Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-IL

Could Illinois judges establish a speakers bureau and discuss contested legal issues with public groups?

Short answer Yes, subject to the opinion’s limits on statements that call impartiality into question and former Rule 67’s restrictions on political speech.
Bar
JUDICIAL-IL
Issued
June 17, 1994

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.

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 Not binding precedent.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

Judges proposed a speakers bureau to offer court-related programs to community groups. The Committee treated their collective publicity as an extension of individual law-related speaking permitted by former Rule 64.

A judge could address a group advocating legal change without necessarily endorsing the group. The Committee distinguished speaking to an advocacy group from being honored by it, while conditioning speech on maintaining apparent impartiality.

The opinion assessed topics including abortion, capital punishment, sentencing, legal reforms, official performance, and plea bargaining. It allowed discussion of legal issues but warned against statements implying a fixed position in future cases, public endorsement or opposition of candidates, and other speech restricted by former Rule 67. It said accepting an honorarium after direct bureau publicity was permitted, though the Committee preferred declining it.

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 The Committee’s archive says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code.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 judges publicize a speakers bureau?

A: Yes. The Committee said former Rule 64 allowed judges to organize and publicize law-related speaking.

Q: Could a judge address a law-reform advocacy group?

A: Yes, if the speech did not cast doubt on impartiality or violate political-speech restrictions.

Q: Could a noncandidate judge endorse a judicial candidate?

A: No. The opinion applied former Rule 67’s ban on public endorsement or opposition of candidates.

Background and rules framework

Former Rule 64 permitted law-related speaking but constrained statements that cast doubt on impartiality. The Committee also applied former Rule 67’s political-speech provisions and considered Rule 66A on honoraria.

Citations and references

  • Illinois Supreme Court Rules 64, 66A, and 67.
  • In re Gridley, 417 So.2d 950 (Fla. 1982).
  • In re Nolan, unreported order (Ky. Comm’n 1986).
  • IJEC Opinions 93-4, 94-5, and 94-7.

See also

Source

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