Can an Ohio judge be paid for teaching CLE courses or for giving motivational speeches?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1995. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The Board addressed whether a judge may be paid for teaching continuing legal education and for presenting motivational speeches, applying both the Code of Judicial Conduct and Ohio Ethics Law. Under Canons 4, 5A, and 6 of the Code, judges may teach, lecture, and speak and may receive reasonable, reported compensation, so both activities are proper under the Code.
The conflict arose under Ohio Ethics Law, which since the May 1994 amendments bars public officials from accepting an "honorarium," defined broadly in R.C. 102.01(H) to include payment for "any speech given." Following its Opinion 94-12, the Board concluded that teaching is distinct from giving a speech: teaching imparts knowledge and skill through a planned educational process with defined goals, credit, and qualified instructors. It extended that reasoning to CLE teaching, where participants earn credits monitored by the Supreme Court's CLE Commission and speakers must be qualified, so CLE teaching is more like teaching than speaking and the compensation is not a banned honorarium.
By contrast, the Board concluded a motivational speech fits squarely within "any speech given," so compensation for it is prohibited by Ohio Ethics Law even though the Code of Judicial Conduct allows it. The Board noted it regretted the result as inconsistent with the Code but said it was constrained by the statute's language and lacked authority to decide any separation-of-powers question. Because the two authorities were not in harmony, the Board applied the opinion prospectively only.
Currency note
The Ohio Board reports that this opinion was withdrawn by Opinion 2021-11 on December 10, 2021. Because it has been withdrawn, it is indexed here as research only and is not current guidance. The Board also flags it as a "Former CJC Opinion" interpreting the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, which was superseded by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct effective March 1, 2009, and notes subsequent amendments to Canons 1 through 6 effective May 1, 1997.
This opinion issued in 1995. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, current Ohio Ethics Law, and Opinion 2021-11 before relying on any specific provision mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Can a judge be paid to teach a CLE course?
A: Yes. The Board concluded that compensation for teaching CLE courses is proper under both the Code of Judicial Conduct (Canons 4, 5A, and 6) and Ohio Ethics Law, because CLE teaching is teaching rather than a "speech given."
Q: Can a judge be paid for a motivational speech?
A: Not under Ohio Ethics Law. The Board concluded a motivational speech is "any speech given," so compensation is a banned honorarium under R.C. 102.03(H), even though the Code of Judicial Conduct permits it.
Q: Why did the Board reach different results for teaching and speaking?
A: The Board, following Opinion 94-12, reasoned that teaching imparts knowledge and skill through a planned educational process with credit and qualified instructors, while a speech is a singular, isolated event, so only the speech falls within the statutory honorarium definition.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 4 and 5A (teaching, lecturing, and speaking) and Canon 6 (compensation and reporting), harmonized with Ohio Ethics Law's honorarium ban in R.C. 102.03(H) and the definition in R.C. 102.01(H).
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 4, Canon 5A, Canon 6
Statutes:
- Ohio Rev. Code 102.03(H) (honorarium ban); 102.01(H) (definition); 102.02 (disclosure)
Other opinions cited:
- Ohio BPC Op. 94-12 (1994)
See also
- Ohio BPC Op. 1994-012: Judge Compensation for Teaching After the Honorarium Ban
- Ohio BPC Op. 1989-028: Judge Teaching for Compensation
- Ohio BPC Op. 1995-008: Judge Accepting a Waived Seminar Registration Fee
Source
- Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
- Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Op-95-009.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 95-9
Issued August 4, 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 both the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct and Ohio Ethics Law for
a judge to accept compensation for teaching continuing legal education classes or courses.
It is proper under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct for a judge to accept compensation for
presenting motivational speeches, but it is improper under Ohio Ethics Law.
OPINION: This opinion addresses the propriety of judges accepting compensation for presenting
motivational speeches and teaching continuing legal education.
Is it proper under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct and Ohio Ethics Law for a
judge to accept compensation for teaching continuing legal education classes or
courses?
Is it proper under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct and Ohio Ethics Law for a
judge to accept compensation for presenting motivational speeches?
As officers of the court, judges must abide by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. See Gov.Jud.R. I
§ 1. As public officials, judges are also subject to Ohio Ethics Law. See Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
§§ 102.01 (B) and (C) (Baldwin 1994).
Under Canon 4 of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, judges may write, lecture, teach, and speak
on law related subjects. Under Canon 5A, judges may write, lecture, teach, and speak on non-law
related subjects.
Canon 4
A judge, subject to the proper performance of his [her] judicial duties, may engage
in the following quasi-judicial activities, if in doing so he [she] does not cast doubt
on his [her] capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before him [her]:
A. He [she] may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in other
activities concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration
of justice.
Op. 95-9 2
Canon 5
A. Avocational Activities. A judge may write, lecture, teach, and speak on non-
legal subjects, and engage in the arts, sports, and other social and recreational
activities, if such avocational activities do not detract from the dignity of his [her]
office or interfere with the performance of his [her] judicial duties.
The commentary to Canon 4 encourages judges to engage in quasi-judicial activities that improve
the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice. The commentary to Canon 5A warns
that it is neither possible nor wise to completely separate a judge from extra-judicial activities and
to isolate the judge from society.
