CJEO Oral Advice Summary No. 2019-030 — Acceptance of a Private Testimonial Dinner and Honors

1
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINIONS
350 McAllister Street, Room 1144
San Francisco, CA 94102
(855) 854-5366
www.JudicialEthicsOpinions.ca.gov
CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2019-030
[Posted July 2, 2019]
ACCEPTANCE OF A PRIVATE TESTIMONIAL DINNER AND HONORS
I. 	Questions
A judicial officer who is retiring after serving nearly 20 years on an Inn of Court
executive committee, but who is not retiring from judicial office, requests ethical advice
concerning a retirement dinner planned by the other executive committee members to
honor the judge, and about an annual student achievement award the executive committee
plans to establish in the judge’s name.
The requesting judge’s Inn of Court is a local chapter of the national America Inns
of Court. The national organization and the judge’s local chapter provide a forum for
attorneys and judges to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of

2
justice through education, mentoring, and socializing. Inns of Court promote strong
professional relationships while providing educational services that fulfill minimum
continuing legal education (MCLE) requirements for attorneys. Through monthly dinner
meetings, members advance training and education in a collegial environment. Law
students are also invited to be active members of Inns of Court, which offers them an
opportunity to learn and to develop professional relationships with members of the bar
and bench. The monthly MCLE programs provided at the judge’s Inn of Court are
presented by teams from the general membership, which include law students who learn
and teach side-by-side with experienced judges and attorneys in the community. The
judge has served on the Inn of Court executive committee for many years as the at-large
MCLE program coordinator, and the executive committee wishes to honor the judge for
this service with a retirement dinner and award.
The dinner will be attended by the other executive committee members and their
guests. The long-standing executive committee consists of judges and prominent local
attorneys, with whom the judge has established close personal relationships during
decades of Inn of Court service together. It has been the judge’s practice to recuse in
matters involving the individual executive committee attorney members, who the judge
considers to be close personal friends. The dinner will be held at an executive committee
member’s private home. Three executive committee attorney members, who are the
judge’s close personal friends, will share the cost of the dinner, which will not exceed
$125 per person, although the estimated total cost of the dinner will not exceed $3,500.
The award to be established in the judge’s name will recognize the educational
achievements of a law student member of the Inn of Court each year, which the executive
committee plans to commemorate on a plaque installed at the law school where the Inn of
Court meetings are traditionally held. The executive committee also plans to give the
judge a framed replica of the plaque at the retirement dinner to commemorate the judge’s
educational contributions through the Inn of Court.

3
The judge specifically asks if the dinner is a private testimonial or an otherwise
acceptable gift, and if so, whether the dinner should be valued at the cost of the judge and
his or her guest’s dinners, a quarter of the total cost of the dinner, or the total cost of the
dinner. The judge also asks if reimbursing the three hosting executive committee
attorney members for the value of the dinner resolves the statutory prohibition against
accepting more than $450 a year from a single source. Finally, the judge asks if the
award and acceptance of the framed commemoration are permissible.
II. 	Oral Advice Provided
The Code of Judicial Ethics 1 recognizes the importance of judicial officers engaging
in their communities in the ways for which this judge is being honored. (Advisory Com.
com. foll. canon 4A [“complete separation of a judge from extrajudicial activities is
neither possible nor wise; a judge should not become isolated from the community in
which he or she lives”]; canon 4B [a judge may teach and participate in activities
concerning legal matters]; Advisory Com. com. foll. canon 4B [a judicial officer is in a
unique position to contribute to the improvement of the law, the legal system and the
administration of justice, and may do so through a group dedicated to the improvement of
the law]; canon 4C(3)(a) & (b) [a judge may serve as a director of a civic or nonprofit
educational organization devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the
administration of justice].) It does so by explicitly permitting this judge’s educational
service and by providing exceptions to the general prohibition on accepting gifts
associated with such extrajudicial community activities. The code and these exceptions
allow the judge to ethically accept the retirement dinner and award planned by the Inn of
Court executive members.
1 	All further references to canons, the code, and to advisory committee commentary are to
the California Code of Judicial Ethics unless otherwise indicated.

