May a part-time municipal judge appear periodically on commercial morning television to explain legal issues?

Plain-English summary

A part-time municipal judge proposed occasional appearances on a commercial station’s morning show to explain legal terms, court operations, and current legal issues without commenting on pending cases’ merits. The Commission concluded that Canon 2C prohibited the arrangement.

The opinion says viewers could identify the judge with the program and her judicial authority could enhance the station’s appeal. The network’s private benefit created the concern even though the segments might educate the public. The Commission compared prior advice on judicial appearances in commercial advertising and local publications.

The Commission noted that part-time municipal judges did not have to follow every canon, but Canon 2C and Canon 5C(1) applied. It connected the proposed business arrangement to the restrictions on advancing private interests and exploiting judicial position.

In practice

The opinion addresses recurring legal commentary under a business arrangement with a commercial station. Its educational purpose did not remove the Canon 2C concern.

Common questions

Q: Would avoiding pending-case merits make the appearances permissible?

A: No. The proposed segments still raised the concern that judicial prestige would benefit the station.

Q: Was the judge exempt from Canon 2C as a part-time judge?

A: No. The Commission says Canon 2C applied to her.

Q: Did the educational content control the answer?

A: No. The opinion expressly says that educational value did not overcome the Canon 2C prohibition.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Canon 2C to the private benefit from judicial prestige, Canon 5C(1) to business activity exploiting judicial position, and Compliance § A(1) to a part-time municipal judge.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canons 2C, 5C(1), and Compliance § A(1)

Cases:

• In re Inquiry of Broadbelt, 683 A.2d 543 (N.J. 1996), repeated television commentary

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama Advisory Opinion 07-888, a local magazine column
• Alabama Advisory Opinion 84-228, a judge in a clothing-store advertisement

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 07-889: Active-Retired Judge and Lawyer Relationships
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 08-892: Judges Marketing Healthcare Software

