Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee answers questions relating to judge’s proposed participation in public service announcements.  [Added 5/16/13]

    A judge asked the Florida Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee for guidance regarding participating in the preparation of public service announcements seeking volunteers to serve as foster or adoptive parents.  The judge’s questions and the Committee’s answers are summarized below.

    "QUESTION 1: May a judge create and allow to be broadcast public service announcements (PSAs) soliciting volunteers to serve as foster parents or adoptive families for children in the dependency system?

ANSWER 1: Yes, if the judge’s conduct does not appear to a reasonable person to be coercive or cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge.

    QUESTION  2: May the judge use the circuit’s technology department to produce the PSAs?

ANSWER 2: Yes, so long as the use is merely incidental based on the factors outlined in this decision, and the request is made in a non-coercive manner as discussed herein.

    QUESTION 3: If the circuit’s technology department is not able to produce the PSAs, may the judge solicit media outlets or a public university to produce the PSAs?

ANSWER 3: No, unless the media outlet or university provides such services to anyone who requests it.

    QUESTION 4: May the judge or the circuit’s court administrator request media outlets to broadcast the PSAs?

ANSWER 4: No.

    QUESTION 5: May the judge provide PSAs to the Florida Department of Children and Families to allow the Department to request media outlets to broadcast the PSAs?

ANSWER 5: Yes, if the judge’s conduct does not appear to a reasonable person to be coercive or cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2013-10.

Judge may reach out to family and friends about dependency court and guardian ad litem program in effort to obtain more volunteers.  [Added 5/16/13]

    Judge is assigned to dependency court.  Judge sees a need for more volunteers for the guardian ad litem program.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be permissible for Judge “to reach out to friends, family and other members of the community whom the judge encounters outside the courthouse, to educate them about dependency court and the guardian ad litem program, in an effort to secure additional volunteers.”

    The Committee answered with a qualified “yes.”  The Commentary to Canon 4B of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct suggests that the proposed conduct is a permissible type of extra-judicial conduct.  Canon 4A, however, admonishes that all of a judge’s extra-judicial activities must be carried out in a way that does not cast doubt on the judge’s impartiality.  Accordingly, the Committee concluded:  “[W]e opine that a judge may educate and provide information to friends, family and other members of the community regarding dependency court and the guardian ad litem program in order to secure additional volunteers for the program so long as the judge’s conduct does not appear to a reasonable person to be coercive or cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge.”  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2013-09.

Judge may not write letter of recommendation in support of friend’s application for real estate license where friend has prior misdemeanor arrest.  [Added 5/14/13]

    Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be permissible to write a letter of recommendation for a friend who has applied to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation for a real estate license.  The friend has a 1996 misdemeanor conviction for resisting arrest without violence.  Judge stated that the friend had been “told that additional information was needed to process the application, and that up to three ‘letters of recommendation from people who know of your honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, good character and good reputation’ could be submitted to the Department.”

    The Committee answered in the negative.  Canon 2B of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judges from voluntarily testifying as character witnesses.  The Commentary to Canon 2B indicates that judges may write letters of recommendation based on personal knowledge.

    After discussing In re Fogan, 646 So.2d 191 (Fla. 1994) and noting several of its prior opinions (10-29; 88-19; 75-6), the Committee observed that “a judge should not write voluntary character reference letters on behalf of persons involved in investigative and adjudicative proceedings” and concluded that “[t]he letter at issue is not the sort of letter of recommendation based on the judge’s personal knowledge which this Committee has stated is permissible under Canon 2.”  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2013-08.

Judge may be on board of non-profit organization dedicated to giving financial help to needy recipients referred by local law enforcement agency.  [Added 4/30/13]

    Judge serves in the court’s juvenile division.  Judge has been invited to join the board of a not-for-profit organization that will provide financial assistance to needy children and families.  The potential recipients will be referred to the organization by a local law enforcement agency, and an officer from the law enforcement agency also will serve on the board.

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

    Canon 5B of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct encourages judges to participate in extrajudicial activities concerning non-legal subjects.  Under Canon 5A, those extrajudicial activities must not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially, undermine the judge’s independence or integrity, demean the judicial office, or interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.  The Committee was of the view that the proposed conduct would be in compliance with these canons.

    Although the law enforcement agency would refer the potential recipients, the board of directors of the organization would have sole decision-making authority over the award of funds.  “This Committee does not consider the judge’s participation in this board as being so closely connected to that law enforcement agency that the public would feel the two entities are alter egos of one another, as found in Fla. JEAC Op. 10-38.”  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2013-06.

Judge may serve as paid college football referee as long as it does not conflict with judicial duties.  [Added 4/26/13]

    Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be permissible to serve as a college football referee and be paid reasonable compensation for doing so.  Judge stated that it was unlikely that any of the participating schools would appear in Judge’s court.   The Committee answered that the activity would be ethically permissible “as long as the activity does not conflict with judicial duties.”

    The Committee noted that Canon 5B of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct encourages a judge to participate in extrajudicial activities “subject to the requirements of the Code.”  Among the Code’s requirements are that extra-judicial activities do not cast doubt on the judge’s impartiality, do not demean the judicial office, and do not interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.  Canon 5A.  Also, any compensation or expense reimbursements paid to the judge must reasonable, must not give the appearance of influencing the judge, and must be properly reported.  Canon 6A, Canon 6B.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2013-07.

Judge in dependency division may permit donation of items for children to play with while in court.  [Added 2/19/13]

    Judge is assigned to the dependency division.  A non-profit organization that supports guardians ad litem volunteers and the involved children has offered to donate items for children to play with while they are in court.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible for Judge to permit the proposed donations.

    The Committee answered that Judge’s proposed conduct was permissible, provided that neither Judge nor Judge’s court personnel solicit the donations.  Soliciting the donations might violate Canon 4A of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides that a judge must conduct extra-judicial activities so that they do not:  “(1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially; (2) undermine the judge’s independence, integrity or impartiality; . . . [or] (6) appear to a reasonable person to be coercive.”  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2013-05.

Ethically permissible for sitting judge to collect contingent fee from matters on which judge secured settlement offers before taking office.  [Added 2/11/13]

    Before assuming judicial office Judge represented clients on contingent fee cases.  Judge secured settlement offers in those cases.  Judge “anticipates that some of the offers which the judge secured before becoming a judge will be accepted, or the cases otherwise will be settled by lawyers who have assumed the representation.”  Judge asked the Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible to collect fees from these matters while on the bench.

    The Committee answered in the affirmative.  As long as the fees in question comply with applicable Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, the Committee was of the view that fees earned by the incoming judge but are not collected by the time the judge takes office  “may be paid to the incoming judge upon collection in the future.”  Judicial Ethics Opinion 2013-4.

Judge ethically precluded from sitting on county task force to address election issues encountered in recent election.  [Added 2/7/13]

    Judge has been asked by local county legislators to participate in an Elections Task Force whose purpose is “to ‘address issues concerning the problems encountered in [the judge’s] County and throughout the state’ during the 2012 general election.”  Judge asked the Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible to accept this invitation.

    The Committee answered in the negative.  A judge “shall not accept appointment to a governmental committee or commission or other governmental position that is concerned with issues of fact or policy on matters other than the improvement of the law, the legal system, the judicial branch, or the administration of justice.”   Canon 5C(2), Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.  This provision is designed to protect the courts from becoming involved in “extrajudicial matters that may prove to be controversial.”  Commentary, Canon 5C.  The Committee was of the view that the charge of the Task Force was likely to become controversial, and also observed:  “The issues of what reforms, if any, are necessary to resolve any problems encountered with an election or with the state’s election laws likely will involve fact-finding and issuing recommendations such as statutory changes and/or possible litigation.  These are activities which could call into question the judge’s ability to be fair and impartial and may constitute comment on impending litigation.”  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2013-03.

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee addresses when judicial appointee may sell law practice, including goodwill, and collect payments over time.  [Added 2/5/13]

    The Florida Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee responded to an inquiry from a lawyer who has recently been appointed to a judgeship but has not yet assumed office.  The inquirer asked two questions of the Committee:  (1) “May a lawyer who has been appointed as a judge, but has not assumed office, sell the lawyer’s interest in a law practice, including its tangible assets and goodwill, and collect payments for that sale over a period of time, while sitting as a judge?;” and (2) “May payments for goodwill be based upon a formula taking into account fees earned in pending matters transferred to the acquiring firm?”

    Regarding the proposed formula, the Committee noted that the inquirer explained:  “[F]ixing the amount of the goodwill value at the time of the sale makes it ‘very likely that the acquiring firm will either overpay or underpay the economic value of the practice being sold.’  To avoid this result, the inquiring judicial appointee suggests the possibility that a formula be agreed upon to be applied to fees as they are collected in the future.” 

First question.  Prior Committee opinions have concluded that “a judge, after assuming office, may continue to collect fees resulting from work performed before appointment.”  The Committee had not previously addressed the issue of a sale of the goodwill value of the law practice.  In view of Rule of Professional Conduct 4-1.17, however, the Committee indicated that a sale price that included goodwill value did not violate the Code of Judicial Conduct.

    The Code is implicated, however, when some or all of that sale price is not paid until after the seller has assumed the judgeship.  The Committee cited with approval Massachusetts Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinion 2000-1, stating:  “The Massachusetts Committee opined that as long as the payment for goodwill is for a fixed sum at a reasonable rate of interest, to be paid over time, the arrangement would not violate Canon 5C, restricting a judge’s financial and business dealings, nor Canon 5G, prohibiting a judge from practicing law.”  Thus, the Committee answered the inquirer’s first question in the affirmative.

Second question.  The Committee answered the second question in the negative.  “[T]he adjustment in the amount to be paid for the goodwill value, as proposed by the inquiring judicial appointee, based on the success of the law practice in collecting fees in the future, would not be permissible.  Such a process impermissibly would involve the judge in the future success or failure of the continuing law practice.”

Final note.  “Although not included in the inquiry, it is important to note that a judge must not sit on any matter involving the law firm during the period when the payments are being made to the judge.”  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2013-01.

Judge may not attend religious organization’s fundraising dinner after organization mailed invitations listing judge as a “host” by mistake.  [Added 1/2/13]

    Judge and spouse have attended a religious organization’s fundraising gala dinner over the years.  Judge’s spouse purchased an 8-seat table at a substantial sum.  When the organization sent out invitations to the event, it mistakenly and without Judge’s knowledge or authorization listed Judge as one of the dinner’s “hosts.”  Judge quickly informed the organization of the mistake.

    Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether, under these circumstances, it would be ethically permissible for Judge to attend the dinner.  The Committee answered in the negative.

    The Committee cited Canon 2B of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct (a “judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others”) and Canon 5C(3)(b)(iii) (a “judge . . . as a member or otherwise [of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, sororal, or civic organization not conducted for profit], shall not use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising or member solicitation”).  The Committee observed that, by naming Judge as a “host,” the organization “essentially has made the inquiring judge a featured participant.”  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2012-36.

Judge may write letter on judicial letterhead in support of school board’s grant application, per Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.  [Added 12/13/12]

    The Florida Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee addressed an inquiry from a judge who was asked by a school board representative to write a letter on judicial letterhead in support of the board’s federal grant application for the “Race to the Top District Competition.”  The judge chairs the local Juvenile Justice County Council and the local Children’s Services Council.  Some of the substantial grant funds would be used by the school board to fund a juvenile delinquency prevention program being developed by the two councils.

    The Committee responded with a qualified affirmative answer:  “Yes, as long as (1) the grant funds will be used solely for the delinquency prevention program and other programs and projects which concern the law, the legal system and the administration of justice; (2) these programs do not cast doubt on the judge’s impartiality; and (3) the judge discloses the judge’s role in writing the support letter in cases before the judge which involve issues or persons associated with the delinquency prevention program or other programs funded by the grant.”  In its opinion the Committee cited Canons 4A, 4D(2)(c), 5A, and the Commentary to Canon 3E(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2012-35.

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee discourages judge from critiquing book about well-publicized criminal case.  [Added 11/5/12] 

    Judge has been asked by a university editorial board to critique a book “written by the lead defense attorney of a well-publicized criminal case, when the defendant in that case remains a party in pending proceedings arising from issues raised in the criminal case.”  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible to do so.  Although the Committee hesitantly answered that Judge could accept the offer, it offered a number of reasons designed to discourage Judge from undertaking the activity.

    Noting that the proposed critique “could be viewed as either a quasi-judicial activity under Canon 4B or as an extra-judicial activity under Canon 5B,” the Committee stated under either view the key consideration involved is that the activity is subject to the requirements of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.  Several of the Code sections are implicated by the proposed conduct.

    Canon 3B(9) states that a judge “shall not, while a proceeding is pending or impending in any court, make any public comment that might reasonably be expected to affect its outcome or impair its fairness.”  Canon 4A provides that a judge “shall conduct all of the judge’s quasi-judicial activities so that they do not . . . cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge . . . demean the judicial office . . . [or] lead to frequent disqualification of the judge . . .”  Canon 5A “provides the same cautions for the conduct of extrajudicial activities.”

    The Committee observed that “Canon 2B is a closer question.”  This canon forbids a judge from lending “the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others.”  In the proposed situation, “the inquiring judge must be mindful of the fact that, once the judge has submitted the proposed critique, the judge has lost control over how the proposed critique is used.  . . .  It is possible that the book’s publisher or the criminal defense attorney will use the proposed critique to advance their private interests. An argument could be made that the judge, recognizing this possibility, indirectly lent the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the book’s publisher or the criminal defense attorney in violation of Canon 2B.”  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2012-34.

Chief judge may permit general magistrate and court staff to attend training session sponsored by Salvation Army and Coalition Against Domestic Violence.  [Added 10/28/12]

    A chief judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible to permit a general magistrate and members of the court's administrative staff to attend a training session sponsored by the Salvation Army and the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence.  The Committee answered in the affirmative.

    Under Canon 3C(2) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge generally must require court staff to observe the standards that apply to the judge.  The Committee read Canon 4A (judge’s quasi-judicial activities must not: “(1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge; (2) undermine the judge’s integrity, independence or impartiality; (3) demean the judicial office; or (4) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.”) together with Canon 4B (encouraging judge to participate in activities concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice) in reaching its conclusion.  The Committee emphasized that the subject matter of the proposed seminar "relates to the legal system and the administration of justice."  Furthermore, "[a] judge’s approval of attendance of court personnel at a single seminar, whether or not the seminar is presented by an organization which may have a particular viewpoint on the subject matter to be presented, does not interfere with the judge’s impartiality or suggest that the judge agrees with the content of the seminar or the viewpoint of the organization sponsoring the seminar."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2012-31.

Judge ethically may not accept award at non-law-related organization’s luncheon that includes silent auction.  [Added 10/16/12] 

    Judge has been asked to attend a luncheon sponsored by an organization that “provides education, prevention, and self-preservation services to abandoned, abused, neglected and delinquent children and their families.”  The organization would like to present an award to Judge and Judge’s spouse.  The luncheon event will also include a silent auction.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be permissible to attend the luncheon under these circumstances.

    The Committee answered in the negative.  The Committee’s opinion noted that the luncheon appeared to be a fund-raiser for the organization, and that the sponsoring organization was a “non-law-related” one.  The Committee pointed out that, although Canon 5 of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct encourages judges to participate in extrajudicial activities concerning non-legal subject subject to applicable provisions of the Code, it also “provides the caveat that a judge shall not personally or directly participate in the solicitation of funds, in the solicitation of membership if the solicitation might reasonably be perceived as coercive, or permit the use of the prestige of the judicial office for fund raising or membership solicitation.  Fla. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 5C(3)(b)(i)-(iii).”  Citing prior opinions, the Committee concluded:  “Because a silent auction will take place during the luncheon, the presentation of an award to the inquiring judge at the luncheon would not be permitted under the Code.”  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2012-30.

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee discusses participation of judge and spouse in charity event involving sponsorship by local lawyer.  [Added 10/10/12]

    Judge and Spouse have volunteered to walk in a charity walkathon.  They asked the Florida Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be permissible to wear shirts for “Team Smith” (“Smith” being a local lawyer in private practice [“Smith” is not the lawyer’s real name]).  Judge is assigned to the criminal cases.  Judge stated that “Smith,” the local lawyer in question, has never appeared before Judge and Judge reasonably believes that “Smith” will not do so in the future.   Spouse does not work for “Smith.”  Spouse would like to solicit funds on behalf of Spouse and “Team Smith,” with all proceeds going to the charity.

