Could a Maine judge join a committee raising money for a local hospital renovation?

Plain-English summary

A judge asked about serving on a committee for a hospital renovation capital campaign. The opinion explained that the judge’s name would appear on fundraising letters sent to potential donors. Source: Opinion 02-2.

The committee cited Canons 2(B) and 4(C)(3)(b), which restricted lending judicial prestige to private interests and personal participation in fundraising. It reasoned that recipients of the letters could include current or future litigants and might feel obligated to contribute. Source: Opinion 02-2.

Relying also on its Advisory Opinion 97-3 about a judge acting as a cashier at a charitable book sale, the committee concluded that participation on the hospital fundraising committee would violate Canons 2(B) and 4(C)(3)(b)(i). Source: Opinion 02-2.

In practice

For the described capital campaign, the committee prohibited committee service that would place the judge’s name on solicitation letters. Source: Opinion 02-2.

Common questions

Q: Could the judge join the hospital fundraising committee?

A: No. The committee concluded that the proposed participation would violate Canons 2(B) and 4(C)(3)(b)(i). Source: Opinion 02-2.

Q: Why did the letters matter?

A: The judge’s committee membership would be visible to solicited donors, who might include parties with interests before the judge. Source: Opinion 02-2.

Q: Did the charitable purpose change the result?

A: No. The committee found the fundraising concerns present despite the organization’s laudatory nature. Source: Opinion 02-2.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Maine Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 2(B) and 4(C)(3)(b)(i) to the judge’s visible role in a fundraising campaign. It treated its own Opinion 97-3 on visible participation at a charitable book sale as persuasive. Source: Opinion 02-2.

Citations and references

Maine Code of Judicial Conduct:

• Canons 2(B) and 4(C)(3)(b)(i).

Other opinions cited:

• Maine Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 97-3, on a judge acting as a cashier at a charitable book sale.

See also

• ME Judicial Ethics Op. 02-4: Fundraising Speech
• ME Judicial Ethics Op. 05-3: Charity Donations
• ME Judicial Ethics Op. 03-2: Charity Brochure

Source

• Landing page: Maine advisory-opinion index
• Original PDF: Opinion 02-2

Original opinion text

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

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

JUDICIAL ETHICS COMMITTEE
Advisory Opinion 02-2
Issued July 16, 2002

Issue: Whether a judge may serve on a “mini-capital campaign” co
funds for the renovation of a local hospital.

Discussion: The Maine Code of Judicial Conduct provides guidelines with respect to charitable fundraising by judges. Canon 2 states “‘a judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others.” Canon 4(C)(3)(b) further clarifies a judge’s permissible role in charitable organizations: | «

A judge as an officer, director, trustee or non-legal advisor [of a charitable organization], or as a member or otherwise ... may assist such an organization in planning fundraising .. but shall not personally participate in the solicitation of funds or other fund-raising activities.... [A judge] shall not use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising or membership solicitation.

Two principal concems exist when considering the propriety of a judge’s involvement in fundraising activity. The first is that potential donors may feel compelled to contribute or that donors may expect special consideration in the future in return for their gift. Second, financial

solicitation compromises the public confidence in judges by creating the appearance of conflicts

of interest. See Jeffrey Shaman, et al. Judicial Conduct and Ethics (3 Ed. 2000) §9.06 at 294-

295. In this case, we believe such concerns are prevalent despite the laudatory nature of the
     organization for which funds are to be solicited.

The Judicial Ethics Committe previously addressed a similar question in Advisory Opinion No. 97-3, finding that Canon 4(C)(3)(b)(i) precluded a judge from acting as a cashier at a used book sale held to benefit a charitable organization. In that opinion, we found that “the judge’s visible participation at a fund-raising event may make lawyers or litigants feel obligated

[to donate].” Me. Jud. Adv. Op. 97-3. As a committee member whose name would appear on

fundraising letters, the judge’s involvement in the hospital’s capital campaign will be apparent to persons from whom funds are solicited. Those persons may include current or future parties with interests before the judge. Furthermore, the overwhelming weight of authority from other jurisdictions with similar judicial conduct provisions supports a strict interpretation of the rules on fundraising.’ Thus, we find the rationale underpinning Opinion No. 97-3 persuasive and

believe that the participation of a judge on a fundraising committee would violate Canons 2(B)

and 4(C)(3)(b)(i).

' See, e.g., Ark. Jud. Adv. Op. 94-09 (finding service on an ad hoc fund-raising committee for the local Boys/Girls Club to be a “clear violation” of Canon 4(C)(3)); Del. Jud. Adv. Op. 1998-2 (citing Canon 2(B) in advising a judge not to serve on a church committee responsible for collecting tuition owed to a church-operated school); Wash. Jud. Adv. Op. 91-9 (improper for a judicial officer to chair a fundraising event for a civic organization, even where the judicial officer would not be responsible for individual solicitations); Ill. Jud. Adv. Op. 99-1 (prohibiting a judge from volunteering as a “celebrity bagger” in a United Way fundraiser at a local supermarket); Neb. Jud. Adv. Op. 00-1 (advising judge not to participate in charity auction to benefit a local non-profit organization); and Neb. Jud. Adv. Op. 02-3 (prohibiting a judge from authoring a letter on behalf of the Nebraska State Bar Association’s charitable campaign). See also In re Benjamin Crahalla, 46 Pa. D. & C. 4°38 (2000) (reprimanding a judge for sending a letter on behalf of the Boy Scouts that included a request for contributions).

2