What did superseded D.C. Judicial Conduct Opinion No. 8 say about a judge's name on fundraising letterhead?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2000. 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 was asked whether a D.C. Court of Appeals judge's name and title could appear on a Council for Court Excellence letterhead used to seek funds. It applied the 1995 D.C. Code of Judicial Conduct and treated a fundraising letterhead bearing the judge's name as the judge's personal participation in solicitation under Canon 4C(3)(b)(i).
The Committee concluded that such a letterhead was prohibited unless the solicitation went to judges over whom the named judge had no supervisory or appellate authority, or, on behalf of an organization concerned with improving the law, legal system, or administration of justice, to private or government grant makers. It said the Council fit the law-improvement category and the judge could be named if those recipient conditions were met.
The later Opinion No. 15 states that it supersedes No. 8 because the relevant Code provisions and comments changed in 2012. The recipient limits summarized here describe No. 8's historical analysis, not the later committee position.
Currency note
The Committee's Opinion No. 15 expressly superseded this 2000 opinion after the D.C. Code changed in 2012. Treat No. 8 as historical context. The D.C. Courts' Opinion No. 12 states that the revised Code took effect January 1, 2012; verify the current provisions and Opinion No. 15 before relying on a fundraising rule.
Common questions
Q: Did No. 8 view a judge's name on fundraising letterhead as personal solicitation?
A: Yes. It treated that use as personal participation under Canon 4C(3)(b)(i), subject to the exceptions it described.
Q: Which recipients did the historical opinion permit?
A: It named judges outside the judge's supervisory or appellate authority and, for law-improvement organizations, private and government grant makers.
Q: Does No. 8 still state the Committee's later rule?
A: No. Opinion No. 15 expressly superseded it after changes to the Code provisions and comments.
Background and rules framework
The historical opinion interpreted the 1995 D.C. Code's Canon 2B on judicial prestige and Canon 4C(3)(b)(i) and (iv) on fundraising participation and use of office. It distinguished direct solicitation and use of organizational letterhead within the Code's then-stated exceptions.
Citations and references
D.C. Code of Judicial Conduct cited in the opinion:
- Canon 2B, prestige of judicial office.
- Canon 4C(3)(b)(i), participation in fundraising.
- Canon 4C(3)(b)(iv), use of judicial prestige for fundraising.
See also
Source
- Landing page: D.C. Code of Judicial Conduct and advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion No. 8
- Superseding PDF: Advisory Opinion No. 15
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2000. 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