Can a prosecutor offer more favorable plea deals, continuances, or PJCs to defendants who make a charitable contribution to a local cause instead of paying court fines?

Plain-English summary

The opinion addressed a district attorney who wanted to offer more favorable plea bargains to people charged with traffic violations and minor criminal offenses on the condition that the defendant make a direct charitable contribution to the local school board, and likewise to agree to continuances and prayers for judgment continued in exchange for such contributions. The contributions would not be court fines and would not pass through the court system. The district attorney argued the arrangement would have defendants pay more than a court fine and would give the school system more money than fines alone.

The opinion concluded that the practice would not be ethical. Offering special treatment to defendants charged with traffic violations or minor offenses in exchange for direct donations, even to the most worthy charity, implies that justice can be purchased. The opinion held that such conduct is clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 1.2(d), citing also Rule 7.2(a)(9), and that it would be contrary to a prosecutor's special responsibility to seek justice, not merely to convict, as recognized in the Comment to Rule 7.3. The opinion added that it does not limit a prosecutor's authority to recommend a plea arrangement that includes restitution or reparation under G.S. 15A-1021.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, before the North Carolina State Bar's adoption of the 2003 revisions to the Rules of Professional 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a North Carolina prosecutor condition a plea deal on a charitable donation?

A: No. The opinion concluded that offering more favorable plea bargains in exchange for direct charitable contributions implies justice can be purchased and violates Rule 1.2(d).

Q: Does it matter that the charity is worthy or that the school gets more money?

A: No. The opinion concluded the practice is improper even when the contribution goes to the most worthy charity, because the problem is the implication that justice can be bought.

Q: Does this affect a prosecutor recommending restitution?

A: No. The opinion stated it does not limit a prosecutor's authority to recommend a plea arrangement that includes restitution or reparation under G.S. 15A-1021.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied North Carolina's then-current Rule 1.2(d), barring conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (corresponding to Model Rule 8.4), together with Rule 7.2(a)(9) and the Comment to Rule 7.3 recognizing a prosecutor's special responsibility to seek justice rather than merely convict (corresponding to Model Rule 3.8). It distinguished restitution authorized by G.S. 15A-1021.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 8.4 (misconduct; conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice)
• MR 3.8 (special responsibilities of a prosecutor)
• North Carolina Rule 1.2(d), Rule 7.2(a)(9), Rule 7.3

Statutes:

• N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1021 (plea arrangements; restitution or reparation)

See also

• NC Ethics Op. RPC 243: prosecutor's discretion to calendar cases
• NC Ethics Op. 2013 FEO 1: release-dismissal agreement offered by a prosecutor
• NC Ethics Op. 2003 FEO 5: misrepresentation of prior record at sentencing

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/rpc-204/

Original opinion text

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

Editor's Note: This opinion was originally published as RPC 204 (Revised).

Inquiry:

District Attorney X would like to offer more favorable plea bargains to persons charged with traffic violations and minor criminal offenses upon condition that the individual charged make a direct charitable contribution to the local school board. In exchange for such contributions, the District Attorney would also like to offer to agree to the granting of continuances and PJCs (prayers for judgment continued) in traffic citation and minor criminal cases. The charitable contributions would not be court fines and would not be channeled through the court system. The District Attorney contends that by making a direct contribution to the school system, defendants are paying more money than they would be required to pay if they were fined by the court and the school system receives more money than it would receive from court fines alone. Would this practice be ethical?

Opinion:

No. The offer of special treatment from a prosecutor to individuals charged with traffic violations or minor criminal offenses in exchange for direct donations to even the most worthy charity implies that justice can be purchased. Such conduct is clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 1.2(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. See also Rule 7.2(a)(9). This practice would also be contrary to a prosecutor's special responsibility "to seek justice, not merely to convict." Comment to Rule 7.3.

This opinion does not limit or prohibit the exercise of the authority granted to a prosecutor to recommend a particular plea arrangement which includes restitution or reparation pursuant to G.S. §15A-1021.