CJEO Expedited Opinion No. 2022-048 — Commenting on or Endorsing Legal Education Books Written by Others

1
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINIONS
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
(855) 854-5366
www.JudicialEthicsOpinions.ca.gov
CJEO Expedited Opinion 1 2022-048
[Posted May 19, 2022]
COMMENTING ON OR ENDORSING LEGAL EDUCATION BOOKS
WRITTEN BY OTHERS
I. 	Question
The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions has been asked: (1) whether a judicial
officer may review, critique, or comment on legal education books written by others in a legal
publication; and (2) whether a judicial officer who has not contributed to a legal education book
1 	The California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO or the
committee) issues Expedited Opinions, formerly known as Oral Advice Summaries, pursuant
to California Rules of Court, rule 9.80(i)(1) (eff. Jan. 1, 2021). Expedited Opinions are issued to
requesting judicial officers following a discretionary decision by CJEO to address the ethical
issues raised in an expedited process that does not include posting draft opinions for public
comment, as required for CJEO Formal Opinions. CJEO Expedited Opinions are published in
full, without identifying information regarding the requesting judicial officer, to provide
information and analysis to the bench and the public regarding judicial ethics.

2
may provide a written endorsement referencing the judicial officer’s title to be used on the book
cover.
II. 	Advice Provided
(1) 	A judicial officer may review, critique, or comment on legal education books
written by others in a legal publication when the primary purpose of doing so is to engage in
educational discourse related to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. The
substance of a judicial officer’s review, critique, or commentary must otherwise comply with the
canons; for example, the judicial officer must not engage in improper political commentary or
undermine the integrity or impartiality of the judiciary.
(2) 	A judicial officer who has not contributed to a legal education book may not
provide a written endorsement referencing the judicial officer’s title to be used on the book cover
because the primary purpose of such an endorsement is to market or promote the book, which
violates the canon prohibition against lending judicial prestige to advance a person’s pecuniary or
personal interests.
III. 	Discussion
The California Code of Judicial Ethics 2 generally permits and encourages judges to
engage in educational activities, particularly those concerning the law, the legal system, and the
administration of justice. (Canon 4B [judges may speak, write, lecture, teach and participate in
activities concerning legal and nonlegal subjects, subject to the requirements of the code];
Advisory Com. commentary foll. canon 4B [judicial officers are specially learned in the law and
in a unique position to contribute to the improvement of the law, the legal system, and the
administration of justice].) At the same time, the code prohibits judges from lending judicial
prestige to advance their own or another person’s pecuniary or personal interests. (Canon 2B(2)
[a judge shall not lend judicial prestige or use judicial title in any manner to advance the
2 	All further references to the code, canons, and advisory committee commentary are to the
California Code of Judicial Ethics unless otherwise indicated.

3
pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or others].) Other canons further prohibit the use of
title or position for financial gain. (Canon 4D(1)(a) [a judge shall not engage in financial or
business dealings that may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge’s judicial position];
canon 4D(2) [a judge shall not use judicial title, permit others to use the judge’s title, or lend
judicial prestige to promote a business or commercial venture].)
Harmonizing these provisions, judicial officers may use their judicial title to review,
critique, or comment on legal education books written by others for purposes of contributing to
educational discourse, but may not use judicial title to market, promote, or solicit sales of others’
legal education books, as described below.
A. Reviewing, Critiquing, or Commenting on Legal Education Books
Judicial officers may use judicial title when reviewing, critiquing, or commenting on legal
education books in a legal publication if the primary purpose of doing so is to engage in
educational discourse related to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.
(Canon 4B; Advisory Com. commentary foll. canon 4B.) Discussions regarding legal education
books or writings in legal publications, such as legal periodicals or newsletters, have important
educational value and contribute to the improvement of the law and legal system. The Rothman
treatise suggests that judges may not “promote or critique a legal or nonlegal book written by
another.” 	(Rothman et al., Cal. Judicial Conduct Handbook (2020 Supp.) § 9:8, p. 85, italics
added.) While the committee agrees that judges may not promote others’ written works, review
or critique of legal works is an educational exercise and consistent with the canons. Although a
positive review or discussion may incidentally lead to increased sales, the primary purpose of
such discussions is educational rather than promotional. (Cal. Judges Assn., Jud. Ethics Com.,
Advisory Opn. No. 65 (2010) p. 6 (CJA Opn. No. 65) [a judge may write a review of a book
written about a historical event for a legal periodical, even though positive comments are likely
to be used to market the book where the review is written as an academic exercise and not for
commercial purposes; however, a judge may not critique a book written by a friend about the
author’s son’s drug use when the judge’s position would likely be exploited due to factors
beyond the judge’s control].)

