Opinion No. 93-4

September 21, 1993

TOPIC: Judge as a speaker or honoree at a non-fund raising dinner.

DIGEST: A judge may be a speaker or honoree at a dinner which is not intended to be a fund raiser for the sponsoring organization. However, the judge should consider whether the judge's role at the dinner may compromise the judge's independence or integrity.

REFERENCES: Illinois Supreme Court Rule 61 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1, (145 Ill.2d R.61), Integrity and Independence; Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2, (145 Ill.2d R.62), Public confidence in the integrity and impartiality, not give the impression of special position to influence the judge; Illinois Supreme Court Rule 65B(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 5, (145 Ill.2d R.65).

FACTS

A judge is invited to be a speaker/honoree at a dinner. The group sponsoring the dinner is not using the dinner to raise money for the group. The cost of the ticket basically covers the expense of putting on the event.

Fact 1 The group is an organization which recruits advocates for battered women who, with the approval of the chief judge, supplies advocates to the Domestic Violence Court to provide support and information to women who are filing petitions for orders of protection. The judge presides over Domestic Violence Court.

Fact 2 The group is the Fraternal Order of Police. The judge presides over criminal cases.

Fact 3 The group is the Lawyers' Assistance Program which provides interventions for substance abusing lawyers and judges.

QUESTION

Whether the judge's role as speaker/honoree at the dinner would violate the rules which prohibit conduct which gives an appearance that the judge is not independent or impartial.

OPINION

The Code does not prohibit speaking or being honored at a non-fund raising dinner. Clearly, the judge's name is not being used to raise money as prohibited by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 65B(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Fact 1 The domestic violence judge should carefully consider whether the image of the battered women's advocacy group is very partisan or is service oriented. If it is partisan, the judge's impartiality may be compromised. If it is service oriented and its members are in the court as a part of the judicial system's efforts to serve litigants and assist reaching just results, then the judge's impartiality may not be at risk.

Fact 2 The Fraternal Order of Police must be viewed similarly. If it is controversial and advocating particular positions on issues coming before judges, the appearance of the judge's impartiality may be in jeopardy.

Fact 3 LAP is not a group which appears before judges, nor is it a group taking positions on issues before judges. It serves judges and lawyers. The judge's impartiality is not at risk.

In conclusion, the judge must assess who the group is, whether it appears before judges, and whether it takes positions on issues coming before the judge. By weighing these factors, the judge can determine whether his or her independence or impartiality would be compromised by speaking or being honored at the dinner.