    The Committee concluded that, although Judge may participate in the charitable walkathon, Judge may not wear the “Team Smith” shirt.  Wearing a shirt with the name of a lawyer in private practice “would run afoul of Canon 2B’s prohibition against a judge’s lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of others.”

    Regarding Spouse, the Committee opined that Spouse “may donate and solicit funds on the spouse’s behalf and on behalf of the team named for the local lawyer, but may not, at the behest of or on behalf of the judge, solicit funds ostensibly on the spouse’s own behalf, on behalf of the team named for the local lawyer, or otherwise.”  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2012-29.

Judge-elect ethically may testify as an expert at a fee hearing that began before the judicial election but was continued until after election.  [Added 9/30/12]

    Judge-elect was retained to testify as an attorney’s fee expert.  The evidentiary hearing began before the judicial election was held, but Judge-elect’s testimony was not concluded at that hearing.  Judge-elect was undergoing cross-examination.  The matter was continued until a date after the election.  Judge-elect was the successful candidate.  Judge-elect asked the Florida Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee if it would be ethically permissible to appear at the continued hearing and conclude the testimony.

    The Committee answered in the affirmative.  The Committee noted Canon 2B of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct (“A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests . . . of others . . . .  A judge shall not testify voluntarily as a character witness.”) and discussed prior opinions of the Committee applying that provision.  The Committee then concluded:  “The majority of the Committee believes the inquiring judge-elect is permitted to appear at the continuation of the evidentiary hearing and finish testifying regarding the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees in the case.  The majority notes that the judge-elect has concluded the direct testimony and part of the cross-examination and is merely finishing up the testimony on attorneys’ fees, the case likely will be concluded before the judge-elect takes the bench, the judge-elect was retained for the purpose of testifying as an expert witness on attorneys’ fees and did the vast majority of the work in advance of the election, there is no jury involved as there was in the scenario outlined in Fla. JEAC 04-37, and forcing the parties to ‘start over’ on the attorneys’ fees issue would cause substantial prejudice in the way of additional expense and delay to the parties and the court.  The majority concludes that the judge-elect’s testifying at the continuation of the evidentiary hearing on attorneys’ fees is merely closing out the judge-elect’s practice before taking office – a classic ‘winding up’ situation – one which is necessary for the judge-elect to complete before assuming the bench.”  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2012-27.

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee addresses judge’s plans to solicit lawyers to volunteer for ad litem appointments.  [Added 9/22/12]

    Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee about the ethical propriety of the judge’s plans to solicit lawyers to volunteer for appointment as pro bono attorneys ad litem for children in dependency actions.  Judge asked two questions.

    Question 1.  “May a judge request local bar associations to convene a special lunch meeting so that the judge may solicit attorneys to volunteer for appointment as pro bono attorneys ad litem for children in dependency cases?”

    Answer 1.  The Committee answered with a qualified “yes.”  Although appointment of lawyers to pro bono service is a “judicial activity,” because Judge is asking about the manner in which Judge intends to solicit volunteers the proposed activity is considered a “quasi-judicial” activity.  Such activities must be conducted so that they do not “cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge . . . [or] appear to a reasonable person to be coercive.”  Canon 4A, Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.  Accordingly, Judge may ask bar associations to hold the lunch meeting so Judge may solicit volunteers “if the judge’s conduct does not appear to a reasonable person to be coercive or cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge.”  In the Committee’s view, the solicitation could be coercive if it causes a lawyer to volunteer in violation of Rule 4-6.2, Florida Rules of Professional Conduct.  Additionally, the activity might cast reasonable doubt on Judge’s impartiality “if it appears to a reasonable person that the judge likely will favor attorneys who volunteer for appointment and/or disfavor attorneys who do not volunteer for appointment.”

    Question 2.  “May a judge accept a non-profit organization’s offer to attempt to obtain the funds needed to pay for the meeting if the organization supports guardian ad litem volunteers and children for whom they advocate in the judge’s circuit but the judge is not involved in the fundraising effort?”