Under Canon 6, compensation for writing, lecturing, teaching, and speaking is permitted with
conditions. The source of the payment must not give the appearance of improper influence or
impropriety, the compensation must be reasonable and not exceed what a person who is not a judge
would receive, and the compensation must be reported to the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline.
Canon 6
A judge may receive compensation and reimbursement of expenses for the quasi-
judicial and extra-judicial activities permitted by this Code, if the source of such
payments does not give the appearance of influencing the judge in his [her] judicial
duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety, subject to the following
restrictions:
A. Compensation. Compensation should not exceed a reasonable
amount nor should it exceed what a person who is not a judge would
receive for the same activity.
B. Expense Reimbursement. Expense reimbursement should be
limited to the actual cost of travel, food, and lodging reasonably
incurred by the judge and, where appropriate to the occasion, by his
[her] spouse. Any payment in excess of such an amount is
compensation.
Op. 95-9 3
C. Public Reports. A judge should file annually the disclosure
statement required by R.C. 102.02 and a report of the date, place, and
nature of any quasi-judicial or extra-judicial activity for which he
[she] received compensation, and the name of the payor [sic] and the
amount of compensation so received for such quasi-judicial or extra-
judicial activity with the Secretary of the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio and with the
clerk of the court on which he [she] serves or for such activity in
multi-county judicial districts with either the clerk of the court of his
[her] county of residence or the clerk of the court of the most
populous county in such district. The report required to be filed with
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline shall be
filed by April 15 of each year on forms provided by the Board.
Thus, under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct it is proper for a judge to accept compensation for
presenting motivational speeches. It is also proper under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct for a
judge to accept compensation for teaching continuing legal education classes or courses. Canons 4,
5A, and 6 of the Code permit and support such conduct.
In contrast, Ohio Ethics Law, Chapter 102 as amended, effective May 12, 1994 prohibits public
officials and employees from accepting any compensation that is considered to be an "honorarium.”
Honorarium is so broadly defined by statute that it circumscribes compensation for a broad range of
activities. See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §102.03 (H) and 102.01(H) (Baldwin 1994) set forth in part
below.
R.C. § 102.03 (H) No public official or employee . . .who is required to file a
financial disclosure statement under section 102.02 of the Revised Code shall solicit
or accept, and no person shall give to that public official or employee, an
honorarium.
R.C. § 102.01(H) "Honorarium" means any payment made in consideration
for any speech given, article published, or attendance at any public or private
conference, convention, meeting, social event, meal, or similar gathering.
"Honorarium" does not include ceremonial gifts or awards that have insignificant
monetary value; unsolicited gifts of nominal value or trivial items of informational
value; or earned income from any person, other than a legislative agent, for personal
services that are customarily provided in connection with the practice of a bona fide
business, if that business initially began before the public official or employee
conducting that business was elected or appointed to his [her] office or position of
employment. (Emphasis added.)
Op. 95-9 4
In Opinion 94-12, this Board advised that "[t]he Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct and Ohio Ethics
Law (Chapter 102 of the Revised Code) permit a judge to accept compensation for teaching at state
or private colleges or universities on topics related to the law, the legal system, or the
administration of justice." See Ohio SupCt, Bd of Comm’rs on Griev & Disc, Op.94-12 (1994).
The Board determined that teaching a law related class at a state or private college did not fall
within the statutory category of "any speech given." Thus, compensation for teaching the classes
was not banned as honorarium under Ohio Ethics Law. Id.
In Opinion 94-12, "teaching" was distinguished from "speaking." Teaching a college course was
considered an activity intended to impart knowledge and skill. The courses are part of a planned
educational process. Academic goals are defined. Academic credit is offered. Students earn credit
to reach academic goals. Instructors must be qualified and have various duties beyond the
classroom hour. Whereas, speaking activities were considered to be characteristically a singular or
isolated event, not part of a planned educational process. No academic credit is offered. Students
are not earning credit to reach goals. The speaker's duties are limited to preparation and delivery of
the speech. Id.
Teaching a continuing legal education course to participants who are earning educational credits
reported to and monitored by the Commission of Continuing Legal Education of the Supreme Court
of Ohio is more similar to "teaching" than it is to "speaking." Standards are set forth by the
Commission. Speakers must be qualified. Speakers earn continuing legal education credits for
teaching. Participants earn credits to reach goals, one goal being to keep their professional law
licenses in good standing.
In contrast, motivational speeches fit squarely within the category of "any speech given." Thus,
compensation would be prohibited by Ohio Ethics Law. The Board's view is not meant to
disparage motivational speeches. The Board regrets the conclusion under Ohio Ethics Law because
it is inconsistent with the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. Yet, the Board is constrained by the
language of the statute. Although the Code of Judicial Conduct permits compensation to a judge
for presenting a motivational speech, the Ohio Ethics Law prohibits such compensation. Whether
or not the intent of the statute was to sweep so broadly is not for this Board to speculate. Nor, does
this Board have authority to advise regarding whether a state statute impermissibly encroaches
upon a state supreme court's inherent judicial power in violation of separation of powers doctrine.
Op. 95-9 5
In conclusion, this Board advises it is proper under both the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct and
Ohio Ethics Law for a judge to accept compensation for teaching continuing legal education classes
or courses. It is proper under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct for a judge to accept
compensation for presenting motivational speeches, but it is improper under Ohio Ethics Law.
Because these two authorities are not in harmony, this Board finds only prospective application of
this opinion to be appropriate.
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.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1995 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.