Could a Maryland judge take part in a religious organization's services auction when the judge's name would help raise money?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1975. 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 religious organization asked a judge to join a services auction. Its invitation said the judge's participation and name would encourage attendance and improve proceeds.
The Committee applied Canon XXIV's concern with using judicial power or prestige to persuade support for charitable organizations, along with the then-cited Rule 8 on prestige and personal solicitation. It concluded that the judge's participation in the proposed auction was clearly prohibited.
Currency note
This opinion discusses the Maryland judicial ethics provisions in force at the time it was written. Its analysis is historical; verify the current Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct and the linked opinion before relying on a cited provision.
Common questions
Q: Why did the auction invitation concern the Committee?
A: The invitation said the judge's name among contributors would encourage attendance and raise proceeds.
Q: Did the opinion approve participation without direct cash solicitation?
A: No. It found the proposed participation itself clearly proscribed by Canon XXIV and Rule 8.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies Maryland's then-cited Canon XXIV and Ethics Rule 8 to a judge's proposed participation in a religious organization's fundraising auction.
Citations and references
- Maryland Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canon XXIV; Rules of Judicial Ethics, Rule 8.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee opinion index
- Original PDF: Opinion 1975-03
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee
Opinion Request Number: 1975-03
Date of Issue: April 3, 1975
O Published Opinion G Unpublished Opinion G Unpublished Letter of Advice
Judge Not to Participate in Services Auction Run by Religious Organization
You have advised this Committee that you have been invited by Temple X to participate in a Services Auction to be held on May 10. The Temple contemplates that members and friends will donate “services” which will be offered for sale. Examples given are the use of an Ocean City condominium for a weekend; providing a maid and butler for an evening, or providing a six months’ supply of home baked bread. You ask whether your participation in the Services Auction would be consistent with the provisions of the Maryland Canons and Rules of Judicial Ethics. Canon XXIV provides, in part:
“A judge should avoid giving ground for any reasonable suspicion that he is utilizing the power or prestige of his office to persuade or coerce others to patronize or contribute, either to the success of private business ventures, or to charitable enterprises.”
Rule 8 is at least peripherally applicable:
“A judge shall not, directly or indirectly, lend the influence of his name or the prestige of his office to aid or advance the welfare of any private business or permit others to do so. He shall not personally solicit funds for any purpose, charitable or otherwise.”
The invitation which you have received notes that “Not only will our proceeds be enhanced by your participation, but the presence of your name among our contributors will encourage attendance.” The Committee has no doubt that your participation in the Services Auction in the manner contemplated is clearly proscribed by the Canon and Rule.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1975. 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