Can Ohio judges accept a free set of the entire Revised Code from a publisher that does business with the court?

Plain-English summary

The Board addressed a publisher's offer to give each Ohio justice and judge a year's complimentary use of casebound editions of the entire Revised Code. The publisher was an affiliate of the court's official publisher and sold other books to the court. Judges are subject both to the Code of Judicial Conduct, whose Canon 5C(4)(a) permits accepting "books supplied by publishers on a complimentary basis for official use," and to Ohio Ethics Law, which restricts accepting things of value under R.C. 102.03(D), (E), and (F).

The Board had to harmonize the Canon's permission with the statutory restriction. Under the Ethics Law standard, a thing of value that is more than nominal or de minimis, coming from a party doing or seeking to do business with the official's agency, is treated as manifesting a substantial and improper influence. The Board concluded an entire set of the Revised Code is plainly "anything of value," is more than de minimis, and comes from a party doing business with the court, so accepting it would ignore the intent of Ohio Ethics Law and the Canon 2 mandate to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

The Board emphasized the statutory limits do not make Canon 5C(4)(a) inoperative. It distinguished an occasional complimentary book, which it called an industry standard and de minimis, from a year's free use of the entire Revised Code. It also concluded that accepting law books at the same price or on the same terms the publisher offers all Ohio lawyers is proper, because that offer carries no special favor to judges or the court.

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Board flags this opinion as a "Former CJC Opinion" interpreting the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, which was superseded by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct effective March 1, 2009. The Board also notes subsequent amendments to Canons 1 through 6 effective May 1, 1997.

This opinion issued in 1995. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 and current Ohio Ethics Law before relying on any specific provision mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could judges accept a free year's use of the entire Revised Code from a court publisher?

A: No. The Board concluded that accepting a complimentary year's use of casebound editions of the entire Revised Code from a publisher doing business with the court is improper under R.C. 102.03(D) and (E) and may create an appearance of impropriety.

Q: Are occasional complimentary books from a publisher ever acceptable?

A: Yes. The Board concluded that accepting an occasional complimentary book, even from a publisher that does business with the court, is not per se improper, calling it an industry standard and de minimis.

Q: Could a judge buy books from the publisher on the same terms as other lawyers?

A: Yes. The Board concluded a justice or judge may accept law books at the same price or terms the publisher offers all Ohio lawyers, because that offer confers no special favor on judges or the court.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5C(4)(a) (complimentary books for official use) and Canon 2 (appearance of impropriety), harmonized with Ohio Ethics Law restrictions on accepting things of value in R.C. 102.03(D), (E), and (F), and the broad statutory definition of "anything of value" in R.C. 102.01(G) and R.C. 1.03.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5C(4)(a), Canon 2

Statutes:

• Ohio Rev. Code 102.03(D), (E), (F); 102.01(B); 102.01(G); 1.03

Other opinions cited:

• Ohio BPC Ops. 92-18 (1992), 92-14 (1992)
• Ohio Ethics Comm'n Ops. 89-014, 89-002, 86-011, 84-010, 80-004, 79-006, 79-002

See also

• Ohio BPC Op. 1994-012: Judge Compensation for Teaching After the Honorarium Ban
• Ohio BPC Op. 1986-002: Judge Teaching a University Class
• Ohio BPC Op. 1992-018: Court Administrator Authoring a Handbook and Royalties

Source

• Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
• Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op-95-004.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 95-4
                                           Issued April 7, 1995

[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 improper under Ohio Ethics Law, Divisions (D) and (E) of Section 102.03 of
the Ohio Revised Code, for a court, a justice, or a judge to accept a complimentary offer of
casebound editions of the entire revised code for each justice and judge from a publisher that does
business with the court and is an affiliate of the court's official publisher. Under Ohio Ethics Law,
the offer is a thing of value that is of such a character as to manifest a substantial or improper
influence upon the justice or judge in connection with official duties. In addition, under the Ohio
Code of Judicial Conduct, an offer of such generosity and magnitude may create an appearance of
impropriety.

It is not per se improper under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct or Ohio Ethics Law, Divisions
(D) and (E) of Section 102.03 of the Ohio Revised Code, for a justice or judge to accept on
occasion a complimentary book from a publisher, even one that does business with the court. An
occasional acceptance of books from a publisher, even one that does business in the court, can be
distinguished from a year's free use of the entire revised code. An occasional offer of a
complimentary book is an industry standard and is de minimus.

It is not improper under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct or Ohio Ethics Law for a justice or
judge to accept law books at the same price or on the same terms as the publisher provides for all
lawyers in Ohio.

OPINION: This opinion addresses questions regarding the acceptance of a publishing company's
offer of books to judicial officers.

    1. Is it proper under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct or Ohio Ethics Law,
    Divisions (D) and (E) of Section 102.03 of the Ohio Revised Code, for a court, a
    justice, or a judge to accept complimentary use for one year of books from a
    publisher?

    2. Is it proper under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct or Ohio Ethics Law for a
    justice or judge to accept law books at the same price or on the same terms as the
    publisher provides for all lawyers in Ohio?

Op. 95-4 2

By way of background, the publishing company is an affiliate of the company that is the official
publisher for the Supreme Court of Ohio. The books being offered for complimentary use are
entire volumes of the new casebound edition of the revised code.

Under the Ohio-Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are permitted by Canon 5(C) (4) (a) to accept
"books supplied by publishers on a complimentary basis for official use." To date, this Board has
never advised upon the interpretation of this Canon.

Judges are also governed by statutory ethics law. Justices and judges are "public officials" subject
to the prohibitions of Ohio Ethics Law, Chapter 102 of the Revised Code and related statutes. See
Ohio Rev. Code Ann §102.01(B). Under Ohio Ethics Law there are restrictions on accepting things
of value. Pertinent to this opinion are the restrictions set forth in Section 102.03 (D), (E), and (F).

