Can an Ohio judge accept a free (waived registration) invitation to a trial lawyers association CLE seminar, and must it be reported?

Plain-English summary

The Board addressed whether a judge may accept an invitation from a trial lawyers association to attend its continuing legal education seminar with the registration fee waived, and whether that gift must be reported. Judges are governed both by the Code of Judicial Conduct and Ohio Ethics Law.

Under the Code, Canon 5C(4)(a) lets a judge accept an invitation to a bar-related function devoted to improving the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. The Board concluded an annual trial lawyers association seminar is such a function, so the waived fee is an acceptable gift, subject to the Canon 2 requirement that the judge consider the surrounding circumstances. It also concluded there is no Code reporting requirement for Canon 5C(4)(a) gifts, so the waived registration need not be reported on a Canon 6C form (unlike Canon 5C(4)(c) catch-all gifts, which are reported like compensation).

Under Ohio Ethics Law, a registration fee is a thing of value under R.C. 102.03(D), (E), and (F). The Board concluded a once-a-year waived registration to an in-state seminar is nominal and de minimis to a judge, given that judges are required to take continuing legal education, and that the trial lawyers association source did not make it an improper influence in this context. It distinguished Ohio Ethics Opinion 92-018 and its own Opinion 92-14, and aligned the result with Opinion 95-4. Finally, under R.C. 102.02(A)(7), the source of any gift over seventy-five dollars must be reported on the judge's financial disclosure statement.

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Board flags this opinion as a "Former CJC Opinion" interpreting the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, which was superseded by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct effective March 1, 2009.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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a judge attend a trial lawyers association CLE for free?

A: Yes. The Board concluded a judge may accept a waived registration fee to a trial lawyers association seminar under Canon 5C(4)(a) as a bar-related function devoted to improving the law, subject to Canon 2 consideration of the circumstances.

Q: Does the judge have to report the waived registration fee?

A: It depends on the form. The Board concluded it need not be reported on a Canon 6C compensation form, but if the fee exceeds seventy-five dollars its source must be reported on the judge's financial disclosure statement under R.C. 102.02(A)(7).

Q: Why wasn't the waived fee an improper influence under Ohio Ethics Law?

A: The Board concluded a once-a-year waived registration to an in-state seminar is nominal and de minimis to a judge, because judges must complete continuing legal education and such seminars are unlikely to influence a judge's official duties.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5C(4) (gifts), Canon 2 (appearance of impropriety), and Canon 6C (reporting), harmonized with Ohio Ethics Law: R.C. 102.03(D), (E), (F) (things of value) and the financial-disclosure requirement of R.C. 102.02(A)(7).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5C(4)(a), (c); Canon 2; Canon 6C

Statutes:

• Ohio Rev. Code 102.03(D), (E), (F); 102.02(A)(7); 102.01(G); 1.03

Other opinions cited:

• Ohio BPC Ops. 95-4 (1995), 92-14 (1992); Ohio Ethics Comm'n Op. 92-018 (1992) and Ops. 89-014, 89-002, 86-011, 84-010, 80-004, 79-006, 79-002

See also

• Ohio BPC Op. 1995-004: Judges Accepting Complimentary Law Books
• Ohio BPC Op. 1995-009: Judge Compensation for CLE Teaching vs. Motivational Speeches
• Ohio BPC Op. 1994-012: Judge Compensation for Teaching After the Honorarium Ban

Source

• Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
• Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op-95-008.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 95-8
                                            Issued June 2, 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 proper under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct and Ohio Ethics Law for a
judge to accept from a trial lawyers association an offer to attend the association's meeting without
paying a registration fee. If the registration fee is over seventy-five dollars it must be reported on
the Financial Disclosure Statement filed with the Board of Commissioners on Grievance and
Discipline. The acceptance of an invitation by a trial lawyers association to a judge to attend its
seminar at no registration cost need not be reported on a Canon 6C form.

OPINION: This opinion addresses a judge's acceptance of an invitation to attend a continuing
legal education seminar at which the registration fee is waived.

    Is it proper for a judge to accept from a trial lawyers association an offer to attend
    the association's meeting without paying a registration fee?