    Answer 2.  The Committee answered this question in the negative.  “[A] judge may not accept a non-profit organization’s offer to attempt to obtain the funds needed to pay for the meeting, even if the judge is not involved in the fundraising effort, where the organization supports guardian ad litem volunteers and children for whom they advocate in the judge’s circuit.”  Such conduct is prohibited by:  “Canon 2B (‘A judge shall not . . . convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.’); Canon 2 Commentary (‘A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety . . . The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances that a reasonable inquiry would disclose, a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with . . . impartiality . . . is impaired.’); Canon 3E(1) (‘A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned . . . .’); Canons 4A(1) & (5) (‘A judge shall conduct all of the judge’s quasi-judicial activities so that they do not . . . cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge . . . [or] lead to frequent disqualification of the judge . . . .’); Canon 4D(2) Commentary (‘[J]udges may not participate in . . . fund-raising activities on behalf of an organization engaging in advocacy if such participation would cast doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge.’).  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2012-26.

Judge may speak at Girl Scouts business meeting and annual award ceremony.  [Added 8/20/12]

    Judge is a lifelong member of the Girl Scouts.  Judge has been asked to give a keynote speech at a local Scouts council business meeting. The purposes of the meeting “are to report on the council’s status and recognize adult volunteers,” including Judge.  Additionally, Judge has been invited to “give a keynote speech at the Girl Scouts’ annual Gold and Silver Award Ceremony where the speech’s purposes are to congratulate girls who have earned the highest awards available and encourage them to be involved in the community.”

    Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether these activities would be ethically permissible.  The Committee answered in the affirmative.

    Canon 5B of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct encourages judges to speak concerning non-legal subjects; however, Canon 5C provides that a judge shall not personally or directly participate in the solicitation of funds or membership, or permit the use of the prestige of the judicial office for fundraising or membership solicitation.  The Committee noted that neither event asked about by Judge is a fundraiser and that, therefore, Judge may be the keynote speaker.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2012-24 (Election).

Not unethical for judge to speak to county commission and individual commissioners in support of court software funding request.  [Added 7/29/12]

    In Judge’s county, the county commission authorizes funding for judicial technology and software.  Judge, with the approval of the chief judge, would like to appear before the county commission to speak in support of a specific software funding request.  Judge would also like to speak privately to individual commissioners in support of the funding request.  Judge’s comments would focus on the use of the software requested and to how it would improve the administration of justice in the county.

    Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether this proposed conduct would be ethically permissible.  Citing Canon 4 of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct and prior opinions of the Committee, the Committee answered in the affirmative.  “[A] judge is permitted by Canon 4 to appear and speak in support of a specific software funding request to the county commission, which provides funding for judicial technology and software in the county where the judge sits, so long as the judge does not engage in conduct which demeans the judicial office, appears to a reasonable person to be coercive, or violate any other provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  The Code does not prohibit the judge from speaking privately to individual commissioners about this funding request, so long as such conduct is not otherwise prohibited by law.”

    The Committee specifically noted that it was not addressing possible application of Florida’s Sunshine Law (Ch. 286, Fla. Stat.).  Furthermore, the opinion stated that a majority of Committee members “would advise the judge not to support or endorse a particular software provider or software product in order to avoid violating Canon 2B’s prohibition against lending the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of another.”  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2012-22.

Judge may not sit on board of directors of private non-profit corporation organized to administer privatized funds formerly administered by DCF.  [Added 7/6/12]

    Judge has been asked to serve on the board of directors of a not-for-profit corporation that would act as a “managing entity” that would bid for the  right to administer state funds (approximately $52 million) that have been administered by the Department of Children and Family Services.  The administration of those funds recently has been privatized.  Judge stated that the entity “would be in essence a governing entity that would contract with a [named] vendor.”

    Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible to accept this appointment.  The Committee answered in the negative.

    Canon 5 of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct permits judges to serve in positions such as officers or directors of educational, religious, charitable, or other civic organizations.  Canon 5, however, prohibits a judge from undertaking such service where it is likely that the organization will be involved in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge or will be engaged frequently in adversary proceedings in the court on which the judge sits.  (See Canon 5C(3)(a)(i) and (ii).)

