May a court display private organizations’ brochures and advertising near its probate courtroom?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2006. 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 probate courthouse hallway displayed brochures for services and products aimed at older adults, from both nonprofit and commercial sources.
The Committee concluded that unrelated private promotional material should not be displayed near the courtroom, because placement could imply court preference or influence. The Committee gave court-produced pro se guidance and required parenting-class information as examples of court-related materials that could be displayed.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2006. Verify the current Nebraska Revised Code of Judicial Conduct and later opinions before relying on its conclusion.
Common questions
Q: Could a nonprofit brochure remain simply because it was educational?
A: No; the opinion treated unrelated nonprofit and commercial promotion alike.
Q: What kind of material could the court display?
A: Material related to court business, such as court guidance for self-represented litigants.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied former Canon 2’s limits on judicial prestige and the appearance of influence.
Citations and references
Former Nebraska Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon 2, including Canon 2B.
See also
Source
- Landing page: Nebraska Judicial Ethics Committee opinions
- Original PDF: Opinion 06-2
Original opinion text
Best-effort text extraction from the official PDF. The linked PDF is authoritative.
Nebraska Judicial Ethics Opinion 06-2
Questions Presented--
(1) Should the court be an instrument for providing brochures, pamphlets, and other informational literature for the elderly?
(2) If so, should the court limit the display of such information to nonprofit, public service types of organizations, or can the court allow the display of for-profit organizations?
(3) If so, should the court prominently display some sort of disclaimer clearly establishing the message that the court is not advocating for any of the organizations whose brochures are displayed or any of the services advertised by those organizations?
Conclusion
Advertisements unrelated to the judicial process, of either an educational or promotional nature, should not be displayed near the courtroom as they advance private interests and convey an impression of influence.
Statement of Facts
A county court judge recently affixed racks to the walls of the hallway in the court’s probate division. The racks have since been filled with informational brochures and advertisements for both commercial products and services, all aimed at the elderly population. Examples of such pamphlets and brochures include information from nonprofit organizations on how to cope, advertisements for nursing homes and hospice centers, commercial advertisements for automobile companies which sell vehicles that accommodate the aging population, various medical supplies, and magazines.
Much of the information and material displayed is public service in nature; however, concerns were raised as to whether the court was an appropriate location for such materials as they may convey an inappropriate association with nonjudicial organizations.
Applicable Code Sections
Neb. Code of Jud. Cond., Canon 2
Canon 2 states, “A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.” Section B elaborates, stating in part, “A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression they are in a special position to influence the judge.”
Discussion
The Code forbids the court from lending the prestige of the judicial office in order to advance the private interests of others and does not specify whether those interests are limited to nonprofit or for-profit organizations. The Code also forbids any actions or statements which convey to others the impression that a judge may be influenced. This influence encompasses advertisements near a courtroom, whether they seek to sell a product or service, or merely
Nebraska Judicial Ethics Opinion
06-2
Released: May 18, 2006
Page 1 of 2
Available on-line at www.nebraskacourt.com/ethics/2006.htm
promote an organization by providing educational information, and includes the pamphlets, brochures, and informational flyers in question. Such materials near courtrooms manifest an impression of bias and preference to those organizations whose materials are displayed.
In spite of the fact that these may be provided in the interest of the public, a court should not display advertisements for any private organizations or individuals which are not related to the business of the court. Materials that are related to the business of the court may be displayed. For example, it is appropriate to provide informational brochures prepared and/or provided by the court for pro se litigants. Likewise, it is appropriate to provide brochures regarding approved parenting classes that are required to be completed in custody cases pursuant to court rule. The court, however, should not advance the interests of private parties for the sake of providing, what may or may not be, general, helpful information unrelated to the business of the court. It is contrary to the Code to allow for-profit organizations to advertise their services or products, and it is contrary to the Code to allow nonprofit organizations to promote their interests by displaying their literature. Whether an organization is nonprofit or for-profit does not change the fact that the services and products being advertised fall outside the scope of the business of the judiciary.
Disclaimer
This opinion is advisory only and is based on the specific facts and question submitted by the person requesting the opinion pursuant to Appendix A of the Nebraska Code of Judicial Conduct. Questions concerning ethical matters for judges should be directed to the Judicial Ethics Committee.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED
BY THE COMMITTEE ON MAY 18, 2006
Judge John F. Irwin
Judge Stephen R. Illingworth
Judge John F. Steinheider
Judge Carlton E. Clark
Judge John A. Colborn
Judge Robert B. Ensz
Judge Lawrence D. Gendler
Nebraska Judicial Ethics Opinion
06-2
Released: May 18, 2006
Page 2 of 2
Available on-line at www.nebraskacourt.com/ethics/2006.htm
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2006. 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