Can a former Ohio judge use 'Judge' or 'Honorable' on law firm letterhead or business cards?

Plain-English summary

The Board addressed whether a former judge returning to private practice could use judicial titles or statements of prior judicial positions on letterheads, business cards, professional announcement cards, or law directory listings. It first noted the question did not concern retired judges eligible for recall, who are prohibited from practicing law.

Applying DR 2-101(A)(1) (no false, misleading, deceptive, or self-laudatory communication) and DR 9-101(C) (no statement or implication of ability to influence improperly), the Board concluded that using titles such as "Judge," "Honorable," or "Former Judge" on letterheads and business cards creates an appearance of impropriety and is misleading. Such use implies that past judicial position is being used to influence others or to assure a client's success, and is irrelevant to handling a legal matter. The Board's conclusion aligned with longstanding ABA advice and that of several other states.

The Board drew a distinction for professional announcement cards and law directory listings, which are generally used to disseminate factual information to the profession rather than to correspond with clients. While the titles themselves would not be appropriate, the Board concluded it would not be misleading or create an appearance of impropriety for a former judge to include a factual statement of prior judicial positions held in those formats.

Currency note

The Ohio Board flags this opinion as a "CPR Opinion" that interprets the former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility, which was superseded by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct effective February 1, 2007.

This opinion issued in 1993. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a former judge use "Judge" or "Honorable" on letterhead or business cards?

A: No. Under DR 2-101(A)(1) and DR 9-101(C), the Board found it misleading and an appearance of improper influence, because it implies the former judge can use past judicial position to influence others or assure a client's success.

Q: Could a former judge state prior judicial service anywhere?

A: Yes. The Board concluded a former judge could include a factual statement of prior judicial positions on professional announcement cards and law directory listings, which are used to disseminate information to the profession rather than to correspond with clients.

Q: Did this match advice elsewhere?

A: The Board noted its conclusion aligned with ABA Informal Opinion 1006 (1967) and opinions from Florida, Iowa, and Michigan; it observed that Arizona took a contrary view permitting prior-experience information on letterhead.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-101(A)(1) (false, misleading, deceptive, or self-laudatory communication), DR 9-101(C) (improper-influence statements), and DR 2-102(A) (dignified professional cards, announcement cards, office signs, and letterhead).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-101(A)(1), DR 9-101(C), DR 2-102(A)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Standing Comm. on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Informal Op. 1006 (1967)
• Florida Bar Ops. 87-9 (1987), 73-27 (1973), 70-63 (1971); Iowa State Bar Ass'n Op. 80-49 (1980); State Bar of Michigan Op. CI-850 (1983); State Bar of Arizona Op. 87-1 (1987)

See also

• Ohio BPC Op. 1987-048: Judge's Name on Former Law Firm Letterhead
• Ohio BPC Op. 1988-006: Retired Judge as Private and Visiting Judge
• Ohio BPC Op. 1992-016: Referee Using a Title in Judicial Campaign Advertising
• Ohio BPC Op. 1989-027: Trade Name, Geographic Location, Legal Center

Source

• Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
• Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op-93-008.pdf

Original opinion text

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

The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 3370, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6105
(614) 644-5800 FAX: (614) 644-5804

OFFICE OF SECRETARY

OPINION 93-8
Issued October 15, 1993

[CPR Opinion-provides advice under the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility which is superseded by the Ohio
Rules of Professional Conduct, eff. 2/1/2007.]

SYLLABUS: It is improper under DR 2-101 (A) (1) and DR 9-101 (C) of the Ohio Code of
Professional Responsibility for a former judge returning to private law practice to use statements as
to prior judicial positions held or titles such as "Judge," "Honorable," or "Former Judge" on
letterheads or business cards in connection with the practice of law. However, on professional
announcement cards or law directory listings it would not be improper for a former judge returning
to private law practice to include a factual statement of prior judicial positions held.

OPINION: This opinion addresses whether it is ethical for a former judge returning to private law
practice to use statements as to prior judicial positions held or titles such as "Judge, "Honorable," or
"Former Judge" on letterheads, business cards, professional announcement cards, or law directory
listings in connection with the practice of law. The Board begins by noting that this issue is not
relevant to retired judges in Ohio who are eligible for recall to judicial service since they are
prohibited from practicing law. See Compliance Section, Code of Judicial Conduct.