    Of greater concern to the Committee was the nature of the entity in question.  The entity was not an organization devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, the judicial branch, or the administration of justice.  “Viewed in one way, the managing entity is a stand in for an agency of the executive branch.  After all, the letter asking the inquiring judge to serve on the managing entity’s board said the managing entity ‘would be in essence a governing entity.’  Canon 5C(2) provides that ‘[a] judge shall not accept appointment to a governmental committee or commission or other governmental position that is concerned with issues of fact or policy on matters other than the improvement of the law, the legal system, the judicial branch, or the administration of justice.’”

    Additionally, “[i]f the managing entity is viewed as a conduit to or agent for the named vendor, other concerns come to the fore.  Canon 2(B) states:  ‘A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others.'”  This Canon would be implicated by Judge’s proposed conduct.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2012-16.

Judge may not add lawyers who may appear before the judge as “connections” on the “LinkedIn” professional networking site.  [Added 5/22/12] 

    The Florida Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee relied on prior opinions (2009-20 and 2010-06) in concluding that it is ethically impermissible for a judge to add lawyers who may appear before the judge as “connections” on the professional social networking site “LinkedIn.”

    The Committee stated:  “The Committee continues to believe that the process of selecting persons to be connections on LinkedIn, and the communication by the judge of the list of the judge’s connections to others who the judge has approved, violates Canon 2B.  [Canon 2B of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits a judge from conveying or permitting others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.]  The Committee does not believe that there is meaningful distinction in this regard between Facebook, and LinkedIn, a site used for professional networking, because the selection and communication process is the same on both sites.”

    The Committee explained its concern regarding the selection process and Canon 2B:  “[I]t is the process of selection of "friends" or "connections" by the judge, and the fact that the names of those ‘friends’ or ‘connections’ are then communicated – often, but not always, selectively to others – that violates Canon 2B, because by doing so the judge conveys or permits others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.”  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2012-12.

Retired judge eligible to serve as senior judge may not be hired by law firm to mentor associates in trial practice or to help develop ADR programs.  [Added 4/25/12]

    Judge is a retired judge who is eligible to serve as a senior judge and does so on occasion.  A law firm has asked Judge to become a partner in the law firm.  Judge would be paid on an hourly basis, with no ownership interest in the firm.  Judge would not personally be engaged in the practice of law with the firm.  Judge’s primary duties with the law firm would be to mentor associates in effective  trial practice and to help the firm develop state-wide and multi-state alternative disputes resolution programs.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible for Judge to accept the law firm’s proposal.

    The Committee answered in the negative.  The Committee pointed out that Canon 5F(2) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct “provides that senior judges ‘may be associated with entities that are solely engaged in offering mediation or other alternative dispute resolution services but that are not otherwise engaged in the practice of law.  However, such senior judge may in no other way advertise, solicit business, associate with a law firm or participate in any other activity that directly or indirectly promotes his or her mediation services.’”  (Emphasis by Committee.)  Accordingly, “[b]ased on the plain language of Canon 5F(2), such an activity directly conflicts with the ethical obligations required of retired judges eligible to serve on assignment to temporary judicial duty.  The prohibition against a senior judge associating with an entity that engages in the practice of law exists even if the senior judge refrains from accepting temporary judicial assignments while the association with the law firm is ongoing.”  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2012-10.

Judge ethically may publish blog that reports on Florida Supreme Court and DCA opinions as they are released.  [Added 3/16/12]

    Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible for Judge to publish a blog “that reports on Florida Supreme Court and District Court of Appeal cases as they are released, where the entries are intended to be neutral, nonjudgmental, brief summaries of the facts and holdings, with a link to the full opinion of each case.”  The Committee answered in the affirmative.

    Judges are permitted engage in various teaching activities.  See Canon 4B, Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.  See also Committee opinions 08-21, 05-11, 97-26, 87-3, and 75-28.  The Committee likened the proposed blog to teaching.  “The Code makes no distinctions among the activities of speaking, writing, lecturing, or teaching, or the technology used to engage in those activities.  Nor does the Committee perceive any such distinction.”  The Committee noted that “If all cases to be included in the present inquiring judge’s blog were final (i.e. no discussion of pending or impending cases would be included) nothing in the present inquiry suggests the inquiring judge would be placing on the proposed blog anything that could not be included in any other teaching activity.”

