May Alabama judges portray judges resolving fictional disputes on a paid television show?

Plain-English summary

A circuit judge and a part-time municipal judge proposed appearing on a paid television program tentatively called “Teen Court.” They would help actors playing teenagers resolve fictional disputes. The program would be filmed outside judicial work hours without public resources and would have entertainment and educational aims.

The Commission explains that Canons 5A and 5C permit certain outside activities if they do not impair judicial work, impartiality, or dignity. But permission under those Canons does not settle Canon 2C's separate prohibition on lending the prestige of office to another's private interests.

Applying the factors discussed in In re Inquiry of Broadbelt, the Commission focused on the judges' recurring appearances as decision makers, the program's courtroom-like subject, and its commercial purpose. The proposed national audience and educational component did not overcome the likely appearance that the judges would become identified with a profit-making show. The Commission therefore prohibited the proposed participation.

In practice

The opinion addresses the particular recurring, compensated roles described in the request. It treats the appearance of using judicial office for the production company's benefit as decisive even though the fictional disputes would have no legal effect and production would use no public resources.

Common questions

Q: Does filming only on weekends and using no public resources resolve the issue?

A: No. The Commission assumed judicial duties could still be performed and based its prohibition on Canon 2C's judicial-prestige concern.

Q: Does the show's educational component permit the judges' participation?

A: No. The Commission says its commercial purpose and recurring use of the judges as the show's public faces outweigh that component under Canon 2C.

Background and rules framework

The opinion considers Canons 5A and 5C on outside activities, then applies Canon 2C's bar on lending the prestige of judicial office to advance others' private interests. Its conclusion rests on the proposed television roles, rather than an actual adjudication of legal disputes.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canons 2C, 5A, and 5C(1)–(3).

Cases:

• In re Inquiry of Broadbelt, 683 A.2d 543 (N.J. 1996), television appearance and judicial prestige.
• In re Inquiry Concerning Honorable John Roach, Jr., Docket No. SCR 18-0006 (Tex. Special Court of Review July 24, 2018), extrajudicial activity analysis.

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama JIC Opinion 07-890, educational purpose and Canon 2C.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 25-966: Retired Judge's Firm Letterhead
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 25-967: Judge as Law School Dean

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 22-950

Original opinion text

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

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: MAY 12, 2022 ADVISORY OPINION 22-950
USE OF PRESTIGE OF OFFICE:
BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL
ACTIVITIES
ISSUE
May two judges, a circuit judge
and a part-time municipal judge, who
are related within the first degree of
consanguinity act on a television
show as judges or mediators presiding
over fictional disputes?
Answer: No.
FACTS
A television production
company has asked two judges, a
circuit judge and a part-time
municipal judge, who are related
within the first degree of
consanguinity to preside over
fictional disputes on a show
tentatively titled, “Teen Court.” The
judges’ roles on the show would be to
aid actors who are playing teenagers
resolve disputes. The judges have not
been asked to mediate, arbitrate, or
adjudicate any actual legal disputes,
and none of their decisions made on
the show would be binding. Nor will
any of the disputes depicted be
representative of any actual legal
dispute that the judges will hear. The
show is intended for entertainment
purposes, but also has an educational
component in that it will show youth
how to resolve conflict effectively
and appropriately.
The show will be taped in a
consolidated manner and only on
weekends, holidays, or while the
judges are on leave. Public property,
time, labor, or equipment will not be
used in the production of the project.
The judges will receive compensation
for their participation in the project.
The judges have already sought
an opinion from the Alabama Ethics
Commission as to the application of
the Alabama Ethics laws to their
proposed conduct.
DISCUSSION
Canon 5A of the Alabama
Canons of Judicial Ethics states, “A
judge may . . . engage in the arts,
sports, and other social and
recreational activities, if such
avocational activities do not detract
from the dignity of his [or her] office
or interfere with the performance of
his [or her] judicial duties.” Canon
5C further allows a judge to “engage
in other remunerative activity
including the operation of a
business,” so long as such activity
does not affect the judge’s
impartiality, interfere with the
judge’s official duties, exploit the
judicial position, or cause frequent
disqualification. Canons 5C(1)–(3).
However, even though a judge’s
proposed conduct is permissible
under one Canon, it may still be
prohibited by others. See In re
Inquiry of Broadbelt, 683 A.2d 543,
550–51 (N.J. 1996).
The Commission assumes that
you will be able to properly perform
your judicial duties while you are
taping the shows. However, while the
activity may not be prohibited by
Canon 5, it is the opinion of the
JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: MAY 12, 2022 ADVISORY OPINION 22-950
Commission that the conduct is
prohibited under Canon 2C.
Canon 2C provides, “[A judge]
should not lend the prestige of his [or
her] office to advance the private
interests of others; nor should he [or
she] convey or permit others to
convey the impression that they are in
a special position to influence him [or
her].” In In re Inquiry of Broadbelt,
683 A.2d 543, 550 (N.J. 1996), the
court considered four factors in
determining whether a judge’s
appearance as a commentator on
television lent the prestige of his
judicial office to the television
station. The factors were: (1) the
frequency of the judge’s appearance;
(2) the intended audience; (3) the
subject-matter; and (4) whether the
project is commercial in nature. Id.;
see also In re Inquiry Concerning
Honorable John Roach, Jr., Docket
No. SCR 18-0006 (Tex. Special Court
of Review July 24, 2018) (describing
the analysis of a judge’s extra-
judicial activities as a spectrum). In
Broadbelt, the court held that the
judge’s frequent appearances caused
the judge to become regularly
identified with the show, thereby
lending the prestige of his judicial
office to the show in violation of the
canons. 683 A.2d at 550.
The inquiring judges will be
appearing on the television show as
actresses. Additionally, although the
resolutions on the show will not be
binding or depict any actual legal
disputes, based on the working title
“Teen Court” and the fact that the
judges’ roles would be to help
fictional teenagers resolve their
disputes, the Commission assumes
that the subject-matter of the show
will involve the judges acting as
“judges” or decision-makers in a
courtroom-like setting or some other
adversarial context. Due to the
judges’ appearances in every show as
the “judges” presiding over “Teen
Court,” it is likely that the judges will
become the “faces” of—i.e., regularly
identified with—the television show.
Lastly, the show is being produced to
entertain its audience as a means of
making a profit for the production
company, and not purely for its
educational value. Even still, “the
fact that such activity may in some
respect be educational does not
overcome the prohibition of Canon
2C.” Ala Adv. Op. 07-890 (citing
Broadbelt, 683 A.2d at 550–51). It is
true that the show will not be
restricted to any one particular area
or audience but will instead be
broadcast nationally. However, this
fact alone is not enough to overcome
the strong appearance that the
inquiring judges will be lending the
prestige of their judicial offices to
advance the private interests of the
production company and exploiting
their judicial offices for personal
gain.
Therefore, based on the
foregoing analysis, it is the opinion
of the Commission that the inquiring
judges are prohibited from
participating in the production of the
television show as it would likely
lend the prestige of their judicial
JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: MAY 12, 2022 ADVISORY OPINION 22-950
offices to the production company
and exploit their judicial offices for
personal gain.
REFERENCES
Alabama Advisory Opinions 07-890.
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics
2C, 3, 5A, 5C(1), 5C(2), 5C(3).
In re Inquiry Concerning Honorable
John Roach, Jr., Docket No. SCR 18-
0006 (Tex. Special Court of Review
July 24, 2018).
In re Inquiry of Broadbelt, 683 A.2d
543 (N.J. 1996).
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 18 of the Alabama 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;
email: [email protected].