Who is legally allowed to administer the oath of office to a newly elected Maryland State's Attorney: a judge, the clerk of court, or the Governor?

Plain-English summary

After the 1982 election, Baltimore County's re-elected State's Attorney took her oath of office before a circuit court judge rather than the clerk of court, breaking with the clerk's own prior practice of administering that oath himself. A survey of other Maryland counties turned up inconsistent practice: in some counties the clerk swore in the State's Attorney, in others a judge did. The clerk of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County asked the Attorney General to settle, in writing, who was legally authorized to administer the oath, and whether a judge-administered oath could still be recorded in the clerk's traditional "test book."

The Attorney General concluded that three different officials, the Governor, a circuit court judge, or a circuit court clerk, could each lawfully administer the oath of office to a State's Attorney, based on reading two constitutional provisions together: Article V, §8, which the opinion read as making it the judges' duty to administer the oath, and Article I, §10, a broader catch-all provision letting officers qualify before the Governor or any clerk of a court of record. But the opinion found an important asymmetry: because Article V, §8 uses mandatory language directing judges to administer the oath, and analogous case law held a clerk could not refuse either, only the Governor retained discretion to decline. On the recordkeeping question, the opinion found no statute required a judge to record an oath any particular way, but that the clear legislative intent to preserve a permanent record of oath-taking meant a judge could simply sign the clerk's existing testamentary book, or use any other suitable permanent method, when the judge rather than the clerk performed the swearing-in.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Could a Maryland circuit court judge refuse to swear in a newly elected State's Attorney?
No, according to this opinion. The Attorney General concluded that Article V, §8 of the Maryland Constitution imposed a mandatory duty on judges to administer the oath, so a judge had no discretion to decline.

Could the Governor refuse to administer the oath of office to a State's Attorney?
Yes. The opinion distinguished the State's Attorney's oath from the Attorney General's oath, finding no constitutional or statutory provision specifically directed the Governor to swear in a State's Attorney, so unlike with the Attorney General, the Governor retained discretion to decline.

If a judge, rather than the clerk, administers the oath to a State's Attorney, can that oath still be logged in the clerk's official record book?
Yes. The opinion found nothing prohibiting a judge from signing the clerk's testamentary book, and concluded the clear legislative intent to preserve a permanent record of oaths taken supported using that book, or any other suitable permanent record, even when a judge performed the swearing-in.

Background and statutory framework

Two constitutional provisions governed the question. Article V, §8, dating to the 1851 Constitution, directs county clerks to certify State's Attorney election results to the judges having criminal jurisdiction in that county, whose "duty it shall be" to decide contested elections, break ties, and "administer the oaths of office to the Person elected." The clerk's letter raised a genuine grammatical ambiguity, whether a semicolon in that sentence split the judges' duties from a separate clerk's duty to administer the oath, but the opinion resolved this by tracing the semicolon's history through the 1851, 1864, and 1867 constitutional conventions, finding it was inserted as a stylistic conforming edit to match the nearly identical Attorney General oath provision, not a substantive change, and by pointing to a Court of Appeals decision, White v. State, that had already read the parallel language as imposing the oath-administering duty on judges.

Article I, §10, a transitional, catch-all provision added late in the 1867 constitutional convention, separately allows any officer elected "pursuant to this Constitution" to qualify according to existing law, before the Governor, or before any clerk of a court of record. The opinion read the two provisions harmoniously: Article V, §8 imposes a mandatory duty on judges, while Article I, §10 supplies two additional, permissible options (the Governor or a clerk) without displacing the judge's role. Because Article V, §2 (the nearly identically worded Attorney General oath provision) had already been held in Groome v. Gwinn to impose a mandatory duty on the Governor to administer that oath, and the Maryland Constitution's text for State's Attorneys omitted any comparable directive naming the Governor, the opinion concluded the Governor's role as to State's Attorneys was permissive rather than mandatory. The opinion also traced 1850s-era statutes, including a provision expressly stating that the general rule requiring officers to take oaths before clerks did not apply to State's Attorneys, as contemporaneous evidence confirming this reading of the framers' intent.

Citations

Statutes:

• Article V, §8 of the Maryland Constitution (State's Attorney election certification and oath administration by judges)
• Article I, §10 of the Maryland Constitution (catch-all qualification provision: Governor, clerk, or existing law)
• Article V, §7 of the Maryland Constitution (State's Attorney's term beginning the first Monday in January)
• Article I, §9 of the Maryland Constitution (general oath of office requirement)
• Article V, §2 of the Maryland Constitution (Attorney General election certification and oath administration by the Governor)
• Article 70, §1 (Governor and Lieutenant Governor's oath before the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals)
• Article 70, §2 (oaths of Secretary of State, appellate judges and clerks, Attorney General, and other officers before the Governor)
• Article 70, §3 (oaths of General Assembly members)
• Article 70, §4 (repealed; formerly circuit court clerks' oaths before a judge)
• Article 70, §5 (municipal officers' oaths before the mayor or chief magistrate)
• Article 70, §7 (catch-all: other officers' oaths before the circuit court clerk)
• Article 70, §12 (monthly reporting of oaths taken)
• CJ §2-104 (oath administration for circuit court clerks and other officers)
• CJ §2-104(c)(1) (default rule: officers take oath before the circuit court clerk)
• CJ §2-104(c)(2) (circuit court clerks' own oath before a judge)
• CJ §2-502 (clerk's test book requirement)
• Article 17, §71 (monthly reporting of oaths to the Secretary of State)
• SG §7-105(b) (preservation of oath reports by the Secretary of State)
• Article 10, §§34-41 (State's Attorney statutory provisions, containing no oath-administration reference)
• Chapter 172, Laws of Maryland 1852 (first comprehensive oath-of-office statute)
• Chapter 17, Laws of Maryland 1854 (clarifying that the general clerk-oath rule excludes State's Attorneys)
• Chapter 681, Laws of Maryland 1977 (relocating Article I, §10 within the Constitution)

Cases:

• White v. State, 244 Md. 188, 191 (1965)
• Groome v. Gwinn, 43 Md. 572, 625 (1875)
• Groome v. Gwinn, 43 Md. 572, 624 (1876)
• Wells v. Price, 183 Md. 443 (1944)
• Boyer v. Thurston, 247 Md. 279, 293 (1967)
• Quynn v. Carroll's Administrator, 22 Md. 288, 294 (1864)
• 20 Opinions of the Attorney General 226 (1935)
• 48 Opinions of the Attorney General 323 (1963)
• 65 Opinions of the Attorney General 285, 288-90 (1980)

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1986/Volume71_1986.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

PUBLIC OFFICERS

State's Attorney—Oath Of Office—Governor, Circuit Court Judge, Or Circuit Court Clerk May Administer Oath To State's Attorney—Record To Be Maintained In Clerk's Testamentary Book Or Other Permanent Form.

November 13, 1986

The Honorable Elmer H. Kahline, Jr.
Clerk of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County

You have requested our opinion concerning the administration of the oath of office to a State's Attorney. Specifically, you ask whether the circuit court clerk or a circuit court judge is the proper public official to administer the oath. If a circuit court judge may administer the oath, you further inquire whether a record of the administration of the oath may be entered in the testamentary book maintained by your office.

For the reasons given below, it is our opinion that the Governor, a circuit court judge, or a circuit court clerk may administer the oath of office to the State's Attorney. Although the Governor may decline to administer the oath, a judge or clerk may not. In addition, it is our opinion that, should a judge administer the oath of office to the State's Attorney, record of the administration of the oath may be made in the clerk's testamentary book or in any other suitable permanent form.

I
Background

After the 1982 election, the re-elected State's Attorney for Baltimore County took her oath of office before a judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Thereafter, the judge signed his name, attesting to the administration of the oath of office to the State's Attorney, in the "test book" maintained in your office. In previous years, you had administered the oath to the State's Attorney in your capacity as the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County in accordance with your understanding of the mandate of §2-104 of the Courts Article ("CJ" Article), and you had recorded that act in your "test book" as required by CJ §2-502.

