Can an Ohio judge let his or her picture appear on a DARE program trading card?

Plain-English summary

The Board addressed whether a judge could allow his or her picture to appear on a DARE program trading card. Under the program described, community leaders purchase one thousand cards bearing their photo, personal history, and a personal comment, then distribute them to students.

The Board recognized the value of drug-education programs and of community leaders as role models, but explained that the Code of Judicial Conduct restricts a judge's extra-judicial activities. Applying Canon 1 (integrity and independence of the judiciary), Canon 2 (avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, and not lending the prestige of office to advance others' interests), and Canon 5 (regulation of extra-judicial activities), the Board concluded that a judge's picture appearing on a DARE trading card was not proper.

Currency note

The Ohio Board flags this opinion as a "Former CJC Opinion" interpreting the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, which was superseded by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, which superseded the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct effective March 1, 2009.

This opinion issued in 1994. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 Code of Judicial Conduct before relying on any specific provision mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a judge appear on a DARE trading card?

A: No. The Board concluded it was improper under Canons 1, 2, and 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct for a judge's picture to appear on a DARE program trading card.

Q: Did the Board object to the DARE program itself?

A: No. The Board applauded effective drug-education programs and acknowledged that community leaders can be strong role models; its concern was the Code's restrictions on a judge's extra-judicial activities, including lending the prestige of office.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1 (upholding the integrity and independence of the judiciary), Canon 2 (avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, and not lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the interests of others), and Canon 5 (extra-judicial activities).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 1, Canon 2, Canon 5

See also

• Ohio BPC Op. 1987-042: Judge Photograph on a Store Wall of Fame
• Ohio BPC Op. 1987-040: Judge Speaking Against an Organization
• Ohio BPC Op. 1989-021: Judge Paid for Writing Legal Articles

Source

• Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
• Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op-94-004.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 94-4
Issued April 15, 1994
[Former CJC Opinion-provides advice under the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct which is superseded by the
Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, eff. 3/1/2009.]

[Not Current- subsequent rule amendments to Canons 1 through 6, Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, eff. May 1, 1997]

SYLLABUS: It is not proper under Canons 1, 2 and 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct for a
judge's picture to appear on a DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program trading card.

OPINION: This opinion addresses whether it is proper under the Code of Judicial Conduct for a
judge to allow his or her picture to appear on a DARE program trading card.

DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) is a preventive program sponsored by the Attorney
General of Ohio, the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Ohio Department of Education,
in cooperation with local law enforcement agencies and school districts across the state. Police
officers are the program instructors. The aim of the seventeen-session curriculum is to equip youth
with the skills needed to resist peer pressure to use drugs. The DARE lessons focus on four major,
areas: providing students accurate information about alcohol and drugs; teaching students decision-
making skills; showing students how to resist peer pressure; and giving students ideas for
alternatives to drug use.

In some communities, trading cards are being used to promote the DARE program's effort to
increase awareness of the dangers of drugs. Community leaders (law enforcement officers, fire
fighters, teachers, judges, etc.) are requested to purchase one thousand cards bearing their photo,
personal history, and a personal comment. The cards are distributed to students by the purchaser at
work, schools, card signing sessions, and other local events.

The Board applauds efforts to provide effective education programs for students on the danger of
drugs. Youth need role models, and community leaders may be great role models. In fact, law
enforcement officers, fire fighters, teachers, and others may be very influential participants in the
DARE program. Nevertheless, in determining whether judges may participate, consideration must
be given to the Code of Judicial Conduct which places restrictions on extra-judicial activities. Most
pertinent to this opinion are Canons 1, 2, and 5 set forth below.

Canon 1 A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the
Judiciary

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in
our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining,
and enforcing, and should himself [herself] observe high standards of
conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may
be preserved. The provisions of this code should be construed and
applied to further that objective.

Canon 2 A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of
Impropriety in All His [Her] Activities

A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should
conduct himself [herself] at all times in a manner that promotes
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

B. A judge should not allow his [her] family, social, or other
relationships to influence his [her] judicial conduct or judgment. He
[she] should not lend the prestige of his [her] office to advance the
private interests of others; nor should he [she] convey or permit
others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to
influence him [her]. He [she] should not testify voluntarily as a
character witness.

Canon 5 A Judge Should Regulate His [Her] Extra-Judicial Activities to
Minimize the Risk of Conflict With His [Her] Judicial Duties

B. Civic and Charitable Activities. A judge may participate in
civic and charitable activities that do not reflect adversely upon his
[her] impartiality or interfere with the performance of his [her]
judicial duties. [Omission].

In the past, this Board advised that "a judge should not allow his picture to be displayed on the 'wall
of fame' at a local clothing store." Ohio SupCt, Bd of Comm’rs on Grievances and Discipline, Op.
87-042 (1987). Cited within that opinion are Canons 1, 2A, and 2B of the Code of Judicial
Conduct. Id.

Judges may be important role models for youth, but their unique role in the administration of
justice requires restraint with regard to extra-judicial activities. Policy justifications for restricting
extra-judicial activities have been described as falling into four broad categories: the need to avoid
the appearance of partiality or favoritism; the need to maintain public confidence in the judiciary;
the need to ensure that judges will not be distracted by nonjudicial activities; and the need to
maintain the separation of powers. See S. Lubet, Beyond Reproach: Ethical Restrictions on the
Extrajudicial Activities of State and Federal Judges, 5 (1984).

As to the question raised, the Board is persuaded that restraint is required. First, a judge's picture
on DARE program trading cards creates an appearance of partiality and impropriety. The program
is taught to students by law enforcement officers. The officers may be witnesses in the judge's
court. The youth who attend the program may later be parties or witnesses. Second, a separation
of powers is not maintained if members of the judiciary become active participants in the DARE
program since it is sponsored by the Attorney General of Ohio, the Ohio Association of Chiefs of
Police, and the Ohio Department of Education, in cooperation with local law enforcement agencies
and school districts across the state. Third, public confidence in the judiciary is diminished if a
judge is directly involved in law enforcement activities. In conclusion, for these reasons, the Board
advises that it is not proper under Canons 1, 2, and 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct for a judge's
picture to appear on a DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program trading card.

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.