Judge may not write letter of commendation on behalf of convicted felon who is seeking pardon from governor.  [Added 8/12/10]

    Judge is familiar with a person who served as case manager and court liaison between drug court and a mental health agency.  Judge admired and appreciated the person's work.  The person is a convicted felon who is seeking a pardon from the governor.  The person has asked Judge to write a letter of commendation in support of the pardon request.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible to write the letter.

    The Committee answered in the negative.  Canon 2B of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others, and the proposed letter of commendation would do this.  The Commentary to Canon 2B does provide an exception for some letters of recommendation:  "Although a judge shall be sensitive to possible abuse of the prestige of office, a judge may, based on the judge's personal knowledge, serve as a reference or provide a letter of recommendation.  However, a judge must not initiate the communication of information to a sentencing judge or a probation or corrections officer but may provide to such persons information for the record in response to a formal request."

    The Committee, however, stated that it "has previously adhered to the view that a judge should not write voluntary character reference letters on behalf of persons involved in investigative and adjudicative proceedings.  In Fla. JEAC Op. 97-7, this Committee opined  that a letter of reference and support for an individual's use before the Florida Cabinet in an application for clemency was improper and in violation of Canons 1 and 2.  The same rationale applies to a letter of commendation in support of a petition for a pardon from the Governor."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-29.

A full-time magistrate who hears family and civil matters in one county may not work as mediator on weekends in another county.  [Added 8/9/10]

    General Magistrate is employed in that position full-time and hears civil and family matters exclusively in one county of a multi-county circuit.  General Magistrate "is also certified as a family mediator and proposes to offer, and to advertise, mediation services on weekends and days off from employment with the state in an adjoining county."  General Magistrate asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether this proposed conduct was ethically permissible.  The Committee answered in the negative.

    Canons 1, 2A, and 3 of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct apply to the conduct of a general magistrate (along with such other provisions of the Code as might reasonably be relevant).  See "Application" section of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  After reviewing some of its prior opinions, the Committee concluded:  "[I]t appears that combining the roles of a civil/family general magistrate and a private certified family mediator in one individual creates the specific conflict  proscribed by the Code.  Family magistrate work and family mediation involve the same field of law; combining the two roles in one person could cause an erosion of the public’s confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the general master, in violation of Canon 2A.  Attempting to avoid the conflict by crossing an adjoining county line to offer the conflicting service is not a realistic remedy."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-26.

Judge ethically may serve as honorary chairman for bench-bar tennis tournament organized by local bar association.  [Added 8/2/10]

    Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible for Judge to serve as "honorary chairman" for a bench-bar tennis tournament organized by the local bar association to promote collegiality between lawyers and judges.  The event would not be a fundraiser, the costs would be paid by donations from lawyer and non-lawyer sponsors, and Judge would not be involved in soliciting or collecting donations.

    The Committee answered in the affirmative.  Although Canon 2B of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judges from lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the judge's private interests or convey the impression that others are in a special position to influence the judge, the Committee was of the view that Canon 2B must be read in conjunction with Canon 4D(2)(b).  Canon 4D(2)(b) provides that a judge "may appear or speak at, receive an award or other recognition at, be featured on the program of, and permit the judge’s title to be used in conjunction with an event of [an organization devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, the judicial branch, or the administration of justice], but if the event serves a fund-raising purpose, the judge may participate only if the event concerns the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice and the funds raised will be used for a law related purpose."

    In the opinion of the Committee, Judge's "participation as “Honorary Chairman” of the Bench-Bar tennis tournament would comply with Canon 4D(2)(b)."  The event will not serve a fund-raising purpose, but even if it did the Committee would consider Judge's participation permissible because the funds would be used for a law-related purpose and Judge would not be involved in soliciting them.  The Committee commented:  "If we were to opine otherwise on the instant issue, then it would call into question a number of voluntary bar association events at which individual judges speak, receive awards or other recognition, are featured, or are the guests of honor.  Such events regularly rely on lawyer and nonlawyer sponsors to defray the events’ costs."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-24.

