CJEO Formal Opinion No. 2021-017 — Providing Close Family Members with Advice that Implicates Legal Issues

1
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINIONS
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
(855) 854-5366
www.JudicialEthicsOpinions.ca.gov
CJEO Formal Opinion 2021-017
[Issued May 6, 2021]
PROVIDING CLOSE FAMILY MEMBERS WITH ADVICE
THAT IMPLICATES LEGAL ISSUES
I. Question
The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) has been asked to advise
whether and to what extent a judge may ethically provide advice to a member of the
judge’s family about a matter that implicates legal issues.
II. Summary of Conclusions
Judges are prohibited by the California Constitution and the California Code of

2
Judicial Ethics1 from providing legal advice to a family member if by doing so they
would be practicing law. Numerous decisions from the state Supreme Court and the
Courts of Appeal, collected in the appendix to this opinion, may help judges determine
whether advice that they might provide to a family member would be considered legal
advice and for that reason would constitute the practice of law. If there is no precedent
that would resolve whether advising a family member in a given circumstance would
constitute the practice of law, a judge should evaluate whether providing the requested
advice would undermine the dual purposes underlying the prohibition on judicial practice
of law to ensure the performance of official judicial duties and maintain the integrity of
the judiciary. If the judge’s advice would not align with these purposes, it is not
permissible.
As guidance, the committee concludes that a judge is not permitted to: (1) accept
compensation for help with legal matters; (2) neglect official duties in favor of a matter
involving a family member; (3) provide advice that would cause a reasonable person to
question the judge’s independence or integrity; or (4) act, or appear to act, as an advocate.
Even so, a judge may provide limited law-related advice to a family member.
Such advice may include statements of law, explanations of court procedures and court
rules, and guidance about legal requirements, similar to the kinds of information that a
judge would be able to provide a self-represented party appearing at a hearing before the
judge. A judge may also provide advice relating to a matter in which the judge is
personally involved when the judge is acting in his or her own personal interest or is
acting in a representative capacity permitted under the code.
1 All further references to the code, canons, preamble, terminology, and advisory
committee commentary are to the California Code of Judicial Ethics unless otherwise
indicated.

3
III. Authorities
A. Applicable Canons
Preamble: “The canons . . . are to be applied in conformance with constitutional
requirements, statutes, other court rules, and decisional law.”
Terminology: “ ‘Member of the judge’s family’ means a spouse, registered
domestic partner, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, or other relative or person with
whom the judge maintains a close familial relationship.”
Canon 2A: “A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all
times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary. A judge shall not make statements, whether public or nonpublic, that commit
the judge with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the
courts or that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of
judicial office.”
Canon 3B(8): “A judge shall manage the courtroom in a manner that provides all
litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly adjudicated in accordance with the
law.”
Advisory Committee commentary following canon 3B(8): “For example, when a
litigant is self-represented, a judge has the discretion to take reasonable steps,
appropriate under the circumstances and consistent with the law and the canons, to
enable the litigant to be heard.”
Canon 3B(9): “A judge shall not make any public comment about a pending or
impending proceeding in any court, and shall not make any nonpublic comment that
might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.”
Canon 4A: “A judge shall conduct all of the judge’s extrajudicial activities so that
they do not
“(1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially,
. . .
“(3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties, or
"(4) lead to frequent disqualification . . . .”

4
Canon 4G: “A judge shall not practice law.” (Boldface added.)
Advisory Committee commentary following canon 4G: “This prohibition refers to
the practice of law in a representative capacity and not in a pro se capacity. A judge
may act for himself or herself in all legal matters, including matters involving litigation
and matters involving appearances before or other dealings with legislative and other
governmental bodies. However, in so doing, a judge must not abuse the prestige of office
to advance the interests of the judge or member of the judge’s family. See [c]anon 2B.”
Canon 4E(1): “A judge shall not serve as executor, administrator, or other personal
representative, trustee, guardian, attorney in fact, or other fiduciary, except for the estate,
trust, or person of a member of the judge’s family, and then only if such service will not
interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties. A judge may, however, act as a
health care representative pursuant to an advance health care directive for a person whose
preexisting relationship with the judge would prevent the judge from hearing a case
involving that person under [c]anon 3E(1).”
B. Constitutional Provisions, Statutes, and Other Authorities
California Constitution, article VI, sections 9, 17.
Code of Civil Procedure, sections 170.1, subdivision (a)(1), (3) (4) and (5), 170.5
subdivision (b).
Adams v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1995) 10 Cal.4th 866.
Altizer v. Highsmith (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 331.
Baron v. City of Los Angeles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 535.
Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th
119.
Doan v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1995) 11 Cal.4th 294.
Gilbert v. Chiang (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 537.
Holloway v. Quetel (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1425.
Inquiry Concerning Judge Kreep (2017) 3 Cal.5th CJP Supp. 1.

