Opinion No. 95-14

September 13, 1995

TOPIC: Judge accepting gift in return for performing wedding ceremony.

DIGEST: A judge may not accept a fee, gift, gratuity, or compensation of any kind, for solemnizing a marriage.

REFERENCES: Illinois Supreme Court Rule 40 (87 Ill.2d R.40); In Re Associate Judge Lewis V. Morgan, Jr., 2 Ill. Cts. Com. 75 (1985); In Re Associate Judge Duane G. Walter, 2 Ill. Cts. Com. 83 (1985); Illinois Constitution 1970, Art. VI, Sec. 14; Illinois Supreme Court Rule 66 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 6 (145 Ill.2d R.66).

FACTS

A judge is asked by a friend to officiate at the friend's wedding. The wedding is scheduled for a Saturday at a local country club. The neighbor offers to pay the judge a sum of money for solemnizing the marriage. When the judge declines payment, the friend responds that instead of paying the judge, he will purchase a gift for the judge.

QUESTION

May a judge accept a non-monetary gift for solemnizing a friend's wedding where the wedding will be held outside normal working hours and at a location other than the courthouse?

OPINION

A judge may not accept a fee, gift, gratuity, or compensation of any kind, for solemnizing a marriage regardless of the judge's relationship with the persons to be married, and regardless of the time and place of the ceremony.

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 40 provides for fees in connection with wedding ceremonies as follows:

(b) Clerk - Fee. The chief judge may set a fee to be collected by the clerk in an amount not to exceed $ 10 for each marriage performed. No additional fee or gratuity will be solicited or accepted. (Emphasis added)

(c) Trust Account. The fees received shall be deposited in a bank account in the name of the "Marriage Fund of the Circuit Court of _____County."

Rule 40 simply does not permit the acceptance of a monetary or non-monetary fee or gift in addition to the $10.00 fee authorized by the Rule. See In Re Morgan, 2 Ill. Cts. Com. 75, 79 (1985) and In Re Walter, 2 Ill. Cts. Com. 83, 90 (1985). In addition, the authorized fee must be collected by the clerk and deposited into the marriage fund bank account. See In Re Morgan, supra, and In Re Walter, supra.

Further, by accepting a gift a judge would be improperly receiving "compensation for services in addition to the judge's salary but not provided by law". In Re Morgan, supra, at p. 82; Ill. Const. 1970, Art. VI, Sec. 14 (judges shall receive salaries provided by law); Illinois Supreme Court Rule 66 (judge may not receive compensation for law related and extra judicial activities permitted by the Code). Indeed, Rule 66 defines "compensation" to include a sum of money or other thing of value paid by a person or entity to a judge for services provided or performed. (Emphasis added)

Finally, Supreme Court Rule 65C(4)(c), which permits a judge to accept gifts from donors whose interests have not come and are unlikely to come before the judge, does not allow a judge to accept a gift for performing a wedding. Rule 65C(4)(c) is inapplicable for two reasons. First, the interests of the donor will come before the judge in the context of the marriage. Second, Rule 65C(4)(c), is not applicable where, as here, the "gift" is given in return for an act performed by the judge in the judge's official capacity.

In summary, accepting a fee, gift, gratuity, or compensation of any kind for solemnizing a marriage violates Supreme Court Rules 40 and 66 and Article VI, Sec. 14 of the 1970 Illinois Constitution. The gifts permitted under Supreme Court Rule 65 do not include gifts in return for performing wedding ceremonies.