May a lawyer sign and allow publication of a petition endorsing an incumbent judge for reelection?

Plain-English summary

A member had been asked to sign an endorsement of a judge for re-election, where the endorsement included permission to publish it with his name, and asked whether that was ethical.

The committee said it had been common and customary for such endorsements to be sought and published, and it saw no reasonable objection. It noted, by reference to the Professional Canon on the Selection of Judges, ABA Opinion 189 (a lawyer should not, for fear of incurring disfavor, endorse a judge for re-election if he believes him unfit) and ABA Opinion 226 (contributions to judges' campaign funds should be reasonable and preferably made to a campaign committee). It also cited Judicial Canon 30 and ABA Opinions 105 and 139, which addressed a judge soliciting lawyers' aid or using the prestige of office to promote his candidacy. The committee understood that here the lawyers favoring re-election were circulating the petition and the judge had no connection with its circulation or the solicitation of names, and so found no objection to lawyers signing and permitting publication.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1962, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion applied former Canons 1 and 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and referred to Judicial Canon 30; a lawyer's statements about and conduct toward judicial candidates are now addressed by Rule 4-8.2 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rule 8.2), and the conduct of judges and judicial candidates is governed by the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a lawyer publicly endorse a sitting judge for reelection?

A: Yes. The committee found no reasonable objection to a lawyer signing and allowing publication of a petition endorsing an incumbent judge for reelection, where lawyers (not the judge) circulated the petition.

Q: Was there any limit on signing such an endorsement?

A: Yes. Quoting ABA Opinion 189, the committee said a lawyer should not endorse a judge for reelection, out of fear of incurring disfavor, if he believes the judge unfit.

Q: What did the opinion say about the judge's own role?

A: It noted that the judge had no connection with circulating the petition or soliciting names, and cited authorities (Judicial Canon 30, ABA Opinions 105 and 139) that a judge should not solicit lawyers' aid or use the prestige of office to promote his candidacy.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canons 1 and 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and the Canon on the Selection of Judges, alongside Judicial Canon 30. A lawyer's conduct concerning judicial candidates is now addressed by Rule 4-8.2 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rule 8.2), with the judge's own conduct governed by the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct. The committee relied on ABA Opinions 105, 139, 189, and 226.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canons 1, 27 [Canons of Professional Ethics; see current Rule 4-8.2]
• Judicial Canon 30 (Code of Judicial Conduct)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Opinions 105, 139, 189, 226

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-61-43/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-61-43-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 61-43
February 23, 1962
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
When lawyers are circulating a petition endorsing an incumbent judge for reelection, there is no impropriety in a lawyer signing such petition and allowing publication of such petition. A lawyer should not sign such a petition out of fear of disfavor if he feels the judge unfit.
Note: Judicial conduct is governed by the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Judicial Ethics Committee issues opinions interpreting this Code.
Canons: 1, 27, Judicial Canon 30
Opinions: ABA 105, 139, 189, 226
Chairman Holcomb stated the opinion of the committee.
A member of The Florida Bar presents a question on the following facts:
He states that he has been requested to sign an endorsement of a judge for re-election, which endorsement contains permission to publish the endorsement with his name, and he asks whether this is ethical.
We believe it has been quite common and customary for such endorsements to be sought and published, and see no reasonable objection thereto. However, we would call attention to the following Judicial and Professional Canons and Opinions:
Under Professional Canon of Ethics No. 2 — The Selection of Judges:
Opinion 189. A lawyer should not, for fear of incurring disfavor, endorse a judge for re-election if he believes him unfit.
Opinion 226. While lawyers may contribute to the campaign funds of judges whose election they honestly favor, such contributions should in every case be reasonable, and preferably made to a campaign committee.
Under Judicial Canon No. 30 — Candidacy for Office, "If a judge becomes a candidate for any judicial office, he should refrain from all conduct which might tend to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is using the power or prestige of his judicial position to promote his candidacy or the success of his party:"
Opinion 105. Judges seeking re-election or appointment should not solicit the aid of lawyers by letter or otherwise.
Opinion 139. A judge should not use the power or prestige of his office to promote his candidacy for office, by sending out a form letter requesting endorsement.
It is our understanding in this case, lawyers favoring the re-election of the incumbent judge are circulating the petition and that the judge has no connection with its circulation or the solicitation of names. We find no objection to lawyers signing such endorsements and permitting them to be published.