May a judge personally solicit public donations for a legal association’s event?

Plain-English summary

An appellate judge asked about raising money for a reception after a legal education seminar sponsored by the Arkansas Association of Women Lawyers. The Committee treated the association as an organization devoted to improving law and the legal system.

It concluded that a judge could assist with fundraising plans and suggest potential donors, but could not personally ask members of the public for contributions. The restriction covered a single private approach as well as telephone or written solicitation. The opinion identified narrow private fundraising among relatives or other judges as a different situation.

Currency note

This opinion predates the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct that took effect July 1, 2009, as stated in JEAC Opinion 2009-04. Later rules and opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify the current Code before relying on a specific rule.

Common questions

Q: Could the judge personally ask one donor for money?

A: No. The Committee said even a private request to one public donor carried the concern addressed by the rule.

Q: Could the judge suggest donor names to the association?

A: Yes. The opinion allowed the judge to assist in planning and identify possible donors for others to contact.

Background and rules framework

The Committee applied then-current Canon 4(C) on judicial assistance to organizations concerned with law and justice, alongside Canons 2(A) and 2(B) on impartiality and judicial prestige.

Citations and references

• Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 1, 2(A), 2(B), and 4(C).

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Landing page: https://jddc.arkansas.gov/opinions/opinion-no-91-05/

Original opinion text

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

November 19, 1991

Judge Judith Rogers

Court of Appeals

Justice Building

625 Marshall

Little Rock, AR 72201

RE: Advisory Opinion # 91-05

Dear Judge Rogers,

Your letter of October 17, 1991 inquires as to the propriety of your involvement with fund-raising activities to support a reception to be held following a continuing legal education seminar sponsored by the Arkansas Association of Women Lawyers.

Canon 1 of the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct, first adopted by the Supreme Court in 1973 and re-adopted in 1988, requires that a judge participate in establishing, maintaining, enforcing, and observing high standards of conduct in order to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Accordingly, the task of this Committee is to interpret, construe, and apply the Code in a manner that accomplishes that objective.

The Arkansas Association of Women Lawyers appears to be a Canon 48 organization, that is, one Adevoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. A judge may assist such an organization in raising funds and may participate in the management and investment of the funds, but should not personally participate in public fund raising activities. That distinction is intended to insulate the judge from the donors and the donors from the judge, and thereby reduce the possible appearance of impropriety or lack of impartiality that is implicit in fund-raising by judges. Thode, Reporter's Notes to Code of Judicial Conduct (1973) 77.

Accordingly, a judge may not personally contact individuals or corporate entities and solicit funds for the organization, regardless of whether the funds are to be used for educational activities, social functions, investments, or any other purpose. Even though the fund raising may be directed toward a single individual, it is still fund raising among members of the public. The dangers of perceived influence buying are just as great, and perhaps greater, when a donor gives money in response to a personal, "private" request from a judge. Judicial fund-raising may unintentionally create in the donor the impression that the donor is a special position to influence the judge. Canon 2(B). Such an impression does not create public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Canon 2(A).

Nor may a judge solicit funds by telephone or written correspondence. Nor may a judge solicit funds on personal stationary or from her residence. This rule is not avoided simply by the judge failing to identify herself or her position.

Canon 4(C) implies that a judge may personally participate in "private" fund-raising activities. But that interpretation should be limited to narrow situations involving, for example, fund-raising among relatives and other judges.

On the other hand, Canon 4(C) does permit the judge to assist in raising funds. For example, the judge may suggest to the organization the names of potential donors. The judge may participate in the planning of fund-raising activities. See Shaman, Lubet, and Alfini, Judicial Conduct and Ethics, (1990) Section 9.09. Non-judicial members or employees of the Canon 4(C) organization may contact donors. However, those non-judicial individuals should be careful not to suggest or imply that they are acting on behalf of, or with the knowledge of, the judge. The organization is not precluded from listing the judge as an officer, director, or trustee of the organization.

Relevant authority from other jurisdictions includes: Georgia Opinion 15 (1977) (judges may not solicit funds for the Judicial College of Georgia); Kansas Opinion JE-1 (1984) (judges may not raise funds in any way for the National Judges Education and Research Foundation, Inc.); Texas Opinion # 58 (1982) (judges may solicit funds for the Texas Center for the Judiciary); Texas Opinion # 131 (1989) (judges may not participate in any fund-raising activities for a committee to restore the courthouse dome).

Sincerely,

Bruce T. Bullion

Chairman