Opinion No. 05-05

July 29, 2005

Topic: Judge serving on the board of directors of a not-for-profit corporation organized for the purpose of promoting responsible fatherhood.

Digest: A judge may serve on the board of directors of a not-for-profit corporation organized for the purpose of promoting responsible fatherhood only if none of the limitations discussed in this opinion are applicable.

References: Illinois Supreme Court Rules 61, 62 and 65B; Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion Nos. 97-3, 97-13, 97-15, 98-1, 98-5, 99-4, 00-1 and 01-10.

FACTS

A family court judge has been invited to serve on the board of directors of a not-for-profit corporation organized for the purpose of promoting responsible fatherhood. The mission of the organization is to "end father absence by connecting children and fathers and promoting responsible fatherhood by equipping men to be better fathers." The organization, made up of men and women, does not take positions on political issues, does not advocate for fathers in court proceedings, does not provide services to the court, and emphasizes a father’s responsibilities rather than a father’s rights. Activities sponsored by the organization include: (1) a father of the year essay contest; (2) a program encouraging fathers to spend a day in their child’s classroom; and (3) a training program for expectant fathers.

The judge will not solicit funds or other assistance on behalf of the organization. The board of directors meets during the evening.

QUESTION

May the judge serve on the board of directors of an organization created to promote responsible fatherhood?

OPINION

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 65B provides that a judge may serve as an officer, director, trustee, or non-legal advisor of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic organization so long as (1) the organization is not conducted for the economic or political advantage of its members, (2) the organization is not likely to be engaged in proceedings that ordinarily come before the judge, (3) the organization will not be regularly engaged in adversarial proceedings in any court, (4) the judge’s activities on behalf of the organization will not interfere with the performance of his or her judicial duties, (5) the judge does not solicit or permit his or her name to be used to solicit funds or other assistance for the organization, and (6) the judge’s involvement with the organization does not reflect adversely upon the judge’s impartiality. See Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee ("IJEC") Opinion No. 97-13.

Applying the limitations set forth in Rule 65B to the facts presented here, initially it is clear that the fatherhood organization is not conducted for the economic or political benefit of its members. The organization is a not-for-profit corporation and does not take positions on political issues. Likewise, there is no indication that the organization will engage in any type of court proceeding. Indeed, indications are to the contrary because the group does not advocate for fathers or provide services to the court. See IJEC Opinion No. 00-1 (judge may serve as director of charitable foundation where neither the foundation nor recipient of foundation funds ordinarily comes before the court or is engaged in adversarial proceedings); IJEC Opinion No. 97-3 (judge may not serve on sexual assault task force if task force members testify in court); IJEC Opinion No. 98-5 (judge may not serve as director of a charitable organization which provides services to defendants). Solicitations will not be made by the judge or in the judge’s name. See IJEC Opinion No. 97-15 (judge serving as president of cancer society should not allow name to appear on letterhead used to solicit funds). Nor will the evening board meetings interfere with the judge’s judicial duties. The only remaining question under Rule 65B is whether the judge’s affiliation with the organization will reflect adversely upon the judge’s impartiality.

Based on the information provided to the Committee, membership on the board of directors of the fatherhood organization will not reflect adversely upon the judge’s impartiality. The goal of the organization, "connecting children and fathers [and] equipping men to be better fathers," cannot be described as controversial or partisan. Activities sponsored by the group including an essay contest, classroom participation by fathers, and training for expectant fathers, are program or service oriented, not advocacy oriented. The organization does not counsel, assist, or advise fathers concerning legal matters and takes no position on political or legal issues. Finally, membership in the organization is not restricted to men or fathers. See IJEC Opinion No. 98-1 (membership of judge on a broad-based family violence coordinating council does not adversely affect the judge’s impartiality); IJEC Opinion No. 01-10 (judge may serve on board of directors of an organization of drug court professionals); IJEC Opinion No. 99-4 (judge may serve on the board of a drug education alliance dedicated to the goal of drug-free youth); IJEC Opinion No. 97-3 (judge may not serve on sexual assault task force because of its partisan purpose of working closely with law enforcement to ensure successful prosecutions.)

The inquiry does not end, however, with a determination that the judge’s service on the board of directors will not violate the limitations placed on charitable activities by Rule 65B. As previously observed by the Committee, the limitations contained in Rule 65B are not exclusive and a judge’s service on behalf of a charitable organization remains subject to other restrictions contained in the Illinios Code of Judicial Conduct. IJEC Opinion No. 97-13. For example, the judge’s service on the fatherhood organization’s board is subject to the provision of Rule 61 that a judge "personally observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved." The judge’s service is also restricted by the Rule 62A requirement that judges conduct themselves "in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary" and by the Rule 62B requirement that "[a] judge should not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of others."

Nothing before the Committee indicates that the restrictions placed on charitable and civic activities by Rules 61 and 62, or any other provision of the Code of Judicial Conduct, will be violated by the judge serving on the board of directors of the fatherhood organization.