An informal survey by you of your fellow circuit court clerks revealed that, in some counties, the clerk administered the oath of office to the State's Attorney; in others, a judge administered the oath. Although we provided you with oral advice soon after the 1982 election, we recently agreed that, because of the variety of practices among the counties and the possibility of lingering questions about the proper official to administer the oath to the State's Attorney, we would commit our previous advice to writing and disseminate it at this time. The general election was held on Tuesday, November 4, 1986. Under Article V, §7 of the Maryland Constitution, the State's Attorney shall serve from the first Monday in January after his or her election but first must take the oath of office required by Article I, §9 of the Constitution.

II
Constitutional and Statutory Framework

A. Constitutional Provisions

The two constitutional provisions that pertain to the administration of the oath of office to State's Attorneys are Article V, §8 and Article I, §10.

Article V, §8 first appeared in the 1851 Constitution as Article V, §2 and was reenacted as part of the 1864 and 1867 Constitutions. Article V, §8 provides as follows:

"All elections for the State's Attorney shall be certified to, and Returns made thereof, by the Clerks of the said Counties and City, to the Judges thereof, having criminal jurisdiction, respectively, whose duty it shall be to decide upon the elections and qualifications of the Persons returned; and, in case of a tie between two or more Persons, to designate which of said Persons shall qualify as State's Attorney, and to administer the oaths of office to the Person elected."

The other pertinent constitutional provision, Article I, §10, provides as follows:

"Any officer elected or appointed in pursuance of the provisions of this Constitution, may qualify, either according to the existing provisions of law, in relation to officers under the present Constitution, or before the Governor of the State, or before any Clerk of any Court of Record in any part of the State; but in case an officer shall qualify out of the County in which he resides, an official copy of his oath shall be filed and recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of the County in which he may reside...."

This provision first appeared in the 1867 Constitution. When first enacted, it was §10 of Article XV, "Miscellaneous Provisions." In 1978, it was transferred to its present section, "Elective Franchise." Chapter 681, Laws of Maryland 1977 (ratified November 4, 1978).

With one narrow exception, the Constitution is silent as to "test books" and to the recording generally of the act of either taking or giving the oath of office. The exception is in Article I, §10, which provides that in case an officer should qualify out of the county in which the officer resides, "an official copy of his oath shall be filed and recorded" in the clerk's office of the circuit court of the county in which the officer resides.

B. Statutory Provisions

An extensive statutory framework relating to official oaths appears in Article 70 of the Maryland Code. However, no specific reference is made to the State's Attorney. Article 70, §1 provides that the Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall take their oaths before the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals. Section 2 provides that the Secretary of State, the judges and clerks of the appellate courts, the Attorney General, the State Reporter, the Adjutant General, the Treasurer, and the Comptroller shall take their oaths before the Governor. Section 3 provides that Senate members shall take their oaths before the Senate President and that House of Delegate members shall take their oaths before the Speaker of the House. The Senate President and the Speaker of the House take their oaths before a member of their respective bodies. Article 70, §3. Section 4 formerly provided that the circuit court clerks take their oaths before a judge of their respective courts; however, that section was repealed in 1973 and now appears, without substantive change, as CJ §2-104(c)(2). Section 5 provides that all municipal officers, except the mayors or chief magistrates, shall take the oath before the mayor or chief magistrate. Finally, §7 provides that all "other officers," presumably those not specified in the prior sections of Article 70, who are "elected or appointed ... under the Constitution and laws of this State," including "mayors or other chief magistrates," shall take their oaths before the circuit court clerk or one of the clerk's deputies. As discussed in Part III below, two years after this provision was first enacted, the General Assembly indicated that it was not to be construed as covering State's Attorneys.

Another section pertaining to official oaths is CJ §2-104(c)(1), which provides that, "[e]xcept as authorized by Article I, §10 of the Constitution, every officer, except the clerk of the circuit court of a county or an appellate court, shall take the oath before the clerk of the circuit court." Relying upon this section's authority, you previously had administered the oath of office to State's Attorneys elected in your county. The Code provisions relating to State's Attorneys include no reference to the official before whom a State's Attorney should take the oath of office. See Article 10, §§34-41.