    The Committee closed its opinion with these words of caution to Judge:  “[B]efore publishing material on the blog, the judge should carefully examine all provisions of the Code that relate to the blog and its topics, to insure that the judge is not publishing on the blog something the judge could not ethically say in person. The Committee also advises that an interactive blog may invite inappropriate comment by the judge and therefore the judge would be well-advised to exercise caution in engaging in such activity. Additionally, the judge may consider adding a disclaimer to the blog that clarifies the judge does not endorse or vouch for the comments of others on the blog, and that such comments do not represent the views of the judge.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2012-07.

Judge may appear as guardian of judge's minor children at mediation in contested probate case.  [Added 2/20/12]

    Judge and Judge's minor children are among the beneficiaries in a contested probate proceeding.  A mediation has been scheduled.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible for Judge to appear at the mediation as guardian of the minor children.

    The Committee answered in the affirmative.  The conduct is authorized by Canon 5E of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides:  “A judge shall not serve as executor, administrator or other personal representative, trustee, guardian, attorney in fact or other fiduciary, except for the estate, trust or person of a member of the judge’s family, and then only if such service will not interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.”  While appearing as guardian for the children is permissible, appearing as their lawyer would not be.  The Committee cautioned Judge that Judge "should not file an appearance as a lawyer on their behalf nor should the judge negotiate on behalf of the children as their lawyer.  Canon 5G, Fla. Code Jud. Conduct; see In Re Turner, 36 Fla. L. Weekly S656 (Fla. 2011).  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2012-05.

Judge ethically may permit arraignments to be broadcast by TV network but may not contract to provide "teaching segment" on the network.  [Added 11/29/11]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-18.

Retired judge who wishes to preside as senior judge in the future may not be board member of Innocence Project of Florida.  [Added 11/29/11]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-19.

Judge seeking re-election  may sponsor hole at charity golf tournament hosted by young lawyers section of local bar association.  [Added 10/8/11]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-15.

Judge may not participate as member of the wait staff at charitable organization's fundraiser luncheon under facts as presented.  [Added 10/4/11]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-14.

Judge may not directly solicit local banks and businesses to assist in providing goods or services to financial literacy educational program.  [Added 9/3/11]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-13.

Judge ethically may not attend veterans' organization fund-raiser at which judge will be honored and most funds go to assist veterans.  [Added 9/3/11]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-12.

Senior judge who works with mediation group may allow the group to use judge's image and bio in its ads.  [Added 8/18/11]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-11.

Judge's spouse may host at their home a campaign event for another candidate, but judge should discourage it and may not attend.  [Added 7/22/11]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-10.

Judge may publicly discuss concerns about how proposed legislation or constitutional amendments may affect judicial branch.  [Added 5/11/11]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-07.

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee on judge's involvement with YWCA court-related childcare program.  [Added 5/9/11]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2011-06.

Judge ethically may not chair educational non-profit organization designed to support public school board.  [Added 4/22/11]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-05.

Judge may appear in TV public service spots for parenting help line sponsored by non-profit organization.  [Added 4/15/11]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-04.

Senior judge who holds several residential mortgages on properties not ethically prohibited from presiding over mortgage foreclosure cases.  [Added 2/17/11]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-02.

Neither judge nor someone on judge's behalf may accept award to be bestowed by Junior League at fundraising event.  [Added 2/17/11]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2011-03.

Judge may create and maintain a website designed primarily to focus high school students on college or trade school preparation.  [Added 2/3/11]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-01.

Judge ethically may not sit on board of charitable foundation related to for-profit rehabilitation program to which judge directs misdemeanants.  [Added 12/20/10]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-38.

Judge may not allow juvenile offenders to perform community service hours by running in jogging program with him.  [Added 12/3/10]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-37.

Retiring judge may not send out announcements about joining mediation firm while still a sitting judge.  [Added 11/18/10]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-35.

Judge may not contact another judge to discuss drug program as alternative to jail in case involving defendant related to judge's friend.  [Added 11/18/10]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-34.

Judge may not accept civic award at event that would serve as fundraiser, though not advertised as such.  [Added 11/16/10]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-33.

Circuit's Chief Judge may send letter to "Members of the Bar" urging them to join Florida Bar's "One" pro bono campaign.  [Added 9/20/10]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-31.

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

    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]  --  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]  --  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.