4
A. Retirement Dinner
The code defines a gift as anything of value to the extent that consideration of
equal or greater value is not received. (Code, Terminology, “Gift.”) This definition is
fundamentally the same as that in Code of Civil Procedure section 170.9, which also
governs the acceptance and valuation of gifts by judicial officers. (Code Civ. Proc., §
170.9, subd. (l) [“gift” means a payment to the extent that consideration of equal or
greater value is not received]; Rothman et al., Cal. Jud. Conduct Handbook (4th ed.
2017) § 9:31, p. 616 (Rothman) [the code and the statute use essentially the same
definition].) Both the code and the statute exclude certain items as gifts and contain
exceptions to the general prohibition on judicial officers accepting items that are gifts.
One of the items that both the code and the statute exclude as gifts subject to the
general prohibition and exceptions are public testimonials. (Rothman, supra, § 9:39, p.
623 [recognition of a judge at a public testimonial event is not a tangible item that falls
within the gift definitions in either the code or the statute, and the event itself, such as a
dinner publicly honoring a judge, is not subject to the no-gift rules].) Although the code
does not define a public testimonial, it has been interpreted as an event that publicly, not
privately, pays tribute to, celebrates, or honors a judge and is open to the community.
(Ibid. [a public testimonial event by a bar association that is open to the legal
community and civic leaders, or a tribute dinner by a community institution that is open
to its members and supporters, are not items subject to the gift rules].)
Given this interpretation, the retirement dinner planned by the Inn of Court
executive committee cannot be described as a public testimonial that is excluded or
excepted from the rules prohibiting and permitting gifts. The dinner is limited to the
executive committee, which includes judges and attorneys, but is not open to other
members of the greater Inn of Court membership or legal community. As a private
testimonial, however, the retirement dinner is a gift that falls within at least one
exception that allows acceptance.

5
Canon 4D(6)(a) provides that a judge may accept a gift from a person whose
preexisting relationship with the judge would prevent the judge from hearing that
person’s matter under the disqualification rules. Judicial officers are required to
disqualify themselves when they believe they cannot be impartial or that someone
aware of their relationship with a person would reasonably doubt their ability to be
impartial if that person appeared before them. (Canon 3E(4)(b) [applicable to appellate
justices]; Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1, subd. (a)(6)(A)(iii) [applicable to trial court
judges].) These rules have long been applied to preclude judges from hearing matters
involving a close friend. (Rothman, supra, § 9:45, p. 636 [relationships requiring
recusal normally include close personal friends of the judge].) Thus, a judge may
accept a gift under the preexisting relationship exception in canon 4D(6)(a) when the
gift is from a close friend whose matters the judge is disqualified from hearing. (Ibid.
[judges may accept gifts from friends where a reasonable person would doubt
impartiality and the judge is disqualified from hearing the friend’s matter].)
Code of Civil Procedure section 170.9, subdivision (b)(3) similarly provides that
gifts are not prohibited from a person whose preexisting relationship with the judge
would prevent the judge from hearing a case involving that person under the code.
Here, the retirement dinner is planned by, will be attended by, and will be hosted
by persons for whom the judge disqualifies when they appear. Specifically, the judge
considers the three attorney board members who are hosting the dinner to be close
personal friends, so the costs of the dinner are acceptable gifts that fall within the
preexisting relationship exception.
Significantly, the statute also provides that acceptable gifts from friends for whom
the judge disqualifies are not limited by value and may be accepted without regard to
the $450 single source limit. (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.9, subd. (a), (b); Rothman, supra,
§ 9:45, p. 636 [excepted gifts from close friends are eliminated from the statutory dollar

6
limitation and a judge is free to take a gift in any amount from a person whose
preexisting relationship with the judge requires disqualification].)
The value of the acceptable gift is nonetheless subject to reporting requirements
under the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Gov. Code, §§ 8100 et seq.), which does not
add further limitations on the receipt or value of gifts to judicial officers, but which
requires public reporting of any gift or compensation. (See Rothman, supra, § 9:31, pp.
615-616.) It is generally accepted that the value of gifts falling within various code
exceptions is the reasonable amount of the judge’s participation and the participation of
the judge’s spouse, domestic partner, or guest. (See Rothman, supra, § 9:48, p. 639; id.,
§ 9:55, p. 649 [acceptable invitations to ticketed educational events are calculated at the
reasonable value of refreshments dinner, and entertainment, rather than the face value of
the ticket].)
Thus, in the circumstances described here, the reportable value of the retirement
dinner would be the cost of the dinner for the judge and his or her guest, or
approximately $125 each, for a total value of $250. Although the purpose of the dinner
is to celebrate the judge’s retirement from the executive committee as the at-large
coordinator of educational programs, nothing in the code or the statutes requires the
judge to pay for the costs of those attending to celebrate and honor the judge.
Under the circumstances, the committee concludes that the retirement dinner is an
acceptable gift and it would not be necessary for the judge to pay or otherwise
reimburse the hosting attorneys for the cost of the judge and his or her guest’s meals, a
quarter of the total cost of the dinner, or the total cost of the dinner.
B. Award
The annual student achievement award the executive committee plans to establish in
the judge’s name is similarly a permissible honor, although it is not a gift to the judge.

7
The award will recognize the educational achievements of a law student Inn of Court
member each year without bestowing anything of monetary value on the judge.
Nor will it advance the pecuniary interests of the judge, the student, or the Inn of
Court. (Canon 2B(2).) Unlike a scholarship, which would require prohibited
fundraising, the use of the judge’s title in the award will contribute to legal education in a
manner that advances the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice. (Cf.
CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2015-011 (2015), Use of Judicial Title on a Scholarship
Fund, Cal. Supreme Ct. Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 1 [judicial officer’s name and title
may not be used by an alumni association of the judge’s law school alma mater on a
scholarship named in honor of the judge if the scholarship will be funded by donations
solicited using the judge’s name].) As such, it is a permissible use of title and the
prestige of office in honor of both the judge and the students who will receive the award
each year. (Rothman, supra, § 10.18, p. 689 [there is no prohibition on use of judicial
title to promote a permissible legal educational program because the importance of judges
contributing to the law, legal system, and the administration of justice far outweighs any
arguable use of the prestige of office to advance the pecuniary interests of others].)
Finally, the plaque and the framed commemoration of the award that the executive
committee intends to present to the judge are also honors the judge may accept. The
statute specifically excludes plaques from the definition of a gift, so long as they are
limited in value to under $250. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 170.9, subd. (l)(6) [the term
‘gift’ does not include personalized plaques and trophies with an individual value of less
than $250.00].) While the code does not contain a similar exclusion, the committee
believes that the similarity in the two gift definitions supports the conclusion that the
plaque and framed commemoration are not gifts because the personalization eliminates
any value that could potentially be used as consideration. (CJEO Oral Formal Opinion
2014-005, Accepting Gifts of Little or Nominal Value Under the Ordinary Social
Hospitality Exception, Cal. Supreme Ct. Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 6 & fn. 6 [advising

8
that items of any value are gifts within the meaning of the code when they could be
exchanged for consideration on the open market, but distinguishing homemade
personalized items that would have no market value].)
Nonetheless, to the extent that the cost of procuring the personalized plaque and
framing it were to be viewed as a gift incidental to the private retirement dinner, it would
fall within the same code exception for permissible gifts based on the judge’s preexisting
relationships and disqualification practices, as discussed above. (See Rothman, supra, §
10:16, p. 685 [a judge may accept a free dinner and a plaque from a local bar association
even though the event is underwritten by attorneys who will appear in front of the judge
and who will be recognized for their donations at the event].)
III. 	Conclusions
The retirement dinner is a private testimonial the judge may accept as a gift,
without limit and without reimbursement of costs for any part of the dinner, including the
costs of the judge and his or her guest’s meals. For reporting purposes, the value of the
gift is the total cost of the judge and his or her guest’s meals. The student achievement
award in the judge’s name is also a permissible honor and use of judicial title. Finally,
the framed commemoration of the award is an acceptable honor incidental to the
retirement dinner.

This oral advice summary 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

9
expressed in this summary 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)).)