The Code provisions relating to the maintenance of a permanent record of each officer's oath-taking are varied and are found in Article 70 and the Courts Article. The oaths of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor are to be recorded "in the test book of the Court of Appeals." Article 70, §1. The oaths of the Secretary of State, the judges and clerks of the appellate courts, the Attorney General, the State Reporter, the Adjutant General, the Treasurer, and the Comptroller "shall be preserved in a book to be kept by the Secretary of State." Article 70, §2. The oaths of the members of the General Assembly shall be "subscribed accordingly." Article 70, §3. The clerks of the circuit court shall maintain "[a] test book containing the oaths of office and signatures of every person who takes the oath before the clerk." CJ §2-502. Finally, the clerks shall report monthly the names and offices of all officers who have taken and subscribed the oath of office before them, which is to be "carefully preserved" by the Secretary of State. Article 17, §71; Article 70, §12; and §7-105(b) of the State Government Article ("SG" Article).

III
Construction of Article V, §8 and Article I, §10

Our analysis begins with an examination of the pertinent constitutional provisions, because statutory enactments cannot override the Constitution. In our view, Article V, §8 provides that the clerk shall certify the election of the State's Attorney to the judges of his or her court and that the judges shall have three duties: (i) to decide upon the elections and qualifications of the persons "returned"; (ii) to designate, in the case of a tie vote, the person who shall qualify as State's Attorney; and (iii) to administer the oath of office to the person elected.

You have pointed out that the semicolon after the word "returned" in Article V, §8 suggests that only the first of these three duties is reposed with the judges and that the remainder of that sentence modifies "Clerks," thereby reposing the duty to administer the oath of office with the clerks. Alternatively, you have suggested that all three duties, which are listed after the phrase "whose duty it shall be," are those of the clerk, because "whose duty" modifies "Clerks."

While these possible interpretations cannot be disregarded lightly, we believe that a better reading is that the phrase "whose duty" modifies "Judges" and not "Clerks," and that the final clause, "to administer the oaths of office to Persons elected", is among the judges' "duties." For the reasons that follow, we also reject yet another, grammatically conceivable construction of the "administration of oaths" clause in Article V, §8, that it authorizes judges to administer the oath to a State's Attorney only in case of a tie.

First, with respect to the suggestion that the semicolon is intended to bifurcate the allocation of duties, the history of Article V, §8 indicates that in 1867 the semicolon was substituted for a comma for purely stylistic reasons. There was no semicolon in the 1851 version of this section. A review of the debates of the 1850 Constitutional Convention reveals that there also was no semicolon in the proposed versions of this section. See Debates and Proceedings of the Maryland Reform Convention to Revise the State Constitution (1851). Neither was there a semicolon in the version of this provision enacted in the 1864 Constitution. In fact, there was no semicolon in this provision when it was presented initially to the 1867 Constitutional Convention as part of the report of the Committee upon the Attorney General and State's Attorney. Proceedings of the State Convention, of Maryland, To Frame a New Constitution 136-38 (1867) ("1867 Proceedings").

However, when the committee's report was later amended to provide for an elected Attorney General, a semicolon was placed after the word "returned" in the nearly identical provision of Article V, §2, pertaining to the Attorney General. Article V, §2 provides as follows: "All elections for Attorney-General shall be certified to, and returns made thereof by the Clerks of the Circuit Courts of the several counties, and the Clerk of the Superior Court of Baltimore City, to the Governor of the State, whose duty it shall be to decide on the election and qualification of the person returned; and in case of a tie between two or more persons, to designate which of said persons shall qualify as Attorney General, and to administer the oath of office to the person elected." 1867 Proceedings at 580. No formal action of the convention amended Article V, §8, pertaining to the State's Attorney, to conform its punctuation to that of §2, pertaining to the Attorney General. Nonetheless, the final version of the 1867 Constitution included the conforming punctuation. 1867 Proceedings at 748-750. There is no reported discussion whatsoever suggesting that a change was intended as to the administration of the oath of office to the State's Attorney.

We conclude, therefore, that the addition of the semicolon did not substantively change §8. Rather, it was merely an editor's stylistic decision to conform the punctuation of §8 to that of §2. Cf. 65 Opinions of the Attorney General 285, 288-90 (1980). To express the framers' intent accurately, the editor should have inserted additional semicolons after the phrases "shall qualify as State's Attorney" in Article V, §8 and "shall qualify as Attorney General" in Article V, §2.

