Can a lawyer buy meals, gifts, or entertainment for a judge or administrative hearing officer who hears the lawyer's cases?

Plain-English summary

The opinion (rendered November 11, 1970, and amended April 6, 2013) addressed whether a lawyer who has numerous cases before an administrative body with judicial powers may habitually curry favor with hearing officers by taking them to meals, giving them bottles of whiskey, and otherwise paying for their entertainment. The committee concluded that the described practice is improper and unethical.

The opinion explained that marked attention and unusual hospitality by a lawyer toward a judge, uncalled for by the personal relations of the parties, subject both the judge and the lawyer to misconstructions of motive and should be avoided, and that a lawyer deserves rebuke for any device or attempt to gain a special personal consideration or favor from a judge. It applied MRPC 3.5(a) (no seeking to influence a judge, juror, or other official by means prohibited by law) and 3.5(b) (no ex parte communication during the proceeding unless authorized), and MRPC 8.4(d) (professional misconduct to engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

The committee concluded that these principles, which govern a lawyer's relationship with a judge, apply equally to a lawyer's relationship with an administrative hearing officer or other quasi-judicial officer.

In practice

Under this opinion, a Mississippi lawyer who appears before a judge, an administrative hearing officer, or other quasi-judicial officer should not provide meals, liquor, or entertainment as a way to win favor, because the opinion treats that as improper influence and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The opinion holds that even hospitality not tied to a personal relationship should be avoided because it invites misconstruction of motive.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer take a judge or hearing officer to meals or give them gifts?

A: The opinion concluded that currying favor with a judge or hearing officer through meals, whiskey, or paid entertainment is improper and unethical.

Q: Does this apply to administrative hearing officers, not just judges?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded that the same principles governing a lawyer's relationship with a judge apply to an administrative hearing officer or other quasi-judicial officer.

Q: Which rules does the opinion rely on?

A: Per the opinion, MRPC 3.5(a) and (b) (improper influence and ex parte contact) and MRPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets MRPC 3.5 (improper influence on and ex parte communication with judges and officials) and MRPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), corresponding to Model Rules 3.5 and 8.4.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (Mississippi; cf. Model Rules):

• MRPC 3.5(a), 3.5(b) (improper influence; ex parte contact) (cf. Model Rule 3.5)
• MRPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) (cf. Model Rule 8.4)

See also

• Hawaii Ethics Op. 24: Gifts and Loans to Judges by Lawyers
• Mississippi Ethics Op. 7: Currying Favor With Juries

Source

• Landing page: https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/22/
• Original PDF: https://www.msbar.org/media/1063/et_op_22-amended.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS OPINION NO. 22

OF THE MISSISSIPPI BAR

RENDERED November 11, 1970

AMENDED April 06, 2013

PERSONAL INFLUENCE - JUDGES- Attempts to exert personal influence upon an administrative officer is improper.

Rule 3.5(a) and (b) and 8.4(d) of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC).

An opinion from this Committee has been requested on the following question:

Is it proper and ethical for a practicing attorney who has numerous cases before an administrative body, which has judicial powers, to habitually curry favor with hearing officers by taking them out and paying for their meals, giving them bottles of whiskey and otherwise paying for their entertainment?

In the opinion of this Committee, the practice described in the foregoing question is improper and unethical. Marked attention and unusual hospitality on the part of a lawyer to a judge, uncalled for by the personal relations of the parties, subject both the judge and the lawyer to misconstructions of motive and should be avoided. A lawyer deserves rebuke and denunciation for any device or attempt to gain from a judge a special personal consideration or favor.

Rule 3.5, MRPC, states in part:

A lawyer shall not:

(a) seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other official by means prohibited by law;

(b) communicate ex parte with such a person during the proceeding unless authorized to do so by law or court order;

Rule 8.4(d), MRPC, states in part:

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The Committee believes that the aforesaid principles which apply regarding a lawyer's relationship with a judge, also, apply regarding a lawyer's relationship with an administrative hearing officer or other quasi-judicial officer.