Can a former municipal judge let his telephone answering service answer the phone as 'Judge X's office'?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer who had served as a municipal judge from 1957 through 1965 had become widely known as "Judge X" in the community where he now practiced. His telephone answering service answered his phone as "Judge X's office," and he asked whether that practice was proper.

The committee answered no. It found the question squarely controlled by Opinion 70-63 (since withdrawn), which held that a former judicial officer should never personally use the courtesy title "judge" in his law practice and should instruct his office staff, partners, and associates to refrain from placing third persons in the embarrassing posture of dealing with "Judge." The committee noted that judicial conduct itself is governed by the Code of Judicial Conduct, interpreted by the Judicial Ethics Committee.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1973, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied the former Code of Professional Responsibility, which has since been replaced. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current Rules 4-7.13 and 4-7.21 before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could the answering service answer as "Judge X's office"?

A: Under this opinion, no. The committee concluded that a former judicial officer should not use the courtesy title "Judge" in his law practice, and that extends to how his phone is answered.

Q: Why did the title matter even though he was well known as "Judge X"?

A: The committee relied on Opinion 70-63, which directed a former judge to instruct his staff to avoid placing others in the position of dealing with "Judge X," regardless of local familiarity with the title.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the former Code of Professional Responsibility's restriction on a lawyer using a misleading courtesy title, following Opinion 70-63. In current Florida practice the issue corresponds to Rule 4-7.13 (deceptive and inherently misleading advertisements) and Rule 4-7.21 (firm names, letterhead, and lawyer names); the Model Rule analogues are 7.1 and 7.5.

Citations and references

Other opinions cited:

• Florida Opinion 70-63 (since withdrawn): a former judicial officer's use of the courtesy title "judge"

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 73-31: Former Judge Using the "Judge" Title

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-73-27/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-73-27-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 73-27
November 14, 1973
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A former municipal judge may not permit his telephone answering service to answer his phone "Judge X's office."
Note: Judicial conduct is governed by the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Judicial Ethics Committee issues opinions interpreting this Code.
Opinion: 70-63
Vice Chairman Daniels stated the opinion of the committee:
From 1957 through 1965, the inquiring lawyer was a municipal judge and has become widely known as Judge X in the community where he now practices. His telephone answering service answers his phone, "Judge X's office." Inquiry is made as to whether such answering service practice is proper. The question must be answered in the negative. Former Opinion 70-63 [since withdrawn] is squarely in point, where we there said:
A former judicial officer should never personally use the courtesy title "judge" in his law practice. He should instruct his office staff, partners and associates to refrain from affirmatively placing third persons, lawyers or otherwise, in an embarrassing posture of dealing with "Judge .........."