4
When reviewing, critiquing, or commenting on legal education books or writings, judicial
officers must ensure that the substance of their statements otherwise complies with the canons.
For example, it would be improper for a judicial officer to comment on a case pending in an
appellate court if the judicial officer has personally participated in the case. (Canon 3B(9)
[prohibition against publicly commenting on pending cases does not prohibit judges from
discussing appellate cases in legal education materials unless the judge has presided over the case
or the comment would interfere with a fair hearing].) It would also be improper for a judicial
officer to engage in impermissible political commentary or otherwise undermine public
confidence in the integrity or impartiality of the judiciary. (Canon 5 [a judge shall not engage in
political activity that may create the appearance of political bias or impropriety; canons 1, 2, &
2A [judges must preserve public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary in all
activities]; CJA Opn. No. 65, supra, at p. 3 [even where a judge writes about the law or
advocates for changes in the law, the judge must do so in a manner that does not undermine
public confidence in the judiciary or cast doubt on the judge’s ability to act impartially].)
B. Endorsing Legal Education Books
While a judicial officer may review, critique, or comment on legal education books for
educational purposes, a judicial officer who has not contributed to a legal education book may
not provide a book cover endorsement referencing the judicial officer’s title because this lends
judicial prestige to advance another person’s pecuniary or personal interest in violation of canon
2B(2). 3 Authors and publishers typically seek written endorsements from high-profile or
prestigious individuals, sometimes called ‘book blurbs,’ for the placement on a book cover to
market and promote the book for sale. An endorsement from a well-known judge, for example,
might suggest to would-be readers that a law-related book is particularly interesting or useful,
leading to increased sales. When a judicial officer has not authored, co-authored, or contributed
to the book, the primary purpose of such an endorsement is not to identify a contributor by
3 	This opinion does not address whether it may be permissible to endorse a legal education
book without reference to judicial title or position; however, the committee presumes this fact
pattern would be unlikely in the case of judicial endorsements of legal education books.

5
judicial title or engage in an educational exercise, but rather to use the endorsing judicial
officer’s title to promote sales. The code prohibits lending judicial prestige or using judicial title
for this purpose, regardless of whether a book is educational in nature. (CJA Opn. No. 65,
supra, at p. 5 [a judge not involved in the preparation of a legal education book may not write a
testimonial regarding the value of the book for marketing purposes].
The code provisions governing the use of judicial title with respect to marketing and
promoting legal education programs and materials are instructive. The code permits limited
references to judicial title for marketing or promoting legal education programs and materials,
subject to other canons. The Advisory Committee commentary to canon 4B provides that: “It
may be necessary to promote legal education programs and materials by identifying authors and
speakers by judicial title. This is permissible, provided such use of judicial title does not
contravene [c]anons 2A and 2B.” The Advisory Committee commentary to canon 2B adds that:
“In contracts for publication of a judge’s writings, a judge should retain control over the
advertising, to the extent feasible, to avoid exploitation of the judge’s office.” This means that
promoters of legal education programs and materials may use factually accurate descriptions of
authors and speakers, including their judicial titles, provided the use of judicial title does not
undermine the integrity or impartiality of the judiciary in violation of canon 2A or improperly
lend judicial prestige to advance pecuniary or personal interests in violation of canon 2B(2). 4 	It
also requires judges to exercise control over how others use their judicial title in marketing and
promotional materials to ensure that judicial position is not exploited to increase sales.
In the committee’s view, however, this does not allow a judicial officer to use judicial
title to market, promote, or solicit sales of others’ legal educational works. There is a distinction
between referencing judicial title to accurately describe biographical information about an
author or contributor to legal education materials, which is permissible, and allowing others to
leverage one’s judicial title to market, promote, or solicit a sale, which is not. (CJA Opn. No.
4 	For example, it would proper to state in promotional materials that “Judge Jones will be a
panel speaker” at a particular legal education event, but improper to use a judge’s name in a
personal promotional claim, such as: “Judge Jones hopes to see you at this event!”

6
65, supra, at pp. 5–6 [biographical information in the forward of a legal thriller may reference
the author’s judicial title; however, a judge may not write a commentary to be included in a
book jacket and used for marketing purposes].)5
IV. 	Conclusion
Judicial officers may review, critique, and comment on legal education books in legal
publications for educational purposes consistent with the advancement of the law, the legal
system, or the administration of justice. When doing so, judicial officers must ensure that the
substance of their statements otherwise complies with the canon requirements, such as the
prohibitions against engaging in improper political commentary or undermining the integrity or
impartiality of the judiciary. 	However, a judicial officer who has not contributed to a legal
education book may not provide a written endorsement referencing the judicial officer’s title to
be used on the book cover because the primary purpose of such an endorsement is marketing
and promotion, which violates the prohibition against lending judicial prestige to advance a
person’s pecuniary or personal interest.

This expedited advice opinion is advisory only. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.80(a), (e);
Cal. Supreme Ct. Com. Jud. Ethics Opns. (CJEO), Internal Operating Rules & Proc. rule 1(a),
(b).) It is based on facts and issues, or topics of interest, presented to the California Supreme
Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions in a request for an opinion (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 9.80(i)(3); CJEO rules 2(f), 6(c)), or on subjects deemed appropriate by the committee
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.80(i)(1); CJEO rule 6(a)). The conclusions expressed in this
5 	The degree to which judicial officers may use judicial title to engage in marketing
activities related to their own books, whether legal or nonlegal in nature, is beyond the scope of
this opinion. However, the committee notes that judge authors have been disciplined for
inappropriate use of judicial position or court resources to advance their own books sales.
(Inquiry Concerning Ross (1998) 48 Cal.4th CJP Supp. 19, 31–32, 45 [judge disciplined for
selling his book from chambers and using his bailiff to facilitate sales to attorneys and jurors].)

7
opinion are those of the committee and do not necessarily reflect the views of the California
Supreme Court or any other entity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.80(b); CJEO rule 1(a)).)