May a Maryland judge attend a social function as an attorney’s guest if the host appears to display a close relationship with the judge?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1984. 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 bar association functions or private parties hosted by a lawyer or firm, where the judge might discover that the host was displaying the relationship to lawyers or clients.
The Committee read Canon XIII as guarding against the impression of improper influence and Canon XXXII as allowing social contact while cautioning against conduct suggesting that relationships affect judicial decisions. It permitted acceptance of an invitation when no improper purpose was suspected, but said the judge should leave if the situation became compromising or uncomfortable.
The Committee did not address gift rules because the inquiry did not say that a paid ticket was required. The PDF says May 21, 1984, while the opinion number begins 1983, and the page records the stated issue date, 1984-05-21.
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: Does a lawyer’s invitation automatically bar attendance?
A: No. The Committee said the judge may accept if there is no reason to suspect improper use of the judge’s presence.
Q: What if the host appears to use the judge as a display of a close connection?
A: The Committee said the judge should leave on finding the situation compromising or uncomfortable.
Q: Did the Committee decide whether accepting a paid ticket was permissible?
A: No. It said the inquiry did not mention a paid ticket, so it did not reach gift rules.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies Maryland’s then-cited Canons XIII and XXXII on apparent influence and social contact. It expressly leaves Canon XXXI and Ethics Rule 7 on gifts unaddressed.
Citations and references
- Maryland Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canons XIII and XXXII.
- Canon XXXI, Ethics Rule 7 and Maryland JEC Opinion Request 1981-01, expressly not reached.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee opinion index
- Original PDF: Opinion 1983-09
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee
Opinion Request Number: 1983-09
Date of Issue: May 21, 1984
O Published Opinion G Unpublished Opinion G Unpublished Letter of Advice
Judge Not Absolutely Prohibited from Attending Social Function as Guest of Attorney
A judge inquires if he may attend bar association social affairs or private parties as a guest of an attorney or law firm where after arrival he concludes that he is part of a judicial “show and tell” put on for the purpose of displaying to other attorneys or clients of the host what would appear to be a close relationship between the host and guest judges.
The governing standards are found in the following Canons:
CANON XIII
“A judge ... should not suffer his conduct to justify the impression that any person can improperly influence him or unduly enjoy his favor, or that he is affected by the kinship, rank, position, or influence of any party or other person.” CANON XXXII
“It is not necessary to the proper performance of judicial duty that a judge should live in retirement or seclusion; it is desirable that, so far as reasonable attention to the completion of his work will permit, he continue to mingle in social intercourse, and that he should not discontinue his interest in or appearance at meetings of members of the bar. He should, however, in pending or prospective litigation before him be particularly careful to avoid such action as may reasonably tend to awaken the suspicion that his social or business relations or friendships constitute an element in influencing his judicial conduct.”
It is the opinion of this Committee that if a judge is invited to a social function by an attorney and there is no reason to suspect that the attorney will attempt to use the judge’s presence for any inappropriate purpose, there is no reason why the judge cannot accept the invitation. If, after arriving, the judge finds that he is being placed in a compromising or uncomfortable position, he should leave.
There being no mention in the judge’s inquiry of a paid ticket being required for the bar association or other social function, the Committee feels no need to consider the applicability of Canon XXXI, Rule 7, or [Opinion Request No. 1981-01] dealing with the subject of gifts.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1984. 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