May a judge send appreciation letters to people who reported for jury service?

Plain-English summary

The Commission considered a judge’s plan to thank everyone who responded to a jury summons. It approved appreciation letters to those who actually reported for jury duty, subject to four conditions.

The content must simply appreciate civic service to the judicial system, without discussing any case or outcome. A signing judge must have had official contact with the recipients, and the letters must be mailed routinely and immediately after service. On those terms, the opinion says court stationery, stamps, and personnel may be used without separate authorization by court rule or the presiding judge.

The Commission explained that prior opinions had treated appreciation letters inconsistently because correspondence could resemble election activity. It partly modified Opinions 83-178 and 95-552, partly overruled 93-482, and overruled 82-126. It supplied a sample letter and connected the limits to judicial integrity and avoidance of inappropriate political activity.

In practice

The opinion approved a routine expression of thanks to people who reported for jury service. Its conditions excluded commentary on a verdict or case and letters signed by judges without official contact.

Common questions

Q: Could a letter praise a verdict?

A: No. The Commission limited the content to appreciation for civic service and excluded case particulars or outcomes.

Q: Who may receive the letters?

A: Only people who reported for jury duty, under the opinion’s first condition.

Q: Could court resources be used?

A: The opinion said court stationery, stamps, and personnel could be used under its stated conditions without separate authorization.

Background and rules framework

The opinion reads Canons 1, 2, 3A(3), and 7A(1) alongside the concern that a letter resembling campaign conduct could implicate Ala. Code § 36-12-61.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canons 1, 2, 3A(3), and 7A(1)

Statutes:

• Ala. Code § 36-12-61 (1975), state resources for campaign interests

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama Advisory Opinions 95-552, 93-482, 83-178, and 82-126, earlier appreciation-letter advice

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 08-893: Domestic Violence Task Force Membership
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 08-895: Recusal When a Relative Is a Firm Partner

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 08-894

Original opinion text

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

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: September 12, 2008 ADVISORY OPINION 08-894
COURT ADMINISTRATION: APPRECIATION
LETTERS TO JURORS/VENIREPERSONS
ISSUE
May a judge send appreciation letters to persons
who responded to summonses for jury service?
Answer: Yes, if the letters are in compliance with
certain guidelines
FACTS
A judge requests advice regarding sending
appreciation letters to all persons who responded
to summonses for jury service.
DISCUSSION
The Commission has, on occasion, indicated
in co n g ru o u s p o s itio n s re g a rd in g th e
circumstances under which a judge may send
appreciation letters to jurors and venirepersons at
the conclusion of a jury term of court. Compare
Advisory Opinion 95-552 with Advisory Opinion
93-482. The tension between these opinions
arises from the perception that such
correspondence, by a constellation of particular
circumstances, could have the appearance of
political-campaign conduct. In such a case, § 36-
12-61, Code of Alabama (1975), would apply,
prohibiting the judge from using or permitting to
be used any state-owned property of any
character or description, including stationary,
stamps, office equipment, and office supplies, for
the promotion or advancement of the interest of
any candidate for the nomination or election to
any public office of the State of Alabama.
The viewpoint of the legal and judicial
communities, however, has evolved from the
narrow conclusion that any commendatory letter
to jurors/venirepersons constitutes political-
campaign conduct only. Rather, there is “the
growing recognition that judicial outreach is a
valued part of the judicial role and includes
outreach to jurors.” Reporter’s Explanation of
Changes to the Comment to Rule 2.8, 2007 ABA
Model Code of Judicial Conduct. See also Canon
3B(11), 1990 ABA Model Code of Judicial
Conduct (“A judge . . . may express appreciation
to jurors for their service to the judicial system
and the community.”). See, e.g., Arizona
Advisory Opinion 01-01 (reissued January 22,
2003) (certificates or letters of appreciation that
simply acknowledge a juror’s performance of his
or her civic duty without reference to the
outcome of a particular case are consistent with
Canon 3B(11) of Arizona’s Code of Judicial
Conduct, which states, “A judge shall not
commend or criticize jurors for their verdict other
than in a court order or opinion in a proceeding,
but may express appreciation to jurors for their
service to the judicial system and the
community.”); New York Advisory Opinion 07-
77 (a judge may write a letter of welcome and
gratitude to jurors when they first report for jury
duty); New York Advisory Opinion 95-53 (a
judge may write letters to jurors, thanking them
for their completed service, but cannot praise or
criticize them for their verdict); Texas Advisory
Opinion 68 (judges may send a form letter, on
letterhead containing the names of the judges and
the district and court clerks and at the county’s
expense, expressing their appreciation to those
persons who reported for jury duty if the content
of the letter is a genuine expression of
appreciation, the letter is mailed routinely when
the panel is discharged, and the signatory
privileges are rotated regularly); Texas Advisory
Opinion 67 (a judge may ethically write letters of
appreciation to jurors if he avoids the appearance
of impropriety in selecting the content of the
letter and mails the letter immediately after the
service has been rendered and on a routine basis).
In keeping with this refinement of the judicial
role, the Commission issues the following
advisory parameters in regard to appreciation
letters to jurors/venirepersons:

