Can a lawyer organize, buy tickets for, attend, or contribute to a testimonial dinner for a judge or a candidate for judge?

Plain-English summary

Opinion E-71-1 revised and restated the committee's October 26, 1970 opinion (E-70-1) on testimonial dinners for judges. The committee had been asked whether that earlier rule, which addressed only an "incumbent judge," should be extended to include "a candidate for the office of judge." The committee concluded that it should, holding that it is unethical for an attorney to organize, alone or with other attorneys, lay persons, or groups, a testimonial dinner or event for a judge during the judge's term or for a candidate for judicial office, and equally unethical for an attorney to purchase tickets for, attend, or contribute to such a testimonial unless it is organized by a bar association.

The committee rested the extension on three considerations. First, the reasons supporting the 1970 opinion regarding incumbent judges applied equally to candidates, and it adopted the 1970 opinion by reference. Second, ABA Formal Opinion 312 (adopted August 9, 1964) reviewed political activities of the bench and bar and concluded that its proscriptions "apply equally to nonjudge candidates for judicial office as well as to judges." Third, the committee reasoned that "[f]airness alone compels that candidates seeking office should live by the same rules as incumbent judges seeking reelection."

The committee acknowledged that the rule created limiting guidelines for political activity, but noted that existing statutes provided lawful methods of financially supporting judicial candidates and that the Code of Professional Responsibility, through Ethical Consideration 8-6, encouraged lawyers to participate in judicial elections and to aid in the selection of qualified judges. The opinion was made prospective only, effective on publication in the April 1971 Bar Bulletin, and was issued as an advisory opinion under Article IV, Section 5 of the State Bar By-Laws.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1971, before Wisconsin's July 1, 2007 adoption of the revised Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys (the state's Ethics 2000 update), and it applies the former Code of Professional Responsibility, including DR 7-110(a)'s bar on giving anything of value to a judge, Canon 9, and Ethical Consideration 8-6. The current counterparts are SCR 20:3.5 / Model Rule 3.5 (impartiality of the tribunal; gifts and contributions touching judges) and SCR 20:8.2 / Model Rule 8.2 (judicial and legal officials; candidates), with judicial-candidate conduct now governed by the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct (SCR Chapter 60). 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.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer contribute to a testimonial dinner for a judge?

A: Under this opinion, not unless the dinner is sponsored by a bar association. The committee held it unethical for an attorney to purchase tickets for, attend, or contribute to such a testimonial unless a bar association organizes it.

Q: Does the rule reach candidates for judge, not just sitting judges?

A: Yes. The committee extended its 1970 opinion to cover "a candidate for the office of judge," reasoning that fairness requires candidates to live by the same rules as incumbent judges seeking reelection.

Q: Were lawyers barred from supporting judicial campaigns at all?

A: No. The committee noted that existing statutes provided lawful methods of financial support for judicial candidates and that EC 8-6 encouraged lawyers to participate in the selection of qualified judges.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the former Code of Professional Responsibility, principally DR 7-110(a) (a lawyer shall not give or lend anything of value to a judge), Canon 9 (avoiding the appearance of impropriety), and EC 8-6, and it adopted the reasoning of ABA Formal Opinion 312. The current counterparts are SCR 20:3.5 / Model Rule 3.5 (impartiality of the tribunal) and SCR 20:8.2 / Model Rule 8.2 (statements about and conduct of judicial candidates), with judicial-candidate conduct governed by the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 3.5 / SCR 20:3.5 (impartiality of the tribunal; gifts to judges); former Code DR 7-110(a), Canon 9, EC 8-6
• Model Rule 8.2 / SCR 20:8.2 (judicial and legal officials; candidates for judicial office)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Opinion 312 (Aug. 9, 1964): political activities of bench and bar; proscriptions apply to nonjudge candidates as well as judges
• Wisconsin Opinion E-70-1: testimonial dinners for sitting judges (adopted by reference and extended here)

See also

• WI Ethics Op. E-70-1: Testimonial Dinners for Sitting Judges
• WI Ethics Op. E-73-4: Attorney Judicial Candidates
• WI Ethics Op. E-72-1: Local Bar Judicial Endorsement Programs

Source

• Landing page: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/pages/formal-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/Ethics%20Opinions/E-71-1.pdf