How does Washington interpret CJC 7(B)(2) on judicial campaign solicitations, and does the bar's view match the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee's?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee to interpret CJC 7(B)(2), a provision of the Code of Judicial Conduct addressing judicial campaign solicitations, in light of Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 86-17. The committee took the position that the advice given by the bar association should be consistent with the advice of the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee. On that basis, the committee was of the opinion that it agreed with Judicial Ethics Opinion 86-17 and did not separately restate or modify that opinion's analysis.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Washington 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: What did the bar committee decide about CJC 7(B)(2)?

A: Rather than issue an independent interpretation, the committee adopted the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee's view, agreeing with Judicial Ethics Opinion 86-17.

Q: Why did the committee defer to the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee?

A: The committee said the advice the bar gives should be consistent with the advice given by the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee on the same Code of Judicial Conduct provision.

Background and rules framework

CJC 7(B)(2) is a provision of Washington's Code of Judicial Conduct governing judicial candidates and campaign solicitations; it is a judicial-conduct rule rather than a Rule of Professional Conduct. The committee did not interpret a Model Rule here; it aligned the bar's guidance with the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee's existing opinion on the same provision.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• None cited. The opinion construes CJC 7(B)(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Other opinions cited:

• Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 86-17: the committee agreed with and adopted its reading of CJC 7(B)(2).

See also

• No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=331

Original opinion text

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

The Rules of Professional Conduct Committee has reviewed my inquiry concerning the interpretation of CJC 7(B)(2) and Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 86-17. Based upon all the information presented to the Committee, as well as their agreement that the advice being given by the Bar Association should be consistent with that being given by the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, the Committee is of the opinion that it agrees with Judicial Ethics Opinion 86-17.