Can a former judge note that former judicial title under a signature on letters, and does it matter whether the matter relates to law practice?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether a former chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court could indicate his former judicial position below his signature on letters, written on his law firm's stationery, to attorneys and other professionals about a matter unrelated to the practice of law. The committee noted its prior view that it is improper for a former judge to identify himself as "Judge X" in his private law practice, citing prior opinions and ABA Informal Opinion 1006, which treated such use as self-laudation under DR 2-101.

The committee observed that the Rules of Professional Conduct, effective January 1, 1987, dropped the express self-laudation prohibition of DR 2-101(C)(6); instead, Rule 4-7.1 bars false or misleading communications, with paragraph (b) treating a communication as misleading if it is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results or implies the lawyer can achieve results by unethical or illegal means. The committee concluded that a statement of the former justice's prior position is not false and, in the context of letters about matters unrelated to his law practice, not misleading under 4-7.1(b), because the "results" referred to are results obtained in legal matters. Accordingly, such use would not be improper.

The committee reached a different result for letters related to the lawyer's practice: the former judicial office is not relevant to legal matters the lawyer handles, and there is no proper reason to mention it, while one likely reason to include it would be to create the kind of unjustified expectations referred to in Rule 4-7.1(b). In communications with an opposing party, the committee saw no reason to mention the former position except perhaps to intimidate the recipient, which prior opinions indicate is improper. The committee concluded it would not be proper for a former judge to identify himself as such below his name on letters related to the practice of law.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here. The opinion notes that judicial conduct itself is governed by the Code of Judicial Conduct, interpreted by the Judicial Ethics Committee.

Common questions

Q: Can a former judge put that title under a signature on letters about non-legal matters?

A: The opinion concluded that doing so on letters to attorneys and other professionals about matters unrelated to the practice of law would not be ethically improper.

Q: Can a former judge use that title on letters connected to the law practice?

A: The opinion concluded it would not be proper, because the former office is not relevant to the lawyer's legal matters and including it risks creating unjustified expectations under Rule 4-7.1(b).

Q: Why is the test different from the old self-laudation rule?

A: The opinion explained that the Rules of Professional Conduct replaced the express self-laudation prohibition with Rule 4-7.1's bar on false or misleading communications, so the question turns on whether the use is misleading rather than self-laudatory.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rule 4-7.1 and 4-7.1(b) (Model Rule 7.1) on false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services, contrasting them with the former DR 2-101(C)(6) self-laudation prohibition. The committee notes that judicial conduct is separately governed by the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Fla. Rule 4-7.1, 4-7.1(b) / Model Rule 7.1 (false or misleading communications)
• CPR DR 2-101, DR 2-101(C)(6) (former self-laudation prohibition)

Other opinions cited:

• Fla. Ethics Opinions 70-63 (withdrawn), 73-27, 73-31, 75-34; ABA Informal 1006

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 88-2: 'Juris Doctor' on Letterhead
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 00-1: Retired Partner in Firm Name
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 98-3: In-House Insurance Counsel Firm Name

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-87-9/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-87-9-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 87-9
July 1, 1987
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.

A former justice or judge may indicate his former judicial position under his signature on letters written to attorneys and other professionals regarding matters unrelated to the practice of law.

Note: Judicial conduct is governed by the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Judicial Ethics Committee issues opinions interpreting this Code.

RPC: 4-7.1, 4-7.1(b)
CPR: DR 2-101, DR 2-101(C)(6)
Opinions: 70-63, 73-27, 73-31, 75-34; ABA Informal 1006

The inquiring attorney asks whether it is ethically permissible for a former chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court to indicate his former judicial position below his signature on letters written to attorneys and other professionals regarding a matter unrelated to the practice of law. The letters would be written on stationery of the former justice's law firm.

This Committee has considered it improper for a former judge to identify himself as "Judge X" in his private law practice. Opinions 73-31, 73-27, 70-63 [since withdrawn]. The ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility declared that it was improper for a former judge to sign pleadings as "Judge X." This was considered a form of self-laudation in violation of DR 2-101, Code of Professional Responsibility. ABA Informal Opinion 1006. Similarly, this Committee concluded that a former judge's identification of himself as "Judge X" on the letterhead of a nonlegal business he was connected with was self-laudation in violation of DR 2-101. Opinion 75-34.

As mentioned above, DR 2-101(C)(6) prohibited attorneys from using self-laudatory statements in their communications. However, the Rules of Professional Conduct (Chapter 4, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar), which superseded the Code effective January 1, 1987, contain no such express prohibition. Rather, Rule 4-7.1 prohibits an attorney's use of false or misleading communications. Paragraph (b) of this rule provides that a communication is false or misleading if it is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the attorney can achieve or implies that the attorney can achieve results by unethical or illegal means.

In the situation presented, the statement below the former justice's name indicating the judicial position formerly held by him is not false. Nor could the statement be considered misleading under 4-7.1(b); clearly, the "results" referred to are results obtained in legal matters. The matters addressed in the letter in question would be unrelated to the former justice's law practice.

Accordingly, it would not be ethically improper for the former justice to identify himself as a former chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court below his signature on letters to attorneys and other professionals regarding matters unrelated to the practice of law.

A different issue is presented with respect to a former judge identifying himself as such in letters related to his law practice.

The writer's former judicial office is not relevant to legal matters handled by him in his private law practice, and, therefore, there is no proper reason why his former position should be mentioned in letters connected with such matters. Indeed, it would not be unreasonable to assume that one reason for wishing to include the writer's former judicial position would be to create the kind of undesirable expectations referred to in Rule 4-7.1(b).

Furthermore, in communications with an opposing party there would appear to be no reason for mention of the writer's former judicial position except perhaps to intimidate the recipient. Florida Opinions 70-63 [since withdrawn] and 73-27 indicate that it would be improper for a former judge to use or permit use of his past judicial position or title for such a purpose.

Consequently, it would not be proper for a former judge to identify himself as such below his name on letters related to the practice of law.