Ohio Jud.Cond.R. 3.7

History

Comment [1] The activities permitted by division (A) generally include those sponsored by or undertaken on behalf of public or private not-for-profit educational institutions, and other not-for- profit organizations, including law-related, charitable, and other organizations. [2] Even for law-related organizations, a judge should consider whether the membership and purposes of the organization, or the nature of the judge’s participation in or association with the organization, would conflict with the judge’s obligation to refrain from activities that reflect adversely upon a judge’s independence, integrity, and impartiality. [3] Mere attendance at an event, whether or not the event serves a fundraising purpose, does not constitute a violation of division (A)(5). It is also generally permissible for a judge to serve as an usher or a food server or preparer, or to perform similar functions, at fundraising events sponsored by educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organizations. Such activities are not solicitation and do not present an element of coercion or abuse the prestige of judicial office. [4] Identification of a judge’s position in educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organizations on letterhead used for fundraising or membership solicitation does not violate this rule. The letterhead may list the judge’s title or judicial office if comparable designations are used for other persons. [5] In addition to appointing lawyers to serve as counsel for indigent parties in individual cases, a judge may promote broader access to justice by encouraging lawyers to participate in pro bono publico legal services, if in doing so the judge does not employ coercion, or abuse the prestige of judicial office. Such encouragement may take many forms, including providing lists of available programs, training lawyers to do pro bono publico legal work, and participating in events recognizing lawyers who have done pro bono publico work. Comparison to Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 3.7(A)(1) corresponds to the first portion of Ohio Canon 2(B)(2)(a). Rule 3.7(A)(2) corresponds to Ohio Canon 2(B)(2)(a)(i), with the addition that a judge may solicit contributions from members of the judge’s family Rule 3.7(A)(3) is identical to Ohio Canon 2(B)(2)(a)(ii). Rule 3.7(A)(4) is similar to Ohio Canon 2(B)(2)(c) in that it allows judges to solicit persons for membership in civic organizations, but the rule alters the test for determining whether membership solicitations are permissible. Under the Ohio Canon, mem bership solicitation is prohibited if it might reasonably be perceived as coercive and is essentially a fundraising mechanism for the organization. Rule 3.7(A)(4) deletes the coercion test but allows membership solicitation only if the organization is concerned with the law, legal system, or administration of justice and even if the membership dues or fees will be used to support the organization’s objectives. Rule 3.7(A)(5) allows a judge to participate in certain activities sponsored by educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, and civic organizations, including those that might have a fundraising purpose, provided the judge’s participation does not refl ect adversely on his or her independence, integrity, or impartiality. Ohio Canons 2(B)(2)(a) and (d) limit a judge’s involvement in these activities if there is a fundraising component. Rules 3.7(A)(6) corresponds to Ohio Canon 2(B)(2)(b), and Rule 3.7(A)(7) corresponds to Ohio Canon 2(B)(1). Rule 3.7(B) has no counterpart in the Ohio Code. Comparison to ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 3.7 differs from Model Rule 3.7 in two respects. Division (A)(3) incorporates a 2004 amendment to the Ohio Code that specifically authorizes judicial participation in certain de minimis fundraising activities. Division (A)(5) is modified to alter the test for determining whether a judge may participate in an event sponsored by an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organizations. Where such an event serves a fundrai sing purpose, the Model Code permits judicial participation only if the event concerns the law, legal system, or the administration of justice. The Ohio version of Rule 3.7 allows a judge to participate in these activities, without regard to whether they have a fundraising purpose, provided the participation does not reflect adversely on the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality. This is consistent with the test used elsewhere in the Code. Comment [3] is modified to correct a cross-reference to the rule.