Could a D.C. judge attend a specialty bar association's event?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1994. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Several Superior Court judges asked about invitations to events hosted by specialty bar associations. The Committee declined a blanket rule because the host organizations and events varied. It applied the then-effective Canon 2 requirement to avoid an appearance that the judge favored the host's goals or litigation positions.
The opinion identified several considerations. It said a judge should not attend an event sponsored by an organization litigating before that judge. Sponsor-paid attendance could add an appearance concern. An educational event for which the judge paid was less concerning, while a members-only event without competing viewpoints could raise the concern.
The Committee also directed attention to the host's advocacy interests, any important pending case involving issues on which the host had taken a public position, and whether the host was governmental, nonprofit, or for-profit. It concluded that attendance was permissible only if the public would not reasonably see it as promotion of the host's policy or litigation agenda.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1994 under the judicial Code then in force. The D.C. Courts' Advisory Opinion No. 5 records a revised Code effective June 1, 1995, and Opinion No. 12 records another effective January 1, 2012. Treat this page as historical context and verify current Code provisions before relying on its event-attendance analysis.
Common questions
Q: Did the opinion prohibit all specialty bar events?
A: No. It allowed attendance when the circumstances did not reasonably appear to promote the host's policy goals or regular litigation positions.
Q: What if the host organization was litigating before the judge?
A: The Committee said the judge should not attend the host's function in that circumstance.
Q: Did payment and event format matter?
A: Yes. The opinion identified host-paid attendance as concerning and a judge-paid educational event as less likely to create an appearance issue; a closed event without competing viewpoints could increase the concern.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied Canon 2A and 2B of the 1972 Code then in effect, concerning public confidence, impartiality, and use of judicial prestige. It also discussed judicial participation in law-related activities under Canon 4 and corresponding proposed 1990 Code provisions.
Citations and references
Judicial conduct provisions cited in the opinion:
- Canon 2A and 2B of the then-effective Code, public confidence and prestige.
- Canon 4A, law-related activities.
Cases:
- Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988), objective appearance of impropriety.
Other opinions cited:
- Federal Advisory Committee on Codes of Conduct Revised Advisory Opinion No. 17, bar dinners and appearance concerns.
See also
No sibling opinions yet indexed.
Source
- Landing page: D.C. Code of Judicial Conduct and advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion No. 4
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1994. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace