Could an Illinois judge accept free use of a condominium from a lawyer or a person unlikely to appear in court?
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.
Plain-English summary
A judge asked about free use of a Colorado condominium in two situations: one owner was a lawyer whose firm members appeared before the judge, and the other was a nonlawyer with no past, pending, or likely case before the judge.
The Committee said uncompensated use from the lawyer was a gift or favor barred by former Rule 65C(4). The judge could instead rent the condominium from that lawyer for a reasonable fee.
The nonlawyer’s free use was permitted on the stated facts because the donor’s interests had not come and were not likely to come before the judge. The opinion said the reasonable rental value should appear on the judge’s Statement of Economic Interests.
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 The Committee’s archive says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code.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: Could the judge stay free in the lawyer’s condominium?
A: No. The Committee treated free use as a barred gift or favor from a lawyer whose firm appeared before the judge.
Q: Could the judge pay the lawyer reasonable rent?
A: Yes. The opinion permitted rental for a reasonable fee.
Q: Could the judge accept the nonlawyer’s offer?
A: Yes, on the stated no-case facts, with rental value disclosed on the economic-interest statement.
Background and rules framework
The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 65C(4)’s gift exceptions and Rule 62’s appearance concern. It cited In re Murphy and In re Corboy in analyzing benefits from lawyers.
Citations and references
- Illinois Supreme Court Rules 62 and 65C(4).
- In re Murphy, 2 Ill. Cts. Com. 133 (1990); In re Corboy, 124 Ill.2d 29 (1988).
See also
Source
- Landing page: Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 1993-06
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