Could judges solicit donations to restore courthouse art, or arrange for others to solicit under court sponsorship?

Plain-English summary

A judicial committee planning to restore courthouse murals asked whether an expanded committee of lawyers and citizens could solicit donations under the court's sponsorship.

The Committee read Canon XXIV and Rule 9 as barring judges from the proposed fundraising. It said lawyers and other citizens could solicit for the restoration and give the proceeds to the committee if judges neither selected the solicitors nor participated in the solicitation, and if the appeal was not made under the court's aegis.

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: Could the judges solicit restoration funds themselves?

A: No. The Committee said Canon XXIV and Rule 9 prohibited the contemplated solicitation by judges.

Q: Could lawyers and other citizens fundraise for the courthouse art?

A: Yes, if judges had no role in selecting or conducting the solicitation and it was not done under the court's aegis.

Q: Could the appeal be made under court sponsorship?

A: No. The Committee conditioned its approval of outside solicitation on its not being made under the court's aegis.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Maryland's then-cited Canon XXIV and Ethics Rule 9, adopted in Maryland Rule 1231, to fundraising for courthouse art. Both provisions addressed judges' use of office and personal solicitation.

Citations and references

• Maryland Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canon XXIV; Rules of Judicial Ethics, Rule 9; Maryland Rule 1231.
• Maryland JEC Opinion Request 1975-03.

See also

• MD Judicial Ethics Op. 1977-05
• MD Judicial Ethics Op. 1981-01

Source

• Landing page: Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee opinion index
• Original PDF: Opinion 1976-07

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee

Opinion Request Number: 1976-07

Date of Issue: July 8, 1976

O Published Opinion G Unpublished Opinion G Unpublished Letter of Advice

Lawyers and Laymen May Solicit Funds for Restoring Art Objects in Courthouse If Judges Not Involved in Fundraising

You have advised the Judicial Ethics Committee that a Special Committee composed of
several [judges] has been appointed to formulate plans for the restoration and preservation of numerous historical treasures in Court House, and that a subcommittee has been charged with the restoration of several valuable murals. In order to secure funds for the restoration of the murals, you propose to invite outstanding citizens, including members of the Bar Association, to become members of your committee. You have asked whether it would be permissible for this expanded committee “to solicit contributions for this undertaking under the sponsorship of the
[Court].”
Two provisions of the Canons and Rules of Judicial Ethics, Maryland Rule 1231, directly relate to the solicitation of funds by judges. Canon XXIV provides:
“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. He should, therefore, not enter into such private business, or pursue such a course of conduct, as would justify such suspicion, nor use the power of his office or the influence of his name to promote the business interests of others; he should not solicit for charities, nor should he enter into any business relation which, in the normal course of events reasonably to be expected, might bring his personal interest into conflict with the impartial performance of his official duties.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Rule 9 states:
“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.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The Judicial Ethics Committee believes that the above Canon and Rule clearly proscribe solicitation by [judges] in the manner contemplated. See also [Opinion Request No. 1975-03], issued April 3, 1975.
As you have pointed out, however, members of Bar Association and other outstanding citizens may also be interested in soliciting funds for the proposed restoration of the art objects and historical treasures. We see nothing wrong with attorneys and other persons soliciting funds for this purpose and giving the proceeds to your Committee, as long as judges have no role in selecting such attorneys or other persons and have no role in the solicitation, and as long as the solicitation is not done under the aegis of the [Court].