CJEO Oral Advice Summary No. 2019-031 — Extrajudicial Service as a Rotary District Youth Protection Officer

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 2019-031
[Posted August 15, 2019]
EXTRAJUDICIAL SERVICE AS A ROTARY DISTRICT YOUTH
PROTECTION OFFICER
I. Question
A retired judicial officer who regularly sits on assignment through the Temporary
Assigned Judges Program inquires about whether volunteering as a Rotary International
district youth protection officer would violate canon 4A of the California Code of
Judicial Ethics, 1 which prohibits extrajudicial activities that might cast reasonable doubt
on impartiality or lead to frequent disqualification.
1 All further references to canons, the code, and to advisory committee commentary are to
the California Code of Judicial Ethics unless otherwise indicated.

2
II. Facts
The Temporary Assigned Judges Program (AJP) is an exercise of the Chief Justice’s
constitutional authority to assign retired judicial officers to fill vacancies on a temporary
basis in courts requesting assistance. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 6, subd. (e) [“The Chief
Justice shall seek to expedite judicial business and to equalize the work of judges”].) The
inquiring judge is an active AJP member who primarily hears cases in the counties served
by a Rotary International (Rotary) district in which the judge is also a member.
Rotary is a volunteer community service organization consisting of local clubs
organized into districts. The judge has been asked to serve as a youth protection officer
for a Rotary district governing 78 local clubs.
Rotary is significantly involved in youth activities, and the volunteer position
oversees programs to protect youths participating in those activities within the district.
The duties of a Rotary district youth protection officer include: (1) acting as a point of
contact for all youths involved in Rotary activities; (2) handling complaints of abuse by
youths within the district; (3) informing and acting as a link to appropriate authorities
such as law enforcement; (4) monitoring changes in the laws related to youth abuse and
protection; (5) providing screening, selection, and training measures for adults involved
in district youth programs; (6) maintaining records of abuse allegations; (7) monitoring
and controlling background checks for adults participating in district youth programs; and
(8) overseeing the proper handling of abuse allegations to protect the interests of all
involved. (Rotary, Rotary Youth Protection Guide, p. 5.) District youth protection
officers are selected by Rotary if they have professional experience related to these
duties, such as a background in the law, law enforcement, counseling, or child
development. (Ibid.)

3
III. Oral Advice Provided
While the code permits and encourages extrajudicial activities, it does so with
limitations. (Advisory Com. com. foll. canon 4A [complete separation of judges from
extrajudicial activities is neither possible nor wise]; canon 4C(3)(b) [a judge may serve as
an officer or nonlegal advisor of a civic service organization, subject to the limitations
and other requirements of the code].) Retired judges in the AJP are subject to these
permissions and limitations. (Canon 6B [retired AJP judges are required to comply with
all provision of the code, with exceptions inapplicable to civic organization positions];
Judicial Council of California, Temporary Assigned Judges Program Handbook (June
2019), Standards and Guidelines for Temporary Judicial Assignments, p. 14 [retired
judges sitting on assignment shall comply with applicable provisions of the code].)
Two overarching limitations are the canon 4A(1) and (4) requirements that
extrajudicial activities be conducted so that they do not lead to frequent disqualification
or cast doubt on impartiality. More specific limitations are included in canon 4C(3)(b),
which permits service as an officer of a nonprofit civic organization, but only as a
nonlegal advisor. (Rothman et al., Cal. Jud. Conduct Handbook (4th ed. 2017) § 8:80, p.
570 (Rothman) [although a judge is permitted to serve on a civic organization board, the
judge is prohibited from acting as a legal advisor].) Canon 4C(3)(c)(i) and (ii) further
limit such service if the organization will be engaged in judicial proceedings before the
judge or will frequently be engaged in proceeding in the judge’s court or appellate
district. (See Advisory Com. com. foll. canon 4C(3)(c) [judges should avoid leadership
positions in organizations that regularly engage in litigation as it could compromise the
appearance of impartiality].) Finally, judges are generally prohibited from practicing law
by canon 4G and from using judicial title to advance the interest of others by canon
2C(2). (See Advisory Com. com. foll. canon 6C [retired judges serving in the AJP are
bound by canon 4G barring the practice of law]; Temporary Assigned Judges Program