   (D) No public official or employee shall use or authorize the use of the authority or
   influence of his [her] office or employment to secure anything of value or the
   promise or offer of anything of value that is of such a character as to manifest a
   substantial and improper influence upon him [her] with respect to his [her] duties.

   (E) No public official or employee shall solicit or accept anything of value that is of
   such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence upon him [her]
   with respect to his [her] duties.

   (F) No person shall promise or give to a public official or employee anything of
   value that is of such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence
   upon him [her] with respect to his [her] duties.

To answer the questions raised, Canon 5C (4) (a) and Revised Code Sections 102.03 (D) and (E)
must be harmonized. Under Canon 5C (4) (a) complimentary books from publishers may be
accepted. But, under Revised Code 102.03 (D) and (E) the books may not be accepted if
considered as "anything of value that is of such a character as to manifest a substantial and
improper influence upon him [her] with respect to his [her] duties."

Thus, the issue becomes whether a complimentary set of a new casebound edition of the entire
Ohio Revised Code donated by a publishing company to Justices of the Supreme Court of Ohio and
to Ohio judges for their use would be anything of value of such a character as to manifest a
substantial and improper influence upon the officials with respect to their duties.
Op. 95-4 3

The term "anything of value" is broadly defined by statute to include, inter alia, money, goods,
chattels, and every other thing of value. See Oh. Rev. Code Ann. §102.01(G) and §1.03 (Baldwin
1994). Under this broad definition, an entire set of the revised code are clearly "anything of value"
for purposes of Section 102.03 of the Revised Code.

If a thing of value is more than nominal or de minimus it is considered a substantial influence. If a
thing of value is from a party that is interested in matters before, regulated by, or doing or seeking
to do business with the public official's or employees' agency then it is considered an improper
influence. See Ohio SupCt, Bd of Comm’rs on Grievances and Discipline, Ops. 92-18 (1992), 92-
14 (1992); Ohio Ethics Comm’n, Ops. 89-014 (1989), 89-002 (1989), 86-011(1986), 84-010
(1984), 80-004 (1980), 79-006 (1979), 79-002(1979).

In summary, the standard under Revised Code Sections 102.03 (D) and (E) is that if "anything of
value" is more than nominal or de minimus and comes from a party that is interested in matters
before, regulated by, or doing or seeking to do business with the agency with which the official or
employee serves, it is considered to be of such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper
influence upon officials with respect to their duties. The Ohio Ethics Commission has applied the
standard in different contexts: where the thing of value would have been received for the sole
benefit of the public official or employee, with no attendant benefit being received by the public
agency with which the public official or employee served; and where the thing of value would be
given directly to the public official or employee, but in connection with his or her official position,
and under circumstances that would directly or indirectly benefit his or her public agency. See
Ohio Ethics Commission, Op. 89-002 (1989).

Under the facts presented, the revised code is the "anything of value." It would be given to justices
or judges, in connection with their official position, under circumstances that would benefit the
court. The benefit would be that the convenience would facilitate research on court opinions.

One facet of the ethical problem is that the entire revised code is more than de minimus. The other
facet of the ethical problem is the source of the gift. Since the publisher sells other books to the
court and is an affiliate of the court's official publisher, the publishing company is a party doing or
seeking to do business with the court. To accept casebound editions of the entire revised code for
each justice and judge from a publisher that does business with the court, would be to ignore the
intent of the restrictions within Ohio Ethics Law. In addition, to accept casebound editions of the
entire revised code for each justice and judge from a publisher that does business with the court,
would be to ignore the mandate of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct to avoid even the
appearance of impropriety.
Op. 95-4 4

The restrictions within Ohio Ethics Law, however, do not make Canon 5C (4) (a) inoperative. An
occasional acceptance of books from a publisher, even one that does business in the court can be
distinguished from a year's free use of the entire revised code. Justices and judges must use their
discretion. An offer that seems too good to be true, usually is. An occasional offer of a
complimentary book is an industry standard and is de minimus.

Thus, in answer to Question One, this Board advises that it is improper under Ohio Ethics Law,
Divisions (D) and (E) of Section 102.03 of the Ohio Revised Code, for a court, a justice, or a judge
to accept a complimentary offer of casebound editions of the entire revised code for each justice
and judge from a publisher that does business with the court and is an affiliate of the court's official
publisher. Under Ohio Ethics Law, the offer is a thing of value that is of such a character as to
manifest a substantial or improper influence upon the justice or judge in connection with official
duties. In addition, under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, an offer of such generosity and
magnitude may create an appearance of impropriety.

It is not per se improper under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct or Ohio Ethics Law, specifically
Divisions (D) and (E) of Section 102.03 of the Ohio Revised Code, for a justice or judge to accept
on occasion a complimentary book from a publisher, even one that does business with the court.
An occasional acceptance of books from a publisher, even one that does business in the court, can
be distinguished from a year's free use of the entire revised code. An occasional offer of a
complimentary book is an industry standard and is de minimus.

In answer to Question Two, the Board advises that it is not improper under the Ohio Code of
Judicial Conduct or Ohio Ethics Law for a justice or judge to receive law books at the same price or
on the same terms as the publisher provides for all lawyers in Ohio. Such offer does not carry any
special favor to the justices, judges, or the court. The offer is available to all lawyers in Ohio.
Thus, the Board can find no ethical basis for reaching another conclusion with respect to this
question.

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. Pursuant to Section 102.08 of
the Ohio Revised Code, the requester may reasonably rely on the opinion as it applies to Ohio
Ethics Law and related statutes.