Yorlc Advisory Opinion 96-83.
This opinion is advisory only and is based on
the specific facts and questions submitted by
thejudgewho requested theopinion pursuant
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,
Montgomery, Alabama 36130-3400; tel.:
(334)242-4089; fax: (334)353-4043; E~mail:
[email protected].