Is it improper under the Texas Canons for an individual lawyer to host a party, such as a fish fry, honoring a judge?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether an individual lawyer's giving a "fish fry" honoring a district judge violated the Canons. The Committee held it an open question (9-0). It explained the answer depends entirely on the individual lawyer's intent and the circumstances of the relationship between the judge and the lawyer.

The Committee said Canon 1 is relevant in a general way, and Canon 3, the essence of which is the prohibition of any attempt to assert personal influence on a court, is the central canon, but Canon 3 does not forbid all hospitality to a judge; had it meant to condemn all hospitality (other than by bar associations or organized groups of lawyers), it would have said so. What constitutes "marked attention and unusual hospitality on the part of a member to a judge," in Canon 3's words, is a matter of judgment, viewed in light of customary community practice and the personal relationship that existed between the attorney and the judge before the judge took office. If a lawyer gives a large party for a judge intending to place himself in better standing with the judge, that would violate Canon 3 and at least the spirit of Canon 1. If the size of the party and the other circumstances (including the nature of the lawyer's practice, the prior relationship, and customary community practice) are such that the conduct is not unusual attention and hospitality, then no canon is violated.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1960, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 a lawyer host a party honoring a judge?

A: The Committee held it an open question that turns entirely on the lawyer's intent and the circumstances of his relationship with the judge; Canon 3 does not forbid all hospitality to a judge.

Q: When would hosting a judge cross the line?

A: The Committee said that if a lawyer gives a large party for a judge intending to place himself in better standing with the judge, that would violate Canon 3 and at least the spirit of Canon 1.

Q: How is "unusual hospitality" judged?

A: The Committee said what constitutes "marked attention and unusual hospitality" under Canon 3 is a matter of judgment, viewed in light of customary community practice and the personal relationship between the lawyer and the judge before the judge took office.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canons 1 (general) and 3 (which prohibits attempts to assert personal influence on a court and addresses "marked attention and unusual hospitality" by a member to a judge), as applied to a lawyer hosting a party for a judge. The modern analog is ABA Model Rule 3.5 (a lawyer shall not seek to influence a judge by means prohibited by law).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 3.5 (impartiality and decorum of the tribunal), as the modern analog
• Texas Canons 1 and 3 (former canons)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 207: District Judge Practicing and Soliciting
• TX Ethics Op. 210: Judges' Newspaper Christmas Greetings
• TX Ethics Op. 220: County Judge in Private Practice

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-206/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_206.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Does the giving of a "fish fry," by an individual lawyer honoring a district judge, constitute a violation of the Canons of Ethics of the State of Texas?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 294 (1966)

HOSPITALITY BY AN INDIVIDUAL LAWYER TO A JUDGE
It is an open question whether or not an individual lawyer may with propriety give, in honor of a judge, a party to which many members of the bar in the area are invited.

Canons 1, 3.

It is an open question, based entirely upon the intent of the individual lawyer and the circumstances surrounding the relationship between the judge and the lawyer whether or not such action violates any of the Canons of Ethics of the State of Texas. Relevant to this question are Canon No. 1 in a general way, and Canon No. 3, the essence of which is the prohibition of any attempt to assert personal influence on a court. Canon No. 3, however, does not forbid all hospitality to a judge. If it had been intended by this canon to condemn all hospitality to judgesΧother than hospitality by Bar Associations or organized groups of lawyersΧthe canon would have expressly so stated.

What constitutes "marked attention and unusual hospitality on the part of a member to a judge," as provided in Canon 3, is a matter of judgment to be viewed in the light of the customary practices in the community as well as the personal relationship which existed between the attorney and the judge before the judge was appointed or elected to office, as well as other like factors.

If a lawyer gives a large party for a judge, having in mind that this may place himself in better standing with the judge, such action would constitute a violation of Canon No. 3 and would violate at least the spirit of Canon No. 1. If, on the other hand, the size of the party and the other circumstances to be considered (including the nature of the lawyer's practice and the prior relationship between the lawyer and judge, as well as customary practice in the community) are such that the conduct does not constitute unusual attention and hospitality, then it must be concluded that no canon is violated. (9-0)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 206 (1960)