1. Such letter should be sent only to
   those persons who reported for
   jury duty.
   ADVISORY OPINION 08-894
   Page 2
2. Such letter’s content should be
   limited simply to the expression
   o f ap p reciation fo r th e
   recipient’s civic service to the
   judicial system. It should not
   address the particulars of any
   case, including the outcome of a
   case.
3. The letter must be written in the
   signatory judge’s or judges’
   official capacity. M ore
   specifically, the judge or judges
   signing the letter must have had
   some official contact with the
   recip ien ts. S ee A d visory
   Opinion 82-160 (citing Canon
   1).
4. The letters should be mailed
   routinely and immediately after
   the service has been rendered.
   Court stationary, stamps, and personnel may be
   used without express authorization by court rule
   or the presiding judge. (Modifying in part
   Advisory Opinions 83-178 and 95-552;
   overruling in part Advisory Opinion 93-482;
   overruling Advisory Opinion 82-126.)
   In conclusion, judicial outreach, including
   taking steps to improve the jury system and the
   quality of a juror’s experience, is a prevailing
   objective of the judicial office, and a judge is
   encouraged to express the appreciation of the
   judicial system to jurors and venirepersons.
   While observing their duty under Canon 3A(3)
   to be dignified and courteous to jurors, signatory
   judges should be mindful of Canon 1's duty to
   uphold the integrity and independence of the
   judiciary, Canon 2's requirement to avoid
   impropriety and the appearance of impropriety
   in all his activities, and Canon 7A(1)’s caution
   to endeavor at all times to refrain from political
   activities inappropriate to the judicial office.
   Advisory Opinions 82-126 and 82-160.
   The Commission approves and recommends the
   following letter:
   Dear _______:
   Thank you for discharging the important
   responsibility of jury duty.
   In responding to the jury summons, you
   provided to persons before the court one
   of the cherished rights of our democracy:
   the right to a jury trial. Without the
   cooperation of citizens like you, the
   preservation of that right would be
   endangered.
   You can be proud that you have
   contributed in a meaningful way to the
   preservation of that right and to the
   operation of your judicial system.
   Sincerely,

Name(s) of Judge(s)
REFERENCES
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canons 1, 2,
3A(3), and 7A(1).
Alabama Advisory Opinions 95-552, 93-482, 83-
178, 82-160, and 82-126.
Ala. Code § 36-12-61 (1975).
1990 ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct,
Canon 3B(11).
2007 ABA Model Code, Reporter’s Explanation
of Changes to the Comment to Rule 2.8.
Arizona Advisory Opinion 01-01 (reissued
January 22, 2003).
Arizona’s Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon
3B(11).
New York Advisory Opinions 07-77 and 95-53.
Texas Advisory Opinions 68 and 67.
ADVISORY OPINION 08-894
Page 3

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.