May a judge lecture at a legal ethics seminar co-hosted by a law firm and Bar Counsel and sponsored by an insurer?

Plain-English summary

A judge proposed an unpaid lecture on Maryland attorney discipline at an educational ethics and malpractice seminar attended by hundreds of lawyers. A law firm and Bar Counsel co-hosted it; a liability insurer sponsored it, placed its name on some handouts, and offered attendees a modest insurance discount.

The Committee concluded that Canon 4B permits the lecture. It found that insurer sponsorship alone did not create an appearance of impropriety or favoritism. In discussing an earlier law-firm training opinion, it noted the significance of remaining reasonably available for similar invitations and participating with hosts only occasionally.

The permission was subject to the Canon 4A, 2A, and 2B limits discussed in the opinion.

In practice

The opinion permits the described educational lecture with its stated impartiality and favoritism constraints.

Common questions

Q: Did the insurer’s sponsorship itself bar the lecture?

A: No. The Committee expressly rejected that result on these facts.

Q: Was the judge paid by the hosts?

A: No. The stated compensation was only breakfast served to all attendees.

Q: Did the opinion address repeated exclusive appearances for one firm?

A: It cited an earlier opinion emphasizing availability for comparable invitations and occasional participation with the hosts.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the then-cited Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct, Canons 2A, 2B, 4A, and 4B, and discusses Maryland JEC Opinion Request 1988-02.

Citations and references

• Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct, Canons 2A, 2B, 4A, and 4B.
• Maryland JEC Opinion Request 1988-02.

See also

• Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee opinion index

Source

• Landing page: Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee opinion index
• Original PDF: Opinion 2008-18

Original opinion text

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

Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee

Opinion Request Number: 2008-18

Date of Issue: June 11, 2008

■ Published Opinion □ Unpublished Opinion □ Unpublished Letter of Advice

Judge May Lecture at Training Session Co-Hosted by a Law Firm and Bar Counsel, and Sponsored by a Liability Insurance Carrier

Issue: May a judge present a lecture to attorneys attending a seminar regarding legal ethics and malpractice that is co-hosted by a law firm and Bar Counsel, and sponsored by a liability insurance carrier?

Answer: Yes.

Facts: A judge has inquired as to the propriety of speaking at a biannual seminar, to be attended by several hundred attorneys, regarding ethical issues and the recognition and avoidance of legal malpractice. The seminar is co-hosted by a law firm and Bar Counsel, and sponsored by a liability insurance company. The judge’s presentation would be limited to a discussion of recent and significant attorney disciplinary opinions of the Maryland Court of Appeals. The seminar is designed to be 100% educational in content. There would be no compensation for the judge’s participation other than a breakfast served to all attendees. No representatives of the insurance company will make presentations at the seminar; however, some of the handouts will bear the insurer’s name or logo and the company will offer a modest discount on its liability insurance to those attorneys in attendance.

Discussion: Canon 4B of the Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct (2005) permits a judge to lecture, speak, teach, write and otherwise participate in extra-judicial activities. Such extra-judicial activities, however, are limited to activities that do not raise a substantial question as to the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge, demean the judicial office or interfere with the proper performance of the judge’s duties. Canon 4A. In addition, Canon 2A requires judges to behave with propriety and avoid even the appearance of impropriety, while Canon 2B prohibits judges from conveying or permitting others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence judicial conduct.

The Judicial Ethics Committee previously addressed a similar issue in [Opinion Request No. 1988-02], issued on August 25, 1988. In that opinion, a judge was requested to speak at an after-hours training session for young associates of a law firm. The Committee found that as long as the judge remained reasonably available to accept similar invitations, and the judge’s participation with the co-hosts were only occasional, no appearance of favoritism arose. Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion Request Number: 2008-18 Date of Issue: June 11, 2008
■ Published Opinion □ Unpublished Opinion □ Unpublished Letter of Advice Page 2 of 2

The opportunity to lecture to a significant number of Maryland attorneys on legal ethics and attorney disciplinary matters advances the interests of the judicial system, enlightens the attendees as to their ethical obligations and assists in avoiding malpractice. Such goals are consistent with the permission to participate in extra-judicial activities granted in Canon 4B. It is the Committee’s opinion that an insurance carrier’s participation as a sponsor of the seminar does not, of itself, create an appearance of impropriety, demean the judicial office, or present an impermissible appearance of favoritism.

Under the circumstances set forth above, and subject to the constraints noted, the Committee is of the opinion that the judge may lecture at the seminar.

Application: The Judicial Ethics Committee cautions that this opinion is applicable only prospectively and only to the conduct of the requestor described in this opinion, to the extent of the requestor’s compliance with this opinion. Omission or misstatement of a material fact in the written request for opinion negates reliance on this opinion.

Additionally, this opinion should not be considered to be binding indefinitely. The passage of time may result in amendment to the applicable law and/or developments in the area of judicial ethics generally or in changes of facts that could affect the conclusion of the Committee. If you engage in a continuing course of conduct, you should keep abreast of developments in the area of judicial ethics and, in the event of a change in that area or a change in facts, submit an updated request to the Committee.