Second, with respect to the suggestion that "whose duty" modifies "Clerks," the Court of Appeals has stated unequivocally (although in dicta) that "Article V, §8, of the Constitution makes it the duty of the judge of a county to administer the oath of office to the person elected as that county's State's attorney." White v. State, 244 Md. 188, 191 (1965). This reading reflects customary grammatical usage, under which "whose duty" modifies the closest, preceding noun, here, "Judges." Indeed, the Court of Appeals has interpreted the nearly identical language of Article V, §2, which is punctuated identically, to require the Governor to administer the oath of office to the Attorney General. Groome v. Gwinn, 43 Md. 572, 625 (1875).

Further support for this construction is found in the statutes enacted contemporaneously with, or soon after, the first enactment of Article V, §8 in the 1851 Constitution. In May of 1852, the General Assembly passed the first comprehensive statute pertaining to official oaths. Chapter 172, Laws of Maryland 1852. The provisions of Chapter 172 remain largely unchanged in present Article 70. Chapter 172 provided, in §1, that "the oath required to be taken and subscribed by every person, elected or appointed to any office of profit or trust, under the Constitution or laws of this State" shall be taken before the clerk. State's Attorneys hold offices of profit. White v. State, 244 Md. 188, 191 (1965); 48 Opinions of the Attorney General 323 (1963). Section 3 provided that certain named officials, including the Secretary of State, the Treasurer, and the Comptroller, take the oath before the Governor. State's Attorneys were not among those persons enumerated. Section 7 provided for the oath taking for members of the General Assembly.

Chapter 17, Laws of Maryland 1854, made a number of additions and clarifications to this statute. Chapter 17 provided for the oath taking of the clerks themselves (to be taken before the judges of their respective courts), municipal officers, and the Adjutant General. Of particular interest to this inquiry is section 8 of Chapter 17, which makes clear that section 1 of the prior law, providing that persons elected to offices of profit take their oaths of office before clerks, does not apply to State's Attorneys. Specifically, section 8 of Chapter 17 provided that the earlier act "shall not be construed to include State's Attorney's administering of oaths to which officers is provided for in the second section of the fifth article of the constitution." Such contemporaneous or nearly contemporaneous construction is highly probative of the meaning of Article V, §8. See Wells v. Price, 183 Md. 443 (1944).

Having concluded that Article V, §8 provides for the administration of the oath of office to a State's Attorney by a judge, we turn to Article I, §10 (formerly Article XV, §10). That section was added to the 1867 Constitution upon the recommendation of the Committee on Revision and Compilation on August 14, 1867, three days before the entire Constitution was adopted. Judging from its placement in Article XV, "Miscellaneous Provisions," and its proximity to provisions providing for the orderly transition of power from the officers then serving to those to be elected after the 1867 Constitution was ratified, §10 is clearly a transitional and catch-all provision. It provides that all officers elected or appointed pursuant to "this [1867] Constitution" may qualify either "according to the existing provisions of law", that is, Article V, §8 of the 1864 Constitution; Chapter 172, Laws of Maryland 1852; and Chapter 17, Laws of Maryland 1854, "in relation to officers under the present [1864] Constitution" or "before the Governor" or "before any Clerk of any Court of Record." At the time the 1867 Constitution was drafted, Chapters 172 and 17 had been codified as Article LXVIII of the 1860 Code.

Thus, this catch-all and transitional section provides three different persons before whom the State's Attorney may take the oath of office, a judge, the Governor, or a clerk, and allows for a reading that avoids conflict with Article V, §8. This interpretation is consistent with the principle that constitutional provisions shall be interpreted harmoniously, if at all possible, to give effect to every word. Boyer v. Thurston, 247 Md. 279, 293 (1967); Groome v. Gwinn, 43 Md. 572, 624 (1876). CJ §2-104(c)(1), which begins "[e]xcept as authorized by Article I, §10 of the Constitution," also is in conformity with this interpretation. By contrast, it is more difficult to harmonize Article 70, §7 with these constitutional provisions. To the extent a literal reading of that section would demand a different conclusion, the Constitutional provisions, Article I, §10 and Article V, §8, take precedence over that Code provision. We note, however, that the legislative history of Article 70, §7 suggests that that provision was not intended to apply to State's Attorneys. See Chapter 17, Laws of Maryland 1854, §8.

IV
Discretionary Duty of Governor

Although Article V, §8 and Article I, §10, read together, permit State's Attorneys to take their oaths of office before the Governor, or a judge, or a clerk of a court of record, we note a significant difference as to the duty of the Governor, judge, or clerk to administer the oath. We conclude that, although the Governor may decline to administer the oath of office to a State's Attorney, a judge or clerk may not.

No constitutional or statutory provision specifically directs the Governor to administer the oath to a State's Attorney. By contrast, Article V, §2 of the Constitution specifically directs the Governor to administer the oath of office to the Attorney General. In 1876, the Court of Appeals upheld the issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Governor to require him to perform the ministerial duty of administering the oath of office to the Attorney General. Groome v. Gwinn, 43 Md. 572, 624 (1876). Thus, the Governor may not decline to administer the oath to the Attorney General. Similarly, the Governor may not decline to administer the oath of office to the Secretary of State, the Treasurer, the Comptroller, or the other officers enumerated in Article 70, §2.

Applying the reasoning of the Groome case to the administration of the oath of office to State's Attorneys, we conclude that a judge may not decline to administer the oath to a State's Attorney, in light of the mandatory wording of Article V, §8 of the Constitution. Likewise, a judge may not decline to administer the oath to the clerk. See CJ §2-104(c)(2). And, by virtue of Article I, §10 of the Constitution and CJ §2-104, a clerk may not decline to administer the oath of office to any official, including the State's Attorney. We note in passing that an oath taken in open court is administered by the judge regardless of who actually recites the words. See Quynn v. Carroll's Administrator, 22 Md. 288, 294 (1864); 20 Opinions of the Attorney General 226 (1935).

V
Signature in Testamentary Book

The second aspect of your inquiry is whether a judge may sign the clerk's testamentary book should he or she administer the oath to the State's Attorney. You point out that CJ §2-502 provides that circuit court clerks "shall record, index, and maintain ... [a] test book containing the oaths of office and signatures of every person who takes the oath before the clerk." (Emphasis added.) We understand that it is your practice to have each officer to whom you administer the oath subscribe his or her name after the oath, and then you sign the book. This practice clearly complies with the mandate of CJ §2-502. However, that section does not prohibit a judge from signing the book should he or she administer the oath.

Moreover, we discern a clear legislative intention that a permanent record of those taking oaths of office be maintained. See, e.g., Article 17, §71; Article 70, §§1, 2, 3 and 12; CJ §2-502; and SG §7-105. See also Article I, §10 of the Constitution, providing that officers qualifying outside of the county in which they reside shall have an "official copy" of their oath filed with the clerk in the county in which they reside. Although there is no statutory delineation of the recordkeeping ancillary to the oaths taken before judges (by clerks pursuant to CJ §2-104(c)(2) and by State's Attorneys pursuant to Article V, §8 of the Constitution), it does not follow that no record whatever should be kept of those oaths.

Given the clear legislative intent that a record of those persons taking the oath of office be preserved, a permanent record should be kept and may be made in any suitable manner. For example, the recordkeeping used by judges for the oaths given to clerks can be used for the oaths given to State's Attorneys as well. In addition, as stated above, we see no prohibition to a judge's signing the clerk's "test book" as one way to maintain a permanent record.

VI
Conclusion

In summary, it is our opinion that the Governor, a circuit court judge, or a circuit court clerk may administer the oath of office to the State's Attorney. Although the Governor may decline to administer the oath, a judge or clerk may not. In addition, it is our opinion that, should a judge administer the oath of office to the State's Attorney, record of the administration of the oath may be made in the clerk's testamentary book or in any other suitable permanent form.

Stephen H. Sachs
Attorney General
Catherine M. Shultz
Assistant Attorney General

Jack Schwartz
Chief Counsel
Opinions and Advice