5
Inquiry Concerning Saucedo (2015) 62 Cal.4th CJP Supp. 1.
Inquiry Concerning Judge Stanford (2012) 53 Cal.4th CJP Supp. 1.
People v. Merchants' Protective Corp. (1922) 189 Cal. 531.
Public Reproval of Judge Schatz (1989) Com. on Jud. Performance.
State Bar of California v. Superior Court (1929) 207 Cal. 323.
Commission on Judicial Performance, Annual Reports for 2010, 1993 and 1992.
CJEO Oral Advice Summary No. 2013-001, Disclosure When A Judge’s Spouse
Serves on a City Commission, California Supreme Court, Committee on Judicial
Ethics Opinions Oral Advice Summary.
Rothman et al., California Judicial Conduct Handbook (4th ed. 2017) § 2:28.
California Judges Association, Judicial Ethics Update (Jan. 2016).
Senate Committee on Judiciary, Hearing on Assembly Constitutional Amendment
No. 17 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) June 28, 1988.
Ballot Pamphlet, General Election (Nov. 4, 1930) argument in favor of Proposition
19, page 24.
IV. Discussion
A. Introduction
It can be hard to resist the human impulse to assist family members when they ask
for advice. Whether out of love, obligation, or a sense of responsibility, many parents,
children, siblings, and other close family members would not think twice about providing
whatever kind of advice they can to another member of their family who needs guidance,
even when the advice relates to a legal matter. For a judge, however, the decision

6
whether to advise a member of the judge’s family2 on law-related matters can be
complicated and often difficult. Family members who are certainly aware of the judge’s
professional background may expect that, considering the normal instinct to assist loved
ones, the judge would draw on his or her legal training and experience to help them.
Family members seeking advice may not be aware that a judge, although naturally
inclined to help, is prohibited by the Constitution and by the judge’s obligations under the
code from practicing law on a family member’s behalf.3 The Constitution plainly states
that “[a] judge of a court of record may not practice law,” and the code similarly provides
that “[a] judge shall not practice law.” (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 17; canon 4G.) Indeed,
despite having been admitted and licensed to practice law, judges cease to be members of
the bar during their period in office. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 9.) These restrictions can put
judges in an awkward situation of having to decline a request for legal advice or to limit
the kind of information and guidance that they can provide family members who come to
them with questions about law-related matters. Determining what is permissible advice
and what is the prohibited practice of law can be challenging.
2 For purposes of this opinion, CJEO adopts that portion of the code’s definition of
a “[m]ember of the judge’s family” to mean “a spouse, registered domestic partner, child,
grandchild, parent, or grandparent.” Also for purposes of this opinion, however, CJEO is
not adopting the portion of the code definition that broadly includes “other relative or
person with whom the judge maintains a close familial relationship.” (Terminology,
citing canons 2B & 4G.) The focus of this opinion is on the natural impulse to assist a
close family member who needs legal help. Discussion of broader close relationships is
beyond the scope of the opinion, although the analysis below may provide judges with
guidance in determining the assistance permissible in those circumstances on an
individual basis.
3 For this reason, it is recommended that when asked for legal assistance, judges
advise any individual, including a family member, that judges are not permitted to
practice law for the reasons discussed in this opinion.

