May a judge continue serving on a private family foundation board that makes charitable grants?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1997. 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 newly appointed judge served on the board of a family foundation that made charitable grants. The foundation received property from an estate and anticipated other estate bequests, but did not solicit funds.
The Committee concluded that the described service did not appear to violate the then-current Code. The judge’s role in management, grants, and investment was nonlegal, and the foundation did not engage in fundraising requiring the judge’s personal solicitation.
Former Canon 4C barred board service if the organization was likely to be engaged frequently in adversary proceedings in the judge’s court or a court under its appellate jurisdiction. The Committee said the judge should regularly reevaluate the foundation’s activities.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1997, before Nebraska's adoption of the 2011 Revised Code of Judicial Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific requirement.
Common questions
Q: Did the Committee allow service on this foundation’s board?
A: Yes, on the facts given, subject to the former Code’s limits on adversary proceedings, fundraising and legal advice.
Q: Could the judge personally solicit donations?
A: The opinion said personal fundraising was restricted under former Canon 4C(3)(b)(i); the foundation described in the request did not solicit funds.
Q: What if the foundation began litigating in the judge’s court?
A: The opinion said board service was barred if frequent adversary proceedings in that court were likely and called for regular reevaluation of the organization’s activities.
Background and rules framework
The opinion quoted former Nebraska Canons 4A and 4C(3). They governed extrajudicial activity and service as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal adviser of a charitable organization.
Citations and references
Former Nebraska Code of Judicial Conduct: Canons 4A(1), 4C(3)(a), and 4C(3)(b)(i).
See also
Source
- Landing page: Nebraska Judicial Ethics Committee opinions
- Original PDF: Opinion 97-3
Original opinion text
Best-effort text extraction from the official PDF. The linked PDF is authoritative.
Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion 97-3
Question Presented--
A newly appointed judge requests an opinion whether continued service on the board of a private foundation violates the Nebraska Code of Judicial Conduct.
The foundation does not solicit funds or accept funds from any source other than properties upon which the foundation was based. (The foundation is a family foundation, the original bequest was from an estate, and additional bequests are anticipated from other estates). The purpose of the foundation is to make charitable grants.
Conclusion
The foundation is a nonprofit, charitable foundation, and the judge’s participation does not involve either impermissible fundraising or the functioning as a legal advisor to the foundation. Unless the organization is engaged in frequent adversary proceedings in the court where the judge is a member, the judge’s service on the board of this charitable foundation does not appear to violate the Nebraska Code of Judicial Conduct (Code).
Applicable Code Sections
CANON 4
A Judge Shall So Conduct All
Extra-Judicial Activities as to Minimize the Risk of Conflict with Judicial Obligations
A. Extra-judicial Activities in General. A judge shall conduct all of the judge’s extra-judicial activities so that they do not:
(1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge;
....
C. Governmental, Civic or Charitable Activities.
....
(3) A judge may serve as an officer, director, trustee or non-legal advisor of an organization or governmental agency devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice or of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic
Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion
97-3
Released: August 1997
Page 1 of 3
organization not conducted for profit, subject to the following limitations and the other requirements of this Code.
(a) A judge shall not serve as an officer, director, trustee or non-legal advisor if it is likely that the organization will be engaged frequently in adversary proceedings in the court of which the judge is a member or in any court subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the court of which the judge is a member.
(b) A judge as an officer, director, trustee or non-legal advisor, or as a member or otherwise:
(i) may assist such an organization in planning fund raising and may participate in the management and investment of the organization’s funds, but shall not participate personally in the solicitation of funds or other fund-raising activities, except that a judge may solicit funds from other judges over whom the judge does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority.
Discussion
Although the Code does limit a judge’s ability to participate in certain types of extra-judicial activities, the Code does not require the cessation of all participation in community activities. As stated in the commentary of Canon 4(A), “Judges should not become isolated from their community.” Participation in charitable foundations with certain limitations is allowed. While direct participation in fundraising would be problematic under the Code, in this instance there is no indication that the judge is engaged in any inappropriate fundraising, as by his description, the foundation does not engage in or rely on fundraising to further its charitable purposes.
The judge’s participation must also be that of a nonlegal advisor. In this case, the judge’s service on the board is limited to management, decisions relating to grants, and investment of funds. As the service does not include acting as a legal advisor, this limitation does not preclude the judge’s participation.
In addition, a judge may not participate as a member of a board of a charitable organization that is likely to be engaged frequently in adversary proceedings in the court of which the judge is a member. As pointed out in the commentary, this is a matter of judgment specific to the individual organization, to be determined by the judge. This judge has a long-term affiliation with the foundation and should be able to determine whether the cautionary limitation regarding frequent litigation is of concern in this instance. The judge should regularly reevaluate the activities of the organization to determine if continued involvement is proper.
Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion
97-3
Released: August 1997
Page 2 of 3
Disclaimer
This opinion is advisory only and is based on the specific facts and questions submitted by the person or organization 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 Ethics Advisory Committee.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY
THE COMMITTEE ON August 31, 1997
Judge Darvid Quist
Judge Michael McGill
Judge Stephen M. Swartz
Judge Toni G. Thorson
Judge Lindsey Miller-Lerman
Judge Cloyd Clark
Judge Donald Rowlands
Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion
97-3
Released: August 1997
Page 3 of 3
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1997. 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