Could a judge let a clothing store display the judge's photograph on a 'wall of fame' in exchange for free merchandise?

Currency note

The Board's status list flags this opinion as not current: it is a former Code of Judicial Conduct opinion subject to subsequent rule amendments to Canons 1 through 6 of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct effective May 1, 1997, and the former Code was superseded by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct effective March 1, 2009. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Plain-English summary

A judge asked whether the judge could have a photograph displayed on a local clothing store's "wall of fame." The store offered six free neckties in exchange for an 8-by-10 photograph for the display. The Board concluded that a judge should not participate.

The Board read former Canon 1 (observe high standards of conduct to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary) and former Canon 2(A) (act so as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary), and rested its conclusion on former Canon 2(B), which directed that a judge should not lend the prestige of office to advance the private interests of others. The Board reasoned that the store likely intended to increase its profits by displaying a judge's photograph, so participation would lend the judge's prestige to the store's private interests in violation of Canon 2(B).

Common questions

Q: Why did the Board say the judge should decline?

A: Because, under former Canon 2(B), a judge should not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of others. The Board reasoned the store would use the judge's photograph to increase its business profits.

Q: Did the free neckties matter to the analysis?

A: The exchange of merchandise framed the request, but the Board's stated reason was the lending of office prestige to the store's private commercial interest, not the value of the goods.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. Former Canon 1 concerned preserving the integrity and independence of the judiciary; former Canon 2(A) concerned promoting public confidence in the judiciary; and former Canon 2(B) prohibited a judge from lending the prestige of office to advance the private interests of others. The Board treated the "wall of fame" arrangement as falling within the Canon 2(B) prohibition.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Former CJC Canon 1, Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct
• Former CJC Canon 2(A), Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct
• Former CJC Canon 2(B), Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct

See also

• Ohio BPC Opinion 1987-008: Judge Writing a Book Foreword
• Ohio BPC Opinion 1987-009: Retired Judge and Fund-Raising Committee

Source

• Landing page: https://ohioadvop.org/advisory-opinion-index/
• Original PDF: https://www.ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Op-87-042.pdf

Original opinion text

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

The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 3370, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6105
(614) 644-5800 FAX: (614) 644-5804

OFFICE OF SECRETARY

OPINION 87-042
Issued: September 25, 1987

[Former CJC Opinion-provides advice under the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct which is superseded by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, eff. 3/1/2009.]

[Not Current- subsequent rule amendments to Canons 1 through 6, Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, eff. May 1, 1997]

SYLLABUS: A judge should not consent to having his picture appear on the wall of a clothing store in exchange for free neckties, and should not lend the prestige of his office to advance the private interests of others.

OPINION: We have before us your request for our opinion on whether a judge may have his or her picture displayed on a local clothing store's "wall of fame." The local clothing store is offering six free neckties in exchange for an 8 x 10 photograph for display on the "wall of fame."

It is our opinion that under the Code of Judicial Conduct (the Code), a judge should not participate in such a program. Under Canon 1 of the Code, "a judge should . . . observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved." Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 1. Canon 2 states that a judge should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2(A).

Furthermore, a judge should not lend the prestige of his office to advance the private interests of others. Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2(B). More than likely, the clothing store intends to increase its business profits by having a judge's picture on the "wall of fame." A judge therefore would be advancing the private interests of the store by lending his prestige to the "wall of fame" which is proscribed under Canon 2(B) of the Code.

In conclusion, and based on the foregoing, it is our opinion that a judge should not allow his picture to be displayed on the "wall of fame" at a local clothing store.

This is an informal, non-binding advisory opinion, based upon the facts as presented and limited to questions arising under the Code of Judicial Conduct.

James W. Mason, Esq.
Secretary
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline