Can lawyers who are personal friends of a judge sponsor or attend a baby shower for the judge and give baby gifts?

Plain-English summary

A part-time city court judge was expecting a child, and her friends, some of them lawyers, were considering organizing a baby shower. The inquiry asked whether lawyer friends of the judge could sponsor or attend the shower, give individual baby gifts, give a collective gift (with or without disclosing the contributors), give gifts in the name of the expected baby, or give gifts to the judge's husband.

The committee grounded its answer in Rule 3.5(a), which prohibits a lawyer from seeking to influence a judge by means prohibited by law, and whose comment directs lawyers to be familiar with the Code of Judicial Conduct. It quoted Canon 4 of that Code, which allows a judge to accept ordinary social hospitality; a gift from a relative or friend for a special occasion (such as a wedding, anniversary, or birthday) if fairly commensurate with the occasion and the relationship; and a gift from a relative or close personal friend whose interest in a case would in any event require disqualification.

The committee concluded that, so long as a gift is predicated on a friendship that exists outside any judicial relationship, is social in nature, is not intended to sway or influence the judge, and is fairly commensurate with the occasion and the relationship, there is no ethical violation. Rather than answer each specific question, it offered the generic answer that the lawyer must make a subjective analysis of the relationship, balancing the friendship against the appearance of attempting to influence the judge in a present or future case. As to gifts to the judge's husband or in the baby's name, the committee urged caution, noting that what is prohibited cannot be circumvented through a nominee.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997, before the South Carolina Bar's adoption of the 2005 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can lawyers give a gift to a judge who is a personal friend?

A: The committee concluded yes, where the gift is predicated on a genuine friendship outside any judicial relationship, is social in nature, is not intended to influence the judge, and is fairly commensurate with the occasion and the relationship.

Q: How should a lawyer decide whether a particular gift is acceptable?

A: Per the opinion, the lawyer must make a subjective analysis of the relationship, balancing the friendship against the appearance of attempting to influence the judge in a present or future case.

Q: Can lawyers route a gift through the judge's spouse or the expected baby to avoid the rule?

A: The committee urged caution, stating that what may be prohibited cannot be circumvented via a nominee.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted South Carolina RPC 3.5(a) (Rule 407, S.C. App. Ct. Rules), corresponding to Model Rule 3.5, which bars a lawyer from seeking to influence a judge by means prohibited by law, and read it together with Canon 4 of the South Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct (Rule 501, S.C. App. Ct. Rules) governing a judge's acceptance of gifts.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• South Carolina RPC 3.5(a) (Rule 407, SCACR) / Model Rule 3.5: a lawyer shall not seek to influence a judge by prohibited means.

Other authority:

• South Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 4 (Rule 501, SCACR): a judge's acceptance of gifts, social hospitality, and gifts from friends for special occasions.

See also

• SC Bar Ethics Op. 16-03: Gifts to a New Judge
• SC Bar Ethics Op. 06-14: Donating to a Judge Memorial

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-97-40/

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

UPON THE REQUEST OF A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR, THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS RENDERED THIS OPINION ON THE ETHICAL PROPRIETY OF THE INQUIRER’S CONTEMPLATED CONDUCT. THIS COMMITTEE HAS NO DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. LAWYER DISCIPLINE IS ADMINISTERED SOLELY BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT THROUGH ITS COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT.

Ethics Advisory Opinion 97-40

A part-time City Court Judge is expecting a child and her friends are considering organizing a baby shower. Some of these friends are lawyers.

QUESTION:
May lawyers who are friends of a judge:

sponsor a baby shower for that judge?
attend a baby shower for that judge?
give individual baby gifts to that judge?
give a collective baby gift to that judge with or without disclosing the fact of their contribution to the cost of the gift?
give gifts in the name of the prospective baby of that judge?
give baby gifts to the husband of that judge?

SUMMARY:
Under certain circumstances, a lawyer may participate in a social event honoring a friend who is a judge, including the giving of a gift to a judge so long as participation in the event or the giving of the gift are not intended to, nor appear to be intended to, influence the judge.

OPINION:
Rule 3.5(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 407, S.C. Ap. Ct. Rules) prohibits a lawyer from seeking to influence a judge by means prohibited by law, and further the Comment to that section requires a lawyer to be familiar with the provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct (Rule 501, S.C. Ap. Ct. Rules).

The pertinent parts of Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct read:
(5) A judge shall not accept, and shall urge members of the judge's family residing in the judge?s household, not to accept, a gift, bequest, favor or loan from anyone except for:
(c) ordinary social hospitality;
(d) a gift from a relative or friend, for a special occasion, such as a wedding, anniversary or birthday, if the gift is fairly commensurate with the occasion and the relationship;
(e) a gift, bequest, favor or loan from a relative or close personal friend whose appearance or interest in a case would in any event require disqualification under Section 3E;

We conclude that so long as a gift to a judge is predicated on the existence of a friendship with that judge outside of any judicial relationship, the gift is social in nature, is not intended to sway or influence the judge, and is fairly commensurate with the occasion and the relationship, we find no ethical violation.

Rather than giving delimited answers to the specific questions presented, we prefer to offer the generic answer that the lawyer must make a subjective analysis of the relationship with the judge, balancing the friendship against the appearance of attempting to influence the judge in a present or future case. As for the questions concerning giving the gift to the husband of the judge, or in the name of the baby, we again urge caution in that what may be prohibited cannot be circumvented via a nominee.

In closing, we feel it unfair to expect lawyers and judges who are bound in friendship (particularly a friendship that may pre-date the judgeship or one that is founded on a mutuality of interests outside of any relationship in the legal world), to cast that friendship aside for the sake of blind adherence to a rule which is intended to proscribe conduct of a sinister nature.