I regularly appear before a judge who is now hospitalized. Is it ethical for me to send the judge flowers?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney asked about the ethical propriety of sending flowers to a judge who was hospitalized. The attorney stated that he or she had appeared before the judge on innumerable occasions and expected to appear before the judge in the future. Because the inquiry addressed conduct by a member of the Bar toward a member of the judiciary, the panel's response required consideration of both the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rhode Island Canons of Judicial Ethics.

The panel identified Rule 3.5(a), which bars seeking to influence a judge by means prohibited by law, and Rule 8.4(f), which makes it misconduct to knowingly assist a judge in conduct that violates applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law. It also cited Canon 21 of the Rhode Island Canons of Judicial Ethics, under which a judge should not accept a gift, favor, or loan from lawyers or others whose interests are likely to be submitted to the judge for judgment.

The panel cited with approval the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in In re Corboy, which, though decided under the Code of Professional Responsibility, held that it is not improper for an attorney to treat members of the judiciary with "ordinary social hospitality." Applying that standard, and weighing the monetary value of the gift, the relationship between the judge and the donor lawyer, the social practices and customs associated with gifts, and the particular circumstances, the panel concluded that sending flowers to a judge under these circumstances is a normal courtesy involving an object of minimal or no monetary value that would not create an appearance of impropriety to a reasonable, objective observer.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rules 3.5 and 8.4 together with the then-current Rhode Island Canons of Judicial Ethics. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process, and Rhode Island has since adopted a Code of Judicial 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can I send a hospitalized judge I appear before flowers?

A: Under this opinion, yes on these facts. The panel concluded that sending flowers under these circumstances is a normal courtesy of minimal or no monetary value that would not create an appearance of impropriety.

Q: What standard does the panel use to judge gifts to the judiciary?

A: The panel adopted the "ordinary social hospitality" standard from In re Corboy, an objective test that weighs the gift's monetary value, the relationship between the judge and the lawyer, social custom, and the particular circumstances.

Q: Which rules and canons apply?

A: The panel considered Rule 3.5(a) and Rule 8.4(f) of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Canon 21 of the Rhode Island Canons of Judicial Ethics, which addresses a judge accepting gifts from lawyers likely to appear before the judge.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 3.5 (Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal) and Rule 8.4 (Misconduct), corresponding to Model Rules 3.5 and 8.4, alongside Canon 21 of the Rhode Island Canons of Judicial Ethics. Rule 3.5(a) bars seeking to influence a judge by means prohibited by law; Rule 8.4(f) bars knowingly assisting a judge in conduct that violates judicial-conduct rules. Because a gift to a judge implicates the judge's own obligations under Canon 21, the panel measured the conduct against the objective "ordinary social hospitality" standard drawn from In re Corboy.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 3.5 (impartiality and decorum of the tribunal)
• MR 8.4 (misconduct)
• RI RPC 3.5, RI RPC 8.4

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• In re Corboy, 528 N.E.2d 694 (Ill. 1988), adopting an "ordinary social hospitality" standard for gifts to the judiciary.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 91-40: Title Insurer Prosecuting Actions in a Bank's Name
• RI EAP Op. 91-34: Defending a Lawyer in a Disciplinary Case

Source

• Landing page: https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Pages/Ethics-Advisory-Panel-default.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2091-41.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

Digest of Ethics Advisory Panel
Opinion #91-41
Issued July 18, 1991

An attorney seeks Panel advice concerning the ethical propriety of sending flowers to a judge who is hospitalized. The attorney states that he/she has appeared before this judge on innumerable occasions and expects to appear before the judge in the future.

Because this inquiry addresses the propriety of the proposed conduct of a member of the Bar in dealing with a member of the judiciary, the Panel's response requires consideration of both the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rhode Island Canons of Judicial Ethics.

The applicable sections of the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct are Rule 3.5(a) and Rule 8.4(f).

Rule 3.5(a) provides in pertinent part:

"A lawyer shall not:

(a) seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other official by means prohibited by law."

Rule 8.4(f) states:

"It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law."

Canon 21 of the Rhode Island Canons of Judicial Ethics provides in pertinent part:

"(a) Neither a judge nor a member of the judge's family residing in the judge's household should accept a gift, favor or loan from litigants, or from lawyers or from others whose interests are likely to be submitted to the judge for judgment."

The Panel cites with approval a decision of the Illinois Supreme Court, although decided under the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides a workable standard of assessing the propriety of conferring kindnesses upon members of the judiciary. (See In re Corboy, Tuite et al., 528 N.E.2d 694 (1988)). The Illinois Supreme Court held that it is not improper for an attorney to treat members of the judiciary with "ordinary social hospitality." The court stated:

Page Two
91-41

"We believe that ordinary social hospitality consists of those routine amenities, favors, and courtesies which are normally exchanged between friends and acquaintances, and which would not create an appearance of impropriety to a reasonable, objective observer. The test is objective, rather than subjective, and the touchstone is a careful consideration of social custom. . . . [T]he following factors should be taken into account:

(1) the monetary value of the gift,
(2) the relationship, if any, between the judge and the donor lawyer,
(3) the social practices and customs associated with gifts and loans, and
(4) the particular circumstances surrounding the gifts and loans."

The Panel is of the opinion that the act of sending flowers to a judge under these circumstances is a normal courtesy involving an object of minimal or no monetary value which would not create an appearance of impropriety to a reasonable, objective observer.