Can a Michigan judge show support for a charity on social media, and may the judge's name and photo appear on a charity's website or social media?

Plain-English summary

The committee addressed how a judge's charitable involvement translates to social media. Under MCJC 4C, a judge may participate in civic and charitable activities that do not reflect adversely on impartiality or interfere with judicial duties, and may serve on a charity's board so long as the organization would not ordinarily come before the judge or be regularly engaged in adversary proceedings. Under MCJC 4D, a judge may serve on an honorary committee, join a general appeal, speak at or receive an award, and allow the judge's name or title to be used in advertising the judge's involvement, so long as the judge does not individually solicit funds; the 2013 amendments clarified that such use of a judge's name is not an improper use of the prestige of office.

Drawing on J-8 and JI-139, the opinion reasoned that listing a board position on a social-media profile is akin to being listed on letterhead or a curriculum vitae, and that a charity's website listing a judge among many board members is a digital version of letterhead. It concluded that, just as a judge may take part in public charitable activities (walk-a-thons, softball games) but may not solicit membership in a way perceived as coercive, a judge may show support for a charity on social media so long as the judge does not individually solicit funds or use the office to coerce participation, and the charity may use the judge's name and photograph on its website and social media so long as it does not appear to be a personal solicitation, coerce participation, or compromise the integrity of the court.

The opinion drew a line at publicizing the judge's own donations. Relying on JI-46 (judges' contributions should not be separated from or treated differently than those of other interested persons), it concluded that voluntarily disclosing a specific financial contribution where a judge's contribution is treated differently than anyone else's suggests the prestige of office is being used to benefit the organization, which Canon 4D proscribes; a judge should therefore not publish a specific pledge or donation on social media, as it is likely to be perceived as suggesting others follow suit. The opinion added that under MCJC 1, 2A, and 2F, a judge should never associate with an organization that discriminates or appears to discriminate on the basis of a protected characteristic, and should avoid any association the judge has reservations about, including through social and digital media.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2019 and interprets the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct (as amended in 2013) as it then stood. The Code may have been amended since. Verify the current Code of Judicial Conduct before relying on any specific canon cited here.

Common questions

Q: Can a Michigan judge show support for a charity on social media?

A: The opinion concluded a judge may, so long as the organization is unlikely to appear before the judge, the judge does not coerce participation, and the judge does not individually solicit funds.

Q: Can a charity post the judge's name and photo on its website or social media?

A: The opinion concluded it may, provided the use does not appear to be a personal solicitation, coerce participation, or compromise the integrity of the court.

Q: Can a judge post about a specific donation the judge made?

A: No. The opinion concluded a judge should not publish the judge's own specific charitable contributions on social media, as it suggests others follow suit and uses the prestige of office.

Q: Are there organizations a judge should avoid entirely?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded a judge should never associate with an organization that discriminates or appears to discriminate on the basis of a protected characteristic, and should avoid any association the judge has reservations about.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted MCJC 1, 2A, 2F, 4C, and 4D of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct (as amended in 2013), governing integrity, the appearance of impropriety, membership in organizations, and civic, charitable, and fundraising activities. It relied on prior opinions J-8, JI-46, and JI-139.

Citations and references

Code of Judicial Conduct (as cited):

• MCJC 1 (integrity and independence of the judiciary)
• MCJC 2A, 2F (appearance of impropriety; avoiding discriminatory organizations)
• MCJC 4C (civic and charitable activities; board service)
• MCJC 4D (fundraising; no individual solicitation)

Other opinions cited:

• Michigan J-8: a judge's participation in charitable activities
• Michigan JI-46: disclosure of judges' contributions in a millage campaign
• Michigan JI-139: a judge's name in charity event advertising

See also

• Mich Judicial Ethics Op. JI-139: a judge's role with charities that support problem-solving courts
• Mich Judicial Ethics Op. JI-115: a judge attending a political party's testimonial fundraiser

Source

• Landing page: https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions?OpinionID=1254&Type=6

Original opinion text

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

JI-148

November 1, 2019

SYLLABUS

Judges may support charitable organizations on social media so long as the organization will not likely be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge, the judge does not coerce participation by others, and the judge does not individually solicit funds for the organization.

Judges shall not individually publish their own specific charitable contributions on social media.

Judges may allow their names and photographs to be shown on the website or in the social media of a charitable organization if the use does not: (1) appear to be the judge's personal solicitation for funds; (2) coerce participation from others; or (3) compromise the integrity of the court.

References: MCJC 1, 2A, 2F, 4C, 4D; J-8, JI-46, JI-139.

TEXT

Frequently, judges are active members of their local community and are engaged in civic and charitable activities before and during their tenure on the bench. The Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct (MCJC) permits this participation so long as it does "not reflect adversely upon the judge's impartiality or interfere with the performance of judicial duties." MCJC 4C. The judge may even serve on the board of a charitable organization so long as the organization would not ordinarily come before that judge or be "regularly engaged in adversarial proceedings in any court." Id.

With respect to fundraising for charitable organizations, judges are allowed to serve as a member of an honorary committee, join a general appeal, speak at or receive an award during an organization's event, and allow their "name or title be used in advertising the judge's involvement in an event so long as the judge does not individually solicit funds." MCJC 4D. In 2013, the MCJC was amended to clarify permissible and prohibited activities related to participation in organizations and their fundraising efforts. One such specific clarification was the statement that using a judge's name or title in advertising a judge's involvement in an event was not improperly using the prestige of office under MCJC 4.

Opinion J-8 addresses a judge's participation in many common types of charitable activities. A judge who includes his or her position on a charitable organization's board of directors on a social media profile is akin to being listed on the organization's letterhead or in the judge's curriculum vitae for public speaking engagements. Similarly, an organization's website that lists a judge as one among many board members is just a digital version of the old-school concept of letterhead.

A judge may participate in public activities for charitable organizations, such as walk-a-thons and softball games. J-8. But judges are not permitted to solicit membership for a charitable organization if it may be perceived as using the prestige of their office to coerce participation. J-8 citing MCJC 2A and 4C. A judge's name and title is even allowed to be used for fundraising events so long as the judge does not obviously solicit funds. JI-139; MCJC 4D. Given the other examples of public conduct in support of an organization that is permissible under the Canons, a judge may also show support of a charitable organization on his or her social media so long as they do not individually solicit funds or use their position in office to coerce participation in an organization.

A charitable organization's digital content, i.e. their website and social media, is no different than more traditional forms of communication such as flyers, posters, and mailers in that it publicly displays a person's involvement in an organization. The difference in these means of communication relates to the scope of the media's reach when transmitting this information. Although social media and websites can reach a larger audience, any communication permissible via a print document continues to be permissible in a charitable organization's digital content. Therefore, a judge's name and photograph may be used by the charitable organization on their website and social media so long as it does not appear to be a personal solicitation for funds from the judge, coerce participation from others, or compromise the integrity of the court.

On occasion, social media users include content publicizing financial contributions for charitable purposes. For example, charity pledge drives often encourage a donor to share their pledge on a social media platform to encourage and/or invite others to also donate. In the context of a county-wide millage campaign to increase revenue for court operations, and other county expenditures, JI-46 stated that disclosure of judges' contributions that become a matter of public record as required by law are permissible, but "contributions from judges should not be separated from or treated differently than those of other interested persons." Consequently, a voluntary public disclosure of a specific financial contribution in a charitable organization where the contribution by a judge is treated differently than a contribution by any other individual would suggest that the prestige of office is being used to benefit the organization. Such a public disclosure is proscribed conduct under MCJC 4D. In the vein, a judge should not publish via social media a specific pledge or donation to a charitable organization as it is likely to be perceived that the judge is personally suggesting others follow suit.

Although judges may participate in the activities described above, judges are strongly advised to ensure that their conduct will not erode the integrity and independence of the judiciary. MCJC 1. Specifically, a judge should never associate with an organization "that discriminate[s], or appear[s] to discriminate, on the basis of race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic." MCJC 2F (emphasis added). Additionally, a judge must avoid any conduct that may even appear improper. MCJC 2A. Therefore, if a judge has reservations about being associated with any charitable organization, then the judge should avoid this association, including through social media and other digital media used by the organization.

CONCLUSION

Judges may support charitable organizations on social media so long as the organization will not likely be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge, the judge does not coerce participation by others, and the judge does not individually solicit funds for the organization.

Judges shall not individually publish their own specific charitable contributions on social media.

Judges may allow their names and photographs to be shown on the website or in the social media of a charitable organization if the use does not: (1) appear to be the judge's personal solicitation for funds; (2) coerce participation from others; or (3) compromise the integrity of the court.