7
B. Prohibited Practice of Law
Case law may assist judges to determine where they should draw the line about
what is permissible when advising family members in a matter that implicates legal
issues. The Supreme Court has said that the practice of law “ ‘ “includes legal advice and
counsel” ’ ” (California v. Superior Court (1929) 207 Cal. 323, 335) and that “[i]n close
cases, the courts have determined that the resolution of legal questions for another by
advice and action is practicing law ‘if difficult or doubtful legal questions are involved
which, to safeguard the public, reasonably demand the application of a trained legal
mind’ ” (Baron v. City of Los Angeles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 535, 543). Following these
decisions, a number of courts have identified specific instances where providing legal
advice and other law-related assistance would constitute the law practice. (Appen. A,
Cases Defining the Practice of Law.) But the Supreme Court has also noted that the
practice of law “does not encompass all professional activities,” and judges are not
prohibited from offering their family members all law-related advice. (Birbrower,
Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 119, 129.) Some
guidance and information, although law-related, may be given by a judge to a family
member as discussed below.
In circumstances not already addressed by case law, however, judges may find it
hard to determine whether and to what extent they may provide guidance or other
information when a family member asks them for advice on a law-related matter.
Numerous situations may fall into a gray area. For example, to what extent may a judge
help a member of the judge’s family to write a demand letter? When and to what extent
may a judge review and comment on a contract involving a family member? May a
judge advise a member of the judge’s family about litigation in which the family member
is a party or comment on decisions made or actions taken by the attorneys representing
the family member? When asked for help in these situations, the natural instinct of
judges may be to provide assistance, even when they know that they are limited in the
kind of assistance they may provide to family members.

8
In such cases, where precedent may not provide adequate clarity about what is
permissible, judges weighing the nature and extent of advice they are able to provide
family members are guided by the original rationales for the prohibition on judicial
practice of law. Initially, the prohibition was thought to ensure that judges would
conserve their time and focus their energy on their judicial duties, rather than becoming
distracted by the competing demands of a law practice. Thereafter, the prohibition was
increasingly considered necessary to keep the judiciary above reproach or suspicion by
eliminating the opportunity for fraud and the potential for undisclosed conflicts of interest
that might arise if a judge were representing private clients as a lawyer. (Gilbert v.
Chiang (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 537, 549-550.)4 During the legislative debate prior to the
most recent amendment of the constitutional prohibition in 1988, the Senate Judiciary
Committee confirmed that the reasons judges are prohibited from practicing law have
remained the same: “to avoid conflict of interest and to ensure that other duties do not
distract from their performance as judicial officials.” (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Hearing
on Assem. Const. Amend. No. 17 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) June 28, 1988, p. 3.)
Before helping a family member with a law-related matter, judges should evaluate
whether the advice or assistance they would give is consistent with or contrary to either
of the two purposes behind the prohibition on judicial practice to ensure performance of
judicial duties and to avoid potential conflicts of interest. If the advice or assistance
would undermine either purpose, it is not constitutionally permitted.
4 The earliest prohibition on judicial practice of law was added to the California
Constitution in the 19th century and applied only to a judge’s activities in court. In 1930,
the Constitution was amended by popular referendum to extend the prohibition on law
practice to a judge’s conduct both in and out of court. The ballot argument in favor of the
expansion of the 1930 amendment noted that “[c]itizens will not feel properly confident
of justice if they know their judges are advising or aiding corporations, groups, or
individuals in a legal capacity, on the side, in spare time [; n]o matter how innocent the
practice, it is liable to vicious abuse.” (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 1930) argument
in favor of Prop. 19, p. 24.)

9
C. What Constitutes Impermissible Legal Advice and Permissible Law-
related Advice
As noted, judges are not permitted to advise their family members in law-related
matters if the advice would undermine the dual purposes behind the prohibition to ensure
the performance of official judicial duties and maintain the integrity of the judiciary by
avoiding conflicts of interest.5 (Gilbert v. Chiang (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 537, 550.) As
a result, it would be impermissible for judges to advise a family member while acting as
an advocate on behalf of either the family member or a particular legal position. (Adams
v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1995) 10 Cal.4th 866, 907 (Adams) [judge
disciplined for suggesting that a close friend file a particular motion]; Com. on Jud.
Performance, 1992 Ann. Rep., p. 13 [judge admonished for advising a relative and
negotiating a settlement on their behalf].) Similarly, it would not be permissible for
judges to accept compensation for their advice, provide assistance that could lead to
disqualification, neglect official duties in favor of matters involving family members, or
engage in activities that would cause a reasonable person to question their independence
or integrity. (Canons 4A(1), (3) and (4), 4H.)
Keeping these prohibitions in mind, judges are permitted to provide family
members with certain limited advice about law-related matters. Specifically, a judge is
5 The risk that a judge would undermine the purpose of the prohibition to ensure the
performance of judicial duties is reduced when providing law-related advice to a family
member because judges are generally disqualified when a close family member is a party,
the judge has a financial interest in the matter, or the judge has personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 170.1, subd.
(a)