Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-IL

Could an Illinois judge advocate for a rabbi during contract negotiations with a synagogue?

Short answer No. The Committee found that the advocacy role would appear to use judicial position for another person and would amount to law practice, even without drafting or reviewing the contract.
Bar
JUDICIAL-IL
Issued
September 16, 1996

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1996. 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 Not binding precedent.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 rabbi asked a judge to attend a synagogue board meeting and advocate for the rabbi in contract negotiations. The judge proposed avoiding contract drafting or review and believed the board would not be influenced by judicial office.

The Committee rejected the role under former Rule 62B because an objective view would see the judge’s position advancing the rabbi’s interests. The participants’ belief that no influence would occur did not change that assessment.

It also concluded that advocacy would effectively place the judge in the rabbi’s lawyer role, contrary to former Rule 65F, even without writing or critiquing the contract.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997 under the 1993 Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct. The Committee’s page says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code.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 attend as the rabbi’s advocate?

A: No. The Committee found the advocacy role impermissible.

Q: Would avoiding contract drafting solve the issue?

A: No. The Committee still treated the role as effectively practicing law.

Q: Did the participants’ view about influence control?

A: No. The opinion applied an objective view of judicial position and influence.

Background and rules framework

The Committee applied former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62B on use of judicial position for another and Rule 65F on law practice. It cited IJEC Opinion 94-2.

Citations and references

  • Illinois Supreme Court Rules 62B and 65F.
  • IJEC Opinion 94-2.

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1996. 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