    Is a judge's acceptance of an offer by a trial lawyers association to attend the
    association's meeting without paying a registration fee a gift that must be reported?

Judges are regulated by both the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct and Ohio Ethics Law. See
Gov.Jud.R. I §1, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§102.01 (B), (C), and (F) (2). Both authorities are
addressed within this opinion.

Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct

Gifts are regulated under Canon 5C (4) of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. Although many gifts
are prohibited, a few gifts are permitted "as a matter of common sense and in deference to common
usage." See E. Wayne Thode, Reporter's Notes to Code of Judicial Conduct 84 (1973). Under
Canon 5C (4) (a) a judge may accept an invitation to attend a bar-related function or activity
devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.

    Canon 5C (4) Neither a judge nor a member of his [her] family residing in his [her]
    household should accept a gift, bequest, favor, or loan from anyone except as
    follows:

Op. 95-8 2

           (a) a judge may accept a gift incident to a public testimonial to him
           [her], not to exceed $100 in value; books supplied by publishers on a
           complimentary basis for official use; or an invitation to the judge
           and his [her] spouse to attend a bar-related function or activity
           devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the
           administration of justice (emphasis added);

           (b) a judge or a member of his [her] family residing in his [her]
           household may accept ordinary social hospitality; a gift, bequest,
           favor, or loan from a relative; a wedding or engagement gift; a loan
           from a lending institution in its regular course of business on the
           same terms generally available to persons who are not judges; or a
           scholarship or fellowship awarded on the same terms applied to other
           applicants.

           (c) a judge or a member of his [her] family residing in his [her]
           household may accept any other gift, bequest, favor, or loan only if
           the donor is not a party or other person whose interests have come or
           are likely to come before him [her], and, if its value exceeds $100,
           the judge reports it in the same manner as he [she] reports
           compensation in Canon 6C.

An annual seminar of a trial lawyers association is a bar-related function or activity devoted to the
improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. The interchange of
information among lawyers and judges in an educational setting improves the law, the legal system,
and the administration of justice. An invitation by a trial lawyers association to a judge to attend its
seminar at no cost is therefore an acceptable gift under Canon 5C (4) (a).

Canon 2 requires that "A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in
All His [Her] Activities." Before accepting any Canon 5C (4) (a) gift, "the circumstances
surrounding each gift that falls within (4) (a) must be considered to determine if the requirement of
Canon 2 is met.” E. Wayne Thode, Reporter's Notes to the Code of Judicial Conduct, 84 (1973).
Individual circumstances may dictate that an otherwise acceptable gift should not be accepted, but
each judge must make that determination.
Op. 95-8 3

Canon 5C (4) (c) is a catch-all provision setting the standard for gifts outside the exceptions
identified within 5C (4) (a) and (b). See E. Wayne Thode, Reporter's Notes to the Code of Judicial
Conduct 85 (1973). There is a reporting requirement for Canon 5C (4) (c) gifts. Those gifts must
be reported in the same manner as the judge reports compensation under Canon 6C. There is no
reporting requirement within the Code of Judicial Conduct for Canon 5C (4) (a) or (b) gifts. Thus,
the acceptance of an invitation by a trial lawyers association to a judge to attend its seminar at no
registration cost need not be reported on a Canon 6C form.

Ohio Ethics Law

Under Ohio Ethics Law, a judge may not accept anything of value that is of such a character as to
manifest a substantial and improper influence with respect to the judge.

   R.C. §102.03 (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.

   R.C. §102.03 (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.

   R.C. §102.03 (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.

The term "anything of value" is broadly defined by statute to include, inter alia, money, goods and
chattels, and every other thing of value. See Oh. Rev. Code Ann. §102.01 (G) and §1.03 (A)
through (I) (Baldwin 1994). 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 employee's agency it is
considered an improper influence. See Ohio SupCt, Bd of Comm’rs on Grievances and Discipline,
Ops. 95-4 (1995), 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).
Op. 95-8 4

A conference registration fee is a thing of value under Section 102.03 (D), (E), and (F). See Ohio
SupCt, Op. 92-14 (1992); Ohio Ethics Commission, Op. 92-018 (1992). The association's seminar
has a cost to other attendees and provides an opportunity for attendees to earn mandatory
continuing legal education credits. Thus, the offer to a judge from a trial lawyers association to
attend the association's meeting without paying a registration fee is a thing of value.

