Could an Illinois judge speak or be honored at a group’s dinner that was not a fundraiser?

Short answer The Committee found no categorical bar, but said the judge’s role depended on the group’s litigation activity, positions, and effect on apparent independence and impartiality.
Bar
JUDICIAL-IL
Issued
September 21, 1993

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1993. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A judge considered speaking or being honored at dinners hosted by a domestic-violence advocacy group, a police organization, or a lawyer-assistance program. The dinners were not fundraisers.

The Committee said former Rule 65B(2)’s fundraising restriction did not itself prohibit speaking or being honored. It nevertheless treated the sponsoring group’s relationship to cases before the judge and its advocacy positions as relevant to apparent impartiality.

The opinion described possible concern if the domestic-violence or police groups took partisan positions on issues in the judge’s court. It found no such risk from the Lawyers’ Assistance Program on the stated facts, because that group served lawyers and judges without appearing before judges or taking positions on issues before them.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994 under the 1993 Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct. The Committee’s archive says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code. Treat this page as historical context and verify the current Code before relying on its analysis.

Common questions

Q: Was a nonfundraising dinner role automatically barred?

A: No. The Committee said the Code did not categorically prohibit it.

Q: Why did the sponsoring group matter?

A: The opinion considered whether it appeared before judges or advocated positions on issues before the judge.

Q: What did it say about the Lawyers’ Assistance Program?

A: It found no impartiality risk on the stated facts.

Background and rules framework

The Committee considered former Illinois Supreme Court Rules 61 and 62 on integrity and impartiality, and Rule 65B(2) on use of a judge’s name for fundraising.

Citations and references

  • Illinois Supreme Court Rules 61, 62, and 65B(2).

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1993. 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