Judge may speak about judiciary's role in foreclosure cases at "recovery rally" organized by high school students, even if U.S. President also speaks.  [Added 6/1/10]

    Judge has been asked to speak at a "recovery rally" organized by local high school students that is designed to "assist in uniting the community, local business owners, and the government to support one another in order to assist in the economic recovery."  Judge would speak on the growing number of real property foreclosure cases in the legal system and the steps, such as mediation, that are being taken to deal with these cases.  Judge "will emphasize in the speech that the judicial system is required to treat all litigants fairly in accordance with the law, whether the litigant be a property owner or a lender."  It is possible that the President of the United States also will appear and speak at the event.  Judge was concerned that speaking at the event might be viewed as showing support for the president or the president's political party.

    Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be permissible to accept the invitation.  The Committee answered in the affirmative.

    Canon 4B of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct encourages judges "to speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in quasi-judicial activities concerning the law, the legal system, the administration of justice, and the role of the judiciary as an independent branch within our system of government, subject to the requirements of this Code."  The Committee concluded that "[n]o provision of the Code would prohibit the judge’s appearance at the school function, whether or not the President also spoke."

    The Committee was of the view that Judge's speech would have a salutary purpose, regardless of whether the president also spoke.  "[T]he value of the inquiring judge’s speaking (whether or not the President appears) is illustrated by the question, in which the judge indicates an intention to remind the students of the judiciary’s role in the fair administration of justice, which requires judges to administer the law fairly to all litigants, including both property owners and lenders.  In other words, the students will be reminded that judges are required to apply the law, regardless of the economic conditions faced by a community and regardless of any personal sympathies which a judge may have toward the plight of a litigant."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-13.

Judge who retains personal counsel may negotiate discounted fee, but the reduction may have to be reported as a gift.  [Added 5/10/10]

    Before assuming the bench, Judge was an executive with a governmental entity.  A member of the entity's board is under investigation, and Judge is listed as a fact witness.  The entity is providing a lawyer free of charge to former employees.  Judge has retained personal counsel and negotiated a reduced rate from what counsel usually charges.  Judge's former employer has offered to reimburse Judge for part of counsel's fee "at the same lower rate the entity is paying counsel for the other employees."  Judge would pay the remainder.  Judge has entered a disqualification order for any cases being handled by his personal counsel and any cases involving the former employer.

    Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it is ethically permissible to pay the personal counsel at the negotiated lower rate, and whether the amount of the reduction must be reported as a gift.

    Regarding the first question, the Committee answered:  "Nothing in the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits a judge from retaining personal counsel and negotiating the fee to be paid.  However, the negotiated fee cannot be so low that it can reasonably be perceived as exploiting the judge’s judicial position.  Canon 5D(1)(a).  This Inquiry does not disclose why the judge’s attorney is willing to accept a lower rate than the attorney usually charges.  The inquiring judge should inquire and insure that the fee rate is based on legitimate considerations other than the mere fact that the prospective client is a judge."

    Regarding the second question, the Committee stated:  "The inquiring judge should note that not all gifts are required to be reported under Canons 5D(5)(h) and 6B(2).  Fla. JEAC Ops. 02-20 and 03-10.  If this fee discount is a gift, and if this gift is not included as one of the gifts listed in Canon 5D(5) (a) through (g), it would fall into the 'other' category of Canon 5D(5)(h) and must be reported."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-11.

Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee reaffirms its position on judges' naming lawyers as "friends" on social networking websites.  [Added 4/30/10]

    In responding to inquiries from two different judges, a majority of the members of the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee took the opportunity to reaffirm the position expressed in Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-20 concerning judges selecting or accepting lawyers as "friends" on social networking websites.  Regarding its prior opinion, the Committee's majority stated:  "As explained in Op. 09-20, it is this process of acceptance and rejection, and the right and the practice of selectivity and exclusivity provided by the internet social networking 'friend' process, that conveys the impression that [Florida Code of Judicial Conduct] Canon 2B prohibits.  By contrast, as the Committee explained in Op. 09-20, candidates and others can establish sites which permit persons viewing the site to become 'fans.'  This process does not implicate Canon 2B because the creator of the site has no control over who may or may not become a 'fan.'"

    With that position in mind, the Committee rejected procedures suggested by the inquiring judges that were offered as attempts to create a "safe harbor" that might permit acceptance of "friend" requests from lawyers.  Specifically, the Committee concluded:  "The first inquiring judge desires to accept all persons who are either recognized by the judge or who share a number of common 'friends' with the judge.  Although the judge proposes to be more inclusive in the acceptance of 'friend' requests than others might be, the process continues to require acceptance or rejection of those who seek to be listed."

    The Committee continued:  "The second inquiring judge desires to accept all lawyers who request to be the judge’s 'friend.'  Again, although the judge proposes to accept all lawyers, the judge does not propose to accept everyone.  That decision-making process, of accepting all lawyers who make the request but not others, the majority believes, conveys the impression that Canon 2B prohibits."

    The Committee pointedly noted that disclaimers could not cure these problems.

    The Committee, however, did state that a judge's participation in a "subject matter" forum is not prohibited by Canon 2B.  "All Committee members continue to agree that because the organization, as opposed to the judge, determines and controls who may have access and participate in that type of social networking site, it is ethically permissible for a judge to be a member of a voluntary bar association’s Facebook page and the judge is not required to 'de-friend' lawyers who are also members on that organization’s Facebook page and who use Facebook to communicate among themselves about that organization and other non-legal matters."

    A minority of the Committee issued its own opinion, believing that Opinion 2009-20 "was wrongly decided and should be receded from."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-06.

Judge's assistant need not refrain from "friending" on social networking websites lawyers who appear before judge if site does not refer to judge or judge's office.  [Added 4/30/10]

    In view of Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-20, which recommends that judges who use social networking websites refrain from adding lawyers who are likely to appear before them as "friends" on the sites, a judge asked the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether this recommendation also applies to the judge's judicial assistant.

    The Committee concluded:  "As long as a judicial assistant utilizes the social networking site outside of the judicial assistant’s administrative responsibilities and independent of the judge, thereby making no reference to the judge or the judge’s office, this Committee believes that there is no prohibition for a judicial assistant to add lawyers who may appear before the judge as 'friends' on a social networking site."  The Committee cautioned, however, that "in the unlikely event that a lawyer attempts an ex-parte communication through the social networking site, the judge should direct the judicial assistant to immediately 'de-friend' the lawyer and to immediately report it to the judge."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-04.

Judge who is asked to serve as president of local chapter of ABOTA may do so.  [Added 4/21/10]

    Judge is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates ("ABOTA") and has been asked to serve as vice-president, then president, of the local ABOTA chapter.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be permissible to accept.

    The Committee answered in the affirmative.  Membership in ABOTA is permitted under Canon 4D of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, as it is an organization devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.  Holding office similarly would be permissible, provided that the requirements of other sections of the Code are observed.  The Committee specifically cautioned Judge "as an officer of ABOTA or otherwise, against taking public stands on questions likely to arise before the judge, as to which the parties are entitled to be heard before decision.  See Canon 4A(1) and (5)."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-03.

Unethical for judge to rent a room in judge's home to non-related person on community control.  [Added 1/25/10]

    Judge is assigned to the criminal division that includes defendants on felony probation, but no on community control  Judge does preside over first appearances of defendants arrested for alleged violations of community control.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible to rent a room in Judge's home to a person, not related to Judge, who is on community control.  Judge had arranged with the administrative judge to assign a different judge to preside over the prospective renter's first appearance if the renter was to be arrested for a community control violation.

    The Committee answered in the negative, for reasons that revolved around the possibility that the credibility of Judge personally and of the judicial office could be placed at issue.  For example, Judge could become a witness to the renter's conduct, or could have contact with the probation officers supervising the renter.  "The judge also would have a financial interest in rent which may compete with the individual’s requirement to pay supervision fees and other monetary conditions."  The Committee concluded that the situation inquired about by Judge "would likely violate Canons 2A, 2B, 5A, and 5D(1)(a) of the Code of Judicial Conduct."

    Canon 2A provides:  "A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."

    Canon 2B provides in pertinent part:  ". . .  A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge  . . ."

    Canon 5A provides in pertinent part:  "A judge shall conduct all of the judge's extra-judicial activities so that they do not:  (1)  cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge; (2) undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality; (3) demean the judicial office; . . . or (6)  appear to a reasonable person to be coercive."

    Canon 5D(1)(a) provides:  "A judge shall not engage in financial and business dealings that (a) may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge's judicial position[.]"  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-01.

Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee issues opinion regarding judge's use of social networking websites.  [Added 12/17/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-20.  NOTE:  Because the Committee's conclusions reached in Opinion 2009-20 were based solely on Canon 2, they apply to sitting judges but not to judicial candidates.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-05.

Judge ethically may endorse the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation and may promote the Proclamation at bar association meetings.  [Added 10/21/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-19.

Judge ethically may serve as trustee of trust created by judge's grandfather for benefit of judge's uncle.  [Added 10/9/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-18.

Judge may not permit legal services corporation to use in fundraising campaign taped interview of judge, while in private practice, urging others to partner with corporation.  [Added 9/16/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-15.

Chief judge ethically may not appoint members to municipal Board of Ethics that addresses ethical issues in legislative and judicial branches of government.  [Added 9/16/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-14.

not unethical for judge to become member of local gun club that requires that its members also be members of National Rifle Association.  [Added 9/8/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-13.

Judge may not join judicial and legal education committee of nonprofit organization named "Women in Distress."  [Added 7/8/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-11.

Judge who is president of  Inn of Court may contact legislators to urge action on legislation relating to judicial funding and duties.  [Added 6/19/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-08.

Judge recently appointed to bench may receive contingent fee for legal work performed before taking office.  [Added 6/8/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-09.

Unethical for judge to attend and receive award at fundraiser for "ORT America" organization.  [Added 4/20/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-07.

Judge may not serve on county ethics commission that is establishing ethics code for county commission.  [Added 4/8/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-06.

Ethically permissible for judge to serve as officer of public university's alumni association.  [Added 3/10/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-04.

Judge may serve as officer of closely held family corporation and be paid commission on sale of corporate real estate.  [Added 1/10/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-25.

Judge may not appear as "dignitary guest" in tax-exempt ballet company's fund-raising production of "The Nutcracker."  [Added 12/17/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-22.

Judge may buy congratulatory ad in program for fundraising event sponsored by Anti-Defamation League honoring 2 members of legal community.  [Added 12/11/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-23.

Judge may serve on charitable group's executive committee if judge is not directly involved in fund-raising.  [Added 10/17/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-20 (October 13, 2008).

Judge may not accept invitation to 2-day hunt with former litigant's husband on land controlled by that family, per Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.  [Added 10/9/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-19 (October 7, 2008).

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee cautiously concludes that judge may speak at fundraising dinner for drug court.  [Added 9/18/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2008-17.

Judge may not serve as trustee or executor for out-of-state friend, even where it is unlikely that any legal proceedings would occur in Florida.  [Added 2/26/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-05 (February 15, 2008).

Judge may not be advisory board member for internet company offering divorce-related information, but may write article to be published on company's website.  [Added 1/2/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2007-21 (December 18, 2007).

Unethical for judge to attend and speak at partisan ladies group luncheon.  [Added 1/2/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2007-20 (December 14, 2007).

Judge may not solicit businesses for donations of gift certificates to be given to juveniles on probation as rewards for good behavior.  [Added 12/14/07]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2007-18.

Judge serving on local canvassing board ethically may accept offer from supervisor of elections to pay for out-of-town workshop.  [Added 10/10/2007]  --  Judicial Ethics Opinion 2007-15.

Senior judge may not advertise mediation services in ads targeted at non-lawyers, even if ad does not indicate that senior judge served on the bench.  [Added 8/15/07]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2007-12.

Ethically permissible for judge to speak at CLE seminar sponsored by private organization, receive honorarium, and allow organization to use judge's photo and bio in seminar advertising.  [Added 5/11/07]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2007-09.

Impermissible for judge to accept position on board of trustees of branch campus of state university.  [Added 5/3/07]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2007-08.

Judge may write letter recommending former staff attorney for public service fellowship.  [Added 4/23/07]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2007-06.

Ethically permissible for judge to accept appointment to constitutional taxation and budget reform commission.   [Added 3/1/07]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2007-03.

Unethical for judge to join Florida Highway Patrol Auxiliary, even in purely administrative capacity.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-29.

Permissible for judge to speak to community groups about dangers of online predators.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-30.

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opines on newly-elected judge's continued service in various extra-judicial activities and posts.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-28.

Ethically permissible for judge to serve on county's affordable housing advisory board and county's public policy institute that appoints members to housing board.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-23.

Not unethical for judge to participate in panel discussion on underage drinking sponsored by MADD chapter.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2006-17.

Judge who prosecuted murder cases while assistant state attorney may, but is not required to, meet with current state attorney to discuss claims made by defendant in Rule 3.850 motion.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2006-12.

Judge may not allow former law firm to publish congratulatory announcements in Bar News or in letters to clients.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-10.

Judge who formerly practiced with legal services organization may not place congratulatory message in ad for organization's anniversary luncheon.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-09.

Permissible for judge sitting on charity's "advisory board of directors" to allow name and title to be listed on charity's letterhead.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-05.

Improper for judge who sat on arbitration panel before taking bench to talk with parties and their lawyers about arbitration decision.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-07.

Unethical for judge to serve on committee that helps select nominees to U.S. military academies.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-04.

Senior judge subject to recall may write articles for newspaper but may not own or be employee of paper.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-02.

Judge may not discuss former clients' cases with their new lawyers (except when it would not constitute practice of law).  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2005-19.

Improper for judge to run in marathon sponsored by charitable organization unless it is not fundraiser and no attention is called to judge's participation.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2005-14.

Judge may attend legal seminars sponsored by criminal defense lawyers association or equivalent prosecutors' group.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2005-13.

Judge may not narrate video to be used in fundraising effort for historic courtroom restoration.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2005-12

County court judge may teach in police academy at local community college.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2005-11.

Senior Judge may not testify as expert witness on receiver's fees.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2005-10.

Upon assuming bench judge should close trust account because continuing to operate it for outstanding disbursements is ethically prohibited.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2005-08.

Judge may work at fund-raising school concession stand, but not as cashier.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2005-07.

Judge may not serve as guardian of person for child who is not member of judge's family.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2005-03.

Judge-elect retained as expert witness prior to election should not testify in matter even pursuant to subpoena.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2004-37.

Unethical for judge to dress as Santa Claus to help collect money for Salvation Army.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2004-36.

Judge may not prepare affidavit regarding character of lawyer in Bar disciplinary proceeding, even pursuant to subpoena duces tecum.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2004-22.

Subject to Canon 7, judicial candidate may provide responses to questions for publication in connection with newspaper opinion survey.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2004-24 (Election).

First cousin of judge's spouse is not "family member" to whom judge ethically may give legal advice.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2004-15.