The applicable rules within Ohio's Code of Professional Responsibility are Disciplinary Rules 2-
101 (A) (1), 9-101 (C), and 2-102 (A). Disciplinary Rule 2-101 (A) (1) prohibits the use of public
communication that "[c]ontains any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, self-laudatory, or
unfair statement." Disciplinary Rule 9-101 (C), prohibits the appearance of impropriety by
requiring that "[a] lawyer shall not state or imply that he [she] is able to influence improperly or
upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body, or public official." Disciplinary Rule 2-102
(A) requires that professional cards, professional announcement cards, office signs, letterheads, or
similar professional notices be dignified in form and comply with the standards set forth for
professional cards in DR 2-102 (A) (1), for professional announcement cards in DR 2-102 (A) (2),
for office signs in DR 2-102 (A) (3), and for letterhead in DR 2-102(A)(4).

Over twenty-five years ago, the Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility of the
American Bar Association advised that it is improper for a former judge to use the title "Judge" on
stationery after leaving the bench. American Bar Association, Informal Op. 1006 (1967). At that
time, the ABA also advised that a former judge should not encourage others to address him or her
as "Judge," should not place his or her previous title on an office door, and should not sign
pleadings with the prefix of "Judge" in front of his or her name. Id.

Several states also advise against a former judge's use of titles such as "Judge,” "Honorable," or
"Former Judge" in private practice, based on ethical concerns regarding misleading or deceptive
communication, self-laudation, impropriety, or improper influence. For example, the Florida Bar
advises that a former judicial officer should not use the title "judge" in the private practice of law.
Florida Bar, Ops. 87-9 (1987), 73-27 (1973), 70-63 (1971). The Iowa Bar advises that it would be
improper for a retired judge to use the title "Judge" or "The Honorable" or any similar connotation
on stationery or professional notices. Iowa State Bar Ass'n, Op. 80-49 (1980). The State Bar of
Michigan advises that if a retired judge is actively engaged in the practice of law, the use of
stationery noting former judicial positions would be improper because of the implication that the
lawyer may be in a position to influence former judicial colleagues to act favorably with regard to a
client's matter. State Bar of Michigan, Op. CI-850 (1983). In contrast, the State Bar of Arizona
advises that information regarding a retired judge's prior experience does not constitute a "false or
misleading communication" and may be included on letterhead. State Bar of Arizona, Op. 87-1
(1987).

This Board's opinion is that a former judge's use of statements as to prior judicial positions held or
titles such as "Judge," "Honorable," or "Former Judge" on letterheads and business cards in
connection with the practice of law creates an appearance of impropriety and is misleading. Such
communication creates an appearance that a former judge's previous public position is being used
to influence others or to further his or her private practice of law. Such communication on
letterhead and business cards is also misleading to a client by creating the appearance that an
attorney can use the prestige of past judicial experience to assure a client's success. Further, the use
of such title on letterhead and business cards is irrelevant to handling of a legal matter for a client.
It falsely indicates to clients and others that a former judge has influence over others to achieve
desired ends or favorable treatment for the client.

However, a distinction can be made between information appropriate for a letterhead or business
card and information appropriate for a professional announcement card or a professional law
directory. Professional announcement cards and professional law directory listings are generally
not used in corresponding with clients and others regarding legal matters, but rather are used to
announce changes and disseminate factual information to the profession. Although the use of titles
such as "Judge," "Honorable," or "Former Judge" would not seem appropriate on professional
announcement cards or professional law directory listings, the Board does not find it to be
misleading or to create an appearance of impropriety for a former judge returning to private law
practice to include on professional announcement cards or professional law directory listings a
factual statement of prior judicial positions held.

In conclusion, this Board advises that it is improper under DR 2-101 (A) (1) and DR 9-101 (C) of
the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility for a former judge returning to private law practice to
use statements as to prior judicial positions held or titles such as "Judge," "Honorable," or "Former
Judge" on letterheads or business cards in connection with the practice of law. However, on
professional announcement cards or law directory listings it would not be improper for a former
judge returning to private law practice to include a factual statement of prior judicial positions held.

Advisory Opinions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline are
informal, nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions regarding
the application of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, the
Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary, the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Attorney's Oath of Office.