Our bench-bar committee wants to invite judges as guests to an annual holiday party that the attorneys pay for. Is inviting judges to that party ethically appropriate?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney sought advice on the ethical propriety of inviting judges to an annual holiday party at which invited attorneys pay the cost of the party and invited judges attend as guests. The attorney asked whether this procedure is ethically appropriate.

The panel said the question requires considering both the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rhode Island Canons of Judicial Ethics. It cited Rule 3.5(a), under which a lawyer shall not seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror, or other official by means prohibited by law, and Rule 8.4(f), under which it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that violates applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law. It quoted Canon 21 of the Rhode Island Canons of Judicial Ethics, under which neither a judge nor a member of the judge's household should accept a gift, bequest, favor, or loan from litigants, lawyers, or others whose interests are likely to come before the judge.

The panel drew on South Carolina Opinion 88-16 (on gifts to judges), which states a judge and family are precluded from receiving any gift of value from a lawyer or anyone who may come before the judge but may attend a social function sponsored by a lawyer if the lawyer does not use the judge's presence improperly, while a judge may not attend sports invitationals sponsored by a single law firm or lawyer. It also cited its own Rhode Island Opinion 91-41 (Aug. 18, 1991), where it applied an Illinois Supreme Court decision, In re Corboy, 528 N.E.2d 694 (1988), holding it not improper for an attorney to treat the judiciary with "ordinary social hospitality," with factors including the monetary value of the gift, the social customs associated with gifts, the relationship between judge and donor, and the surrounding circumstances.

In light of those authorities, the panel concluded it would be ethically appropriate to invite members of the judiciary to a holiday event, because the monetary value is minimal, holiday parties are customary, and the party will be hosted by the court bench/bar committee and the attorneys who regularly appear before the judges, not one person or one law firm. This invitation constitutes "ordinary social hospitality."

In practice

Under this opinion, a bench-bar committee's invitation of judges as guests to an annual holiday party is ethically appropriate where it fits "ordinary social hospitality": minimal monetary value, a customary occasion, and hosting by the committee and the bar generally rather than a single lawyer or firm. The opinion evaluates the invitation under Rule 3.5(a), Rule 8.4(f), and Canon 21, drawing the "ordinary social hospitality" standard from Opinion 91-41 and In re Corboy.

Common questions

Q: Can attorneys invite judges to a holiday party they pay for?

A: Per the opinion, yes, where the event is of minimal value, holiday parties are customary, and the host is the bench/bar committee and the bar generally rather than one lawyer or firm, so it is "ordinary social hospitality."

Q: What factors distinguish acceptable hospitality from an improper gift?

A: Per the opinion, and In re Corboy, the monetary value of the gift, the social practices and customs associated with gifts, the relationship between the judge and the donor, and the particular circumstances surrounding the gift.

Q: Would a party hosted by a single law firm be treated the same way?

A: Per the opinion, the panel relied on the fact that the party is hosted by the committee and attorneys generally, not one person or firm; it cited authority that a judge may not attend sports invitationals sponsored by a single law firm or lawyer.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rhode Island Rules 3.5(a) (seeking to influence a judge by means prohibited by law) and 8.4(f) (knowingly assisting a judge in judicial-conduct violations), corresponding to Model Rules 3.5 and 8.4, together with Canon 21 of the Rhode Island Canons of Judicial Ethics. The panel measured the invitation against the "ordinary social hospitality" standard from its Opinion 91-41 and In re Corboy.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 3.5(a) (impartiality and decorum; improper influence)
• MR 8.4(f) (knowingly assisting a judge in judicial-conduct violations)
• RI RPC 3.5(a), 8.4(f); Canon 21, Rhode Island Canons of Judicial Ethics

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• In re Corboy, 528 N.E.2d 694 (Ill. 1988): an attorney may treat the judiciary with "ordinary social hospitality."

Other opinions cited:

• South Carolina Opinion 88-16: gifts to judges; a judge may attend a lawyer-sponsored social function if the presence is not used improperly.
• R.I. Ethics Advisory Opinion 91-41: sending flowers to a hospitalized judge is ordinary social hospitality.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 91-41: Sending Flowers to a Hospitalized Judge Is Ordinary Social Hospitality
• RI EAP Op. 91-05: Inviting the Judiciary to Law Office Opening Ceremonies
• RI EAP Op. 92-83: Paying a Probate Judge for Requested Special Sessions

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992 (Opinion 92-90, issued November 18, 1992), after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rules 3.5 and 8.4 as originally adopted. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process, which amended Rules 3.5 and 8.4; Rhode Island's judicial-conduct canons have also since been revised. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Pages/Ethics-Advisory-Panel-default.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2092-90.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
Opinion 92-90, Request #321
Issued November 18, 1992

An attorney seeks Panel advice concerning the ethical propriety of inviting judges to an annual holiday party. The attorney states that invited attorneys are to pay for the cost of the party while invited judges are to attend as guests. The attorney asks whether this procedure is ethically appropriate.

The Panel believes that this opinion requires the consideration of both the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rhode Island Canons of Judicial Ethics. Rule 3.5(a) entitled "Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal" is applicable to this inquiry. The Rule states that:

A lawyer shall not:

(a) seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other official by means prohibited by law;

Rule 8.4(f) entitled "Misconduct" equally applies and states that:

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.

Canon 21 of the Rhode Island Canons of Judicial Ethics states the following:

(a) neither a judge nor a member of the judge's family residing in the judge's household should accept a gift, bequest, favor or loan from litigants, or from lawyers or from others whose interests are likely to be submitted to the judge for judgment.

The Panel cites South Carolina Opinion 88-16 which discusses Gifts to Judges. The opinion states that a judge and members of his/her family are precluded from receiving any gift of value from a lawyer or anyone who may come before that judge. A judge may attend a social function sponsored by a lawyer provided that the lawyer does not use the judge's presence improperly. A judge may not, however, attend sports invitationals sponsored by a single law firm or lawyer. A judge may attend a testimonial dinner in his honor but may not accept any gift from individual lawyers or potential litigants.

In Rhode Island Opinion #91-41 (dated 8/18/91) the Panel discussed the ethical propriety of an attorney sending flowers to a judge who was hospitalized. The Panel cited an Illinois Supreme Court case decided under the Code of Professional Responsibility which set forth a practical standard of assessing the ethical propriety of conferring kindness upon members of the judiciary. (See In Re: Corboy, Tuite et al., 528 N.E.2d 694 (1988)). This Court held that it was not improper for an attorney to treat the judiciary with "ordinary social hospitality." A few factors to consider include the monetary value of the gift, the social practices and customs associated with gifts, the relationship between the judge and the donor, and the particular circumstances surrounding the gifts.

In light of the above referenced opinions, the Panel believes that it would be ethically appropriate to invite members of the judiciary to a holiday event. Because the monetary value is minimal, holiday parties are customary, and the party will be hosted by the court bench/bar committee and those attorneys who regularly appear before the judges, and not one person or one law firm. This invitation constitutes "ordinary social hospitality."