May a judge and two lawyers take part in a panel discussion before a medical association about medical testimony and negligence cases?

Plain-English summary

A member asked about the propriety of a judge and two lawyers appearing in a panel discussion before the local Medical Association, where it was anticipated that medical testimony and negligence litigation would be discussed.

The committee said it had never had the exact question before it but saw no reason to object, so long as actual cases were not discussed and the discussion was limited to general principles. The opinion also carries a note that judicial conduct is governed by the Code of Judicial Conduct, and that the Judicial Ethics Committee issues opinions interpreting that Code.

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 Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics; the subject is now addressed by Rule 4-7.18(a) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Subsequent rule amendments and the line of decisions following Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977), which reshaped restrictions on lawyer speech, may have changed the analysis. The conduct of judges is now governed by the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, not the Rules of Professional Conduct. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 take part in a public panel discussion on legal topics in 1962?

A: The committee saw no objection to two lawyers and a judge appearing on a panel before a medical association, provided the discussion stayed at the level of general principles and did not get into actual cases.

Q: What was the limit the committee placed on the discussion?

A: Actual cases were not to be discussed. The committee's approval was conditioned on keeping the panel limited to general principles.

Q: Did the opinion decide the judge's participation under the lawyer rules?

A: No. The opinion notes that judicial conduct is governed by the Code of Judicial Conduct, which the Judicial Ethics Committee interprets.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canon 27 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, which addressed a lawyer's public communications. That subject is now covered by the advertising and solicitation provisions of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, including Rule 4-7.18(a) (Model Rule 7.3). The propriety of the judge's participation is governed separately by the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 27 [Canons of Professional Ethics; see current Rule 4-7.18(a)]

Other authorities:

• Florida Code of Judicial Conduct (referenced for the judge's participation)

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-62-20/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-62-20-2.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 62-20
August 28, 1962
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
It is not improper for a judge and two lawyers to appear in a panel discussion before the local medical association so long as actual cases are not discussed and the discussion is limited to general principles.
Note: Judicial conduct is governed by the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Judicial Ethics Committee issues opinions interpreting this Code.
Canon: 27 [See current 4-7.18(a)]
Chairman Holcomb stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar submits an inquiry relative to the propriety of a judge and two lawyers appearing in a panel discussion before the local Medical Association, at which it was anticipated that medical testimony and negligence litigation would be discussed.
We have never had this exact question before us, but we see no reason for objecting so long as actual cases are not discussed and the discussion is limited to general principles.