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 07-890

Original opinion text

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

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: November 16, 2007 ADVISORY OPINION 07-890
JUDGE AS LEGAL COMMENTATOR ON
COMMERCIAL TELEVISION NETWORK
ISSUE
Maya part-time municipal judge enter into a
business arrangement with a commercial
television station to appear periodically on its
morning news show to educate the public
about legal matters and to explain legal issues
in ''the forefront of daily news"? Answer:
No.
FACTS
The judge is a part-time municipal judge in a·
metropolitan area. She would like to appear
on a new morning show on the local affiliate
of a major television network. She would
make occasional appearances to educate the
viewers about legal matters, including
operations of the court system and general
legal terms, issues, and concepts, but without
commenting on the merits of any pending
case. In addition, the news director, in
outlining the program's vision of the judge's
participation, explained, as follows:
[T]here are frequently legal issues in
the forefront of daily news. I would
hope [the judge] can help break down
complex issues into layman's terms ...
everything from what the issues are in
a high profile case to precedents in
similar cases.
DISCUSSION
A part-time municipal judge is not required to
comply with all canons. See Compliance with
the Canons of Judicial Ethics, A(l). She is
required, however, to comply with Canon 2C.
Id. Canon 2C includes the provision that a
judge "should not lend the prestige of [her]
office to advance the private interests of
others." See also Canon 5C(I), which
likewise applies to a part-time judge,
providing that "[a] judge should refrain from
financial and business dealings that tend to ...
exploit [her] judicial position."
This is the first time the Commission has been
presented with the question whether a judge
may appear occasionally as a legal
commentatoron commercial television. Other
judicial ethics advisory committees, however,
have addressed the threshold concern that
such occasional appearances may lend the
prestige of the judicial office to advance the
private interests of others and have
accordingly disallowed such activity. In
Virginia Advisory Opinion 99-07, the
committee was asked whether a trial judge
may appear on a regular basis on a television
talk show concerning only legal practice and
procedure even though the judge would not
conduct interviews, accept compensation, or
comment on the merits of pending cases,
pending investigations, or political issues. In
response, the Committee stated:
A more direct concern is
whether a judge's appearing on a
commercial radio or television
network would advance the financial
interests ofthat organization....
The fact that a network desires
the appearance ofajudge to comment
on legal matters indicates that the
network sees some advantage to his
appearance. The well-known
ADVISORY OPINION 07-890
Page 2
competition among news
organizations leads to the inescapable
conclusion that a network would
conclude that the more authoritative
the speaker, the more the program
would appeal to the audience. The
committee is of the opinion that
appearing on such programs on a
regular basis could create the
appearance that thejudge is advancing
the private interests of others. {In re
Inquiry oj] Broadbelt, [683 A.2d543,]
at 550 [(N.J. 1996)]; Opinion 96-25,
Florida Committee on Standards of
Conduct Governing Judges. It is ofno
significance that the judge would not
be identified as a judge. A judge is a
public official, and it would strain
credulity to conclude that the
audience, or a part of the audience,
would not be aware of his position.
See also In re Broadbelt, 683 A.2d 543, 550
(N.J. 1996) (the frequency of a municipal
court judge's appearance on "Court TV" as a
guest (albeit unpaid) commentator - more
than fifty times in four years - resulted in an
identification of the judge with the program,
thereby lending it the prestige of his judicial
office); Florida Advisory Opinion 96-25
(canonical prohibition of lending judicial
prestige to commercial interests of television
station applies to judge's proposed
arrangement with the station to make regular
appearances on a news forum to "comment
about, explain to, and educate the public
concerning diverse legal matters including
explaining and clarifying the proceedings
during high publicity trials" and thus to
"educatethe public and explaintheprocedures
and workings of the court system"); South
Carolina Advisory Opinion 05-2003 (judge's
regular participation on a radio talk show
would clearly lend the prestige ofhis office to
advance the radio station regarding an area
where the public perceives the judge to be an
expert).
Alabama advisory OpInIOnS have applied
Canon 2C to a judge's activity in other
commercial formats. In those opinions, the
Commission has advised that Canon 2C
prohibits the following activity: appearance in
a public service announcement with a drug­
abuse prevention message sponsored by a
hospital with a chemical-dependency unit
because the announcement could be construed
as an ad for the hospital, Advisory Opinion 87­
295; part-timemunicipaljudge's appearance as
a judge in an ad for a clothing store, Advisory
Opinion 84-228; prominent display ofjudge's
photograph on business premises, Advisory
Opinion 80-92. Compare Advisory Opinion
06-873 (appearance in judicial robe in one
photograph of a collage of 20 to 25
photographs of outstanding alumni in 4- to 5­
second opening for television commercial for
justice's alma mater is not in violation of
Canon 2C because the justice's name and title
will not be used and she will not be singled out
for particular attention).
Further, this Commission has acknowledged
Canon 2C's prohibition against a judge's
activity that could appear to advance the
promotion of a particular business over its
competitors. See Advisory Opinions 07-888
(judge should decline to write a column for a
religious magazine if its dissemination is
limited geographically and competitors with
other similar publications consider the judge's
authorship to appear to advance the promotion
of one local publisher over others); 86-265
(same, regarding authorship of monthly
ADVISORY OPINION 07-890
Page 3
newspaper column). One such advancement
of promotion is lending the prestige of the
judicial position to enhance the credibility of
others. Cf Advisory Opinion 98-708 (judge
may not serve on board of directors of a non­
profit environmental organization because his
involvement may be perceived as lending the
prestige of his judicial office to enhance the
credibility ofthe organization).
The Commission advises that the requesting
judge's proposed arrangement with the
television network is prohibited by Canon 2C
because it raises a reasonable concern that the
power and prestige ofthejudicial office could
be used to advance the private interests of
others and, thus, could exploit the judicial
position. The fact that such activity may in
some respect be educational does not
overcome the prohibition of Canon 2C.
Broadbelt, 683 A.2d at 550-51 (rejecting
judge's argument that his conduct was
permitted by New Jersey Code of Jud.
Conduct, Canon 4, as teaching about the
judicial system. and holding that Canon 4 does
not excuse violations of other canons). See
also New York Advisory Opinion 93-133
(occasional appearance as unpaid
commentator for "Court TV" cannot be
deemed to constitute quasi-judicial activities
designed to improve the law, the legal system,
and the administration of justice). Because
the requesting judge must avoid all
impropriety and appearance of impropriety
and must expect to be the subject of constant
public scrutiny, she must accept restrictions on
her conduct that might be viewed as
burdensomebythe ordinarycitizen and should
do so freely and willingly. Commentary to
Canon 2.
REFERENCES
Alabama Advisory Opinions 07-888, 06-873,
98-708, 87-295, 86-265, 84-228, and 80-92.
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canons
2C and 5C(l); Commentary to Canon 2;
Compliance with the Canons ofJudicial Ethics,
A(1).
In re Inquiry ofBroadbelt, 683 A.2d 543 (N.J.
1996).
New Jersey Code ofJud. Conduct, Canon 4.
Florida Advisory Opinion 96-25.
New York Advisory Opinion 93-133.
South Carolina Advisory Opinion 05-2003.
Virginia Advisory Opinion 99-07.
This opinion is advisory only and is based on
the specific facts and questions submitted by
the judge who requested the opinion 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].