Could a D.C. judicial clerk accept interview costs, moving expenses, or a bonus from a future employer?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1997. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The Committee addressed payments a prospective private employer might make to a judicial clerk still on the court payroll. It distinguished reasonable travel, meal, and temporary lodging costs for interviews from payments for relocation, housing, bar review, and a general hiring bonus. It also said a clerk had to be recused from a case involving the prospective employer.
The opinion found reasonable interview expenses minimally concerning. It allowed reasonable pre-employment payments for relocation, housing, and bar review expenses actually incurred or anticipated for the period after the clerkship. It rejected a standard lump sum paid without regard to an actual transition expense during the clerkship.
The Committee said a clerk should not accept a hiring bonus, advance on first-year salary, or other payment unrelated to particular transition expenses while still serving. That conclusion covered loans as well as gifts or compensation. An employer using a uniform lump-sum approach could defer the non-expense part until the former clerk started work.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1997 and applied the then-effective D.C. judicial Code by analogy to clerks. The D.C. Courts' Advisory Opinion No. 12 states that the revised Code took effect January 1, 2012. Later rules or opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify current rules before relying on any payment limit.
Common questions
Q: Could a prospective employer reimburse interview travel and lodging?
A: The Committee found reasonable travel, meal, and temporary lodging expenses for an employment visit permissible under the circumstances it described.
Q: What relocation or bar-review payments did the opinion allow?
A: It allowed reasonable amounts for expenses actually incurred or anticipated after the clerkship, rather than an undifferentiated lump sum paid during service.
Q: Could the clerk take a hiring bonus before the clerkship ended?
A: The Committee said no when the payment was not earmarked for particular post-clerkship relocation, housing, or bar-related expenses.
Q: Did the distinction change if the employer called the payment a loan?
A: No. The opinion expressly applied its analysis to loans as well as compensation.
Background and rules framework
The Committee said there was then no D.C. code expressly governing clerks. It used the 1995 D.C. Code of Judicial Conduct and federal law-clerk ethics guidance by analogy, especially Federal Law Clerk Canon 5C(2) and Federal Advisory Opinion No. 83. Its conclusion was tied to the appearance of a court employee receiving private-employer compensation during service.
Citations and references
Ethics provisions cited in the opinion:
- Federal Code of Conduct for Law Clerks, Canon 5C(2), employer-related gifts, favors, and loans.
- Federal Code of Conduct for Law Clerks, Canon 6B, expense reimbursement.
Other opinions cited:
- D.C. Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct Opinion No. 1, future employment and recusal.
- Federal Judicial Conference Advisory Opinion No. 83, payments from prospective employers to clerks.
See also
Source
- Landing page: D.C. Code of Judicial Conduct and advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion No. 7
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1997. 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