However, in this Board's view, a once a year offer to a judge from a trial lawyers association to
waive a registration fee to the association's seminar held within this state is a nominal and de
minimus thing of value to a judge. Judges are required to participate in continuing legal education
programs. See Gov.Jud.R. IV. The requirement of mandatory continuing legal education creates
both an expectation and a necessity that judges will attend such seminars. Thus, within the limited
context of this opinion, the offer of a waived registration fee is considered nominal and de
minimus.

Although the offer comes from an association of attorneys, the Board does not consider the source
of the offer to be an improper influence with regard to the judge's duties within the context of this
opinion. Members of the association may practice law within the courts of Ohio, but there is no
reason to assume that the offer to attend the association's meeting without paying a registration fee
would have any influence on a judge with respect to the judge's duty.

This view may seem at odds with Ohio Ethics Opinion 92-018 (1992) advising that "Divisions (D)
and (E) of Section 102.03 of the Revised Code and Divisions (A) (1) of Section 2921.43 of the
Revised Code prohibit officials and employees of the Division of Oil and Gas of the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources from accepting, soliciting, or using their authority or influence to
secure passes from the Ohio Oil and Gas Association to attend the Association's meetings without
paying a fee." Nevertheless, this Board makes the distinction that an offer to a judge to attend a
seminar at no cost is in most instances nominal or de minimus to a judge since the judge is required
to attend seminars and seminars have little likelihood of influencing a judge with respect to his or
her official duties.

The view in this opinion may also seem at odds with the Board's Opinion 92-14 advising that it is
improper under Sections102.03 (D) and (E) of the Ohio Revised Code, for referees or magistrates,
who are members of a statewide association of court referees and magistrates, to solicit, accept, or
use the
Op. 95-8 5

authority of their offices to secure financial or other support, from a law firm or from a business or
an individual interested in matters before, regulated by, or doing or seeking to do business with the
courts in which the referees or magistrates serve, in order to provide low registration fees,
hospitality rooms, free meals, and free recreational activities for the referees, magistrates and
spouses attending the annual educational meeting of the association. See Ohio SupCt, Bd of
Comm’rs on Grievances and Discipline, Op. 92-14 (1992). That opinion is distinguishable because
the referees and magistrates were soliciting and accepting things of value to enhance their own
annual seminar.

The view in this opinion is consistent with Opinion 95-4 wherein the Board advised that “[i]t 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." See Ohio
SupCt, Bd of Comm’rs on Griev & Disc, Op. 95-4 (1995). In that opinion, the Board distinguished
an occasional offer of a free book from a year's free use of the entire Revised Code. Id.

Nevertheless, the acceptance of an offer to attend a seminar at no registration cost should be
reported as a gift on a judge's financial disclosure form. Under Section 102.02 (A) (7) the source of
each gift over seventy-five dollars must be reported by a judge on a financial disclosure statement
filed with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.

   R.C. §102.02 (A) (7) Except as otherwise provided in section 102.022 of the
   Revised Code, [a judge must disclose on the financial statement] the source of each
   gift of over seventy-five dollars . . . received by the person in his [her] own name or
   by any other person for his [her] use or benefit during the preceding calendar year,
   except gifts received by will or by virtue of section 2105.06 of the Revised Code, or
   received from spouses, parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, siblings,
   nephews, nieces, uncles, aunts, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, sons-in-law,
   daughters-in-law, fathers-in-law, mothers-in-law, or any person to whom the person
   filing the statement stands in loco parentis, or received by way of distribution from
   any intervivos or testamentary trust established by a spouse or by an ancestor.

Op. 95-8 6

In conclusion, this Board advises that it is proper under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct and
Ohio Ethics Law for a judge to accept from a trial lawyers association an offer to attend the
association's meeting without paying a registration fee. If the registration fee is over seventy-five
dollars it must be reported on the Financial Disclosure Statement filed with the Board of
Commissioners on Grievance and Discipline. The acceptance of an invitation by a trial lawyers
association to a judge to attend its seminar at no registration cost need not be reported on a Canon
6C form.

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.