4
Handbook, supra, p. 14 [a retired judge serving on assignment shall not lend the prestige
of the judicial assignment to advance the interests of the judge or others].)
With these permissions and limitations in mind, it is clear from the Rotary district
youth protection officer duties and qualifications that service by a judicial officer would
be prohibited under the code. While it seems unlikely that the retired AJP judge would
frequently be assigned cases involving Rotary youth program issues, requiring
disqualification and prohibiting service under canon 4A(4), or that the Rotary would
ordinarily come before the judge in violation of canon 4C(3)(c)(i), it is likely, given the
reasons for the protection officer position, that the Rotary will be involved in proceedings
in the courts where the judge is primarily assigned, prohibiting service under canon
4C(3)(c)(ii). The question of whether the Rotary will frequently be engaged in those
proceedings suggests the probability that whoever fills the Rotary district youth
protection officer will be called as a witness or participant in any such proceeding in the
courts where the AJP judge is primarily assigned. For a judicial officer, this would
compromise the appearance of impartiality and improperly lend the prestige of office.
(Canons 4A(1), 2B(2); Advisory Com. com. foll. canon 4C(3)(c); Rothman, supra, §
8:49, p. 551 [whenever a judge appears in court as a competent witness, the judge’s
testimony may be viewed as lending the prestige of office to advance the interests of one
litigant over another].)
But more prohibitively, canons 4C(3)(b) and 4G, and the commentary following
canon 6C, preclude practicing law or acting as a legal advisor to a nonprofit organization.
(Rothman, supra, § 8:80, p. 570 [the practice of law includes providing legal advice].)
Here, experience with the law is precisely what qualifies the judge for the Rotary district
youth protection officer position. (Rotary Youth Protection Guide, supra, p. 5.) The
stated duties of that position would necessarily entail giving legal advice when performed
by the judge. For example, the responsibilities of the position include monitoring
changes in the law related to youth abuse, providing training for adults about what

5
constitutes abuse, screening background checks, overseeing the proper handling of abuse
allegations, and other activities that inherently involve advising the district and its
members about the law. (Ibid.; Rothman, supra, § 10:36, p. 707, citing Cal. Judges
Assn., Formal Opn. No. 61 (Aug. 2008), p. 5 [a judge may not serve on a church advisory
committee that recommends actions to be taken regarding accusations of clergy sexual
misconduct, which would implicate litigation and the practice of law].)
Finally, any participation by the judge in that role would appear to benefit the Rotary
because of the judge’s unique legal experience and judicial title. (Rothman, supra,
appen. L, Guide to Involvement in Community Activities and Outreach, p. 961 [whether
an organization is looking for legal advice or highlighting that one of its members is a
judge is a consideration when applying ethical rules to determine if service is
appropriate].) For all these reasons, the committee advises that service as a volunteer
Rotary district youth protection officer is not permitted under the code.
IV. Conclusions
Extrajudicial service as a Rotary district youth protection officer is not permitted
under the code where the qualifications for the position include legal experience and the
duties of the position include providing advice about the law. Extrajudicial service as an
officer of a civic organization is permitted so long as that service is as a nonlegal advisor.
Practicing law, which includes providing legal advice, is prohibited for judicial officers,
including retired judges active in the AJP. Judges are further prohibited from serving in
civic organizations that will frequently be involved in adversary proceedings in the
judge’s court. The responsibilities of a Rotary district youth protection officer suggest
the probability that such an officer will be called as a witness or participant in any
proceedings involving the Rotary district’s youth programs or practices, which would
compromise the appearance of impartiality and lend the prestige of judicial office if
performed by a retired AJP judge primarily assigned to cases within the district. Finally,

6
any participation by the judge in the role of district youth protection officer could
impermissibly advance the interests of Rotary because of the judge’s title.

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
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)).)