May a former judge or a sitting magistrate be addressed as 'Judge' while practicing law, or use the title 'Judge' on stationery?

Plain-English summary

The Committee took up several questions about former Superior Court or County Court judges, and magistrates still in office, being addressed as "Judge" in the course of practicing law. The inquirer asked: (A) whether it is proper for a former member of the judiciary to use the title "Judge" or insist that subordinates use it; (B) whether a magistrate during his term may use "Judge" on stationery or outside his municipal court; and (C) how to counteract improper use of the word during a trial.

On Question A, the Committee said that in a trial courtroom the appellation "Judge" should be applied only to those sitting on the bench as triers of cases, both because that is functionally correct and because it avoids any appearance of a former judge trading on the title for preferential or deferential treatment over an adversary. Quoting the Preamble to the Canons of Professional Ethics on public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the courts, it concluded that referring to an advocate by a former judicial title during a trial in open court is not calculated to inspire that confidence. It noted that outside the courtroom, in social settings, addressing a retired jurist as "Judge" is often a mark of sincere respect that long tradition and reasonable amenities justify, where there is no attempt to seek preferential treatment or impress a jury.

On Question B, the Committee reasoned similarly: a magistrate may properly use "Judge" on stationery used to conduct official court business, but using it on stationery for the private practice of law or for business purposes is improper. On Question C, the Committee found that the method of counteracting improper courtroom use was not a question of ethics and was outside its province.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in October 1964, before New Jersey's September 13, 1971 adoption of the Disciplinary Rules (Code of Professional Responsibility), and well before the 1984 Rules of Professional Conduct and all later revisions. It rested on the Preamble to the former Canons of Professional Ethics; the corresponding subjects, misleading communications about a lawyer and implying an ability to influence a tribunal, are now addressed by RPC 7.1 and RPC 8.4. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a former judge be called "Judge" while trying a case as an advocate?

A: No. The Committee held that referring to an advocate by a former judicial title during a trial in open court is improper, because it does not inspire public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the courts and risks suggesting an undue advantage.

Q: Is it ever acceptable to address a retired judge as "Judge"?

A: Yes, outside the courtroom. The Committee said that in social settings the usage is often a mark of respect that tradition and amenity justify, so long as there is no attempt to seek preferential treatment or impress a jury.

Q: Can a sitting magistrate put "Judge" on his stationery?

A: Only for official court business. The Committee held that using "Judge" on stationery for the private practice of law or business purposes is improper.

Background and rules framework

The opinion rested on the Preamble to the former Canons of Professional Ethics, which stressed public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the administration of justice. The concerns it identified, avoiding misleading designations and any implication of improper influence over a tribunal, are now reflected in RPC 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services) and RPC 8.4.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (as in effect at the time):

• Preamble to the Canons of Professional Ethics (public confidence in the courts)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 72: Letterhead Designation as Special Counsel to a Public Body
• NJ ACPE Op. 442: Letterhead Stating Various Court Admissions
• NJ ACPE Op. 461: Designating J.D., Doctor, Ph.D., and Language Fluency

Source

• Landing page: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp55-1.html

Original opinion text

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

87 N.J.L.J. 700
October 29, 1964

OPINION 55

Use of Title "Judge" by a Practitioner

Inquiries have been presented concerning the propriety of former Superior Court or County Court Judges, or Magistrates still in office, in the course of their practice of law permitting or encouraging others to still address them as "Judge" in the trial of a case.

The inquirer asks:

A. "Is it proper for a former member of the judiciary, regardless of the court, to use the title 'Judge' or insist through subordinates that this is the proper designation?

B. Is it proper for a Magistrate during his term to use the term "Judge" on stationery, or outside of his particular municipal court?

C. What is the proper method of counteracting the effect of the use of the word "Judge" during the course of the trial of an action, in the event that the use of the word is improper?

Question A involves matters of individual personality and character traits. In a trial courtroom it is clear that the appellation "Judge" should be applied only to those sitting on the bench as triers of cases. To so confine the use of the title would be not only functionally correct but it would avoid any appearance of a former judge of any court trying to trade on his former title to obtain some preferential or deferential treatment or some undue advantage over his adversary.

The Preamble to the Canons of Professional Ethics states:

In America, where the stability of Courts and of all departments of government rests upon the approval of the people, it is peculiarly essential that the system for establishing and dispensing Justice be developed to a high point of efficiency and so maintained that the public shall have absolute confidence in the integrity and impartiality of its administration.

Outside the courtroom in social gatherings or among intimates addressing or referring to a retired member of a court as "Judge" is often a mark of sincere respect for long and honorable service as a jurist. Long tradition and reasonable amenities justify such usage where there can be no possible attempt to seek preferential treatment or unduly impress a jury.

It is our opinion, however, that referring to an advocate, formerly a member of a court at any level, by his former judicial title in the course of the trial of a case in open court is not calculated to inspire in the public or in the minds of the litigants "absolute confidence in the integrity and impartiality" of the administration of justice.

Similar reasoning leads to the same conclusion in answer to question B, as to the propriety of a Magistrate during his term of office using the term "Judge" on his stationery. For stationery used in conduct of official court business the use is proper; where, however, the stationery is used for the private practice of law or business purposes the use of the term "Judge" would be improper.

Question C does not raise a question of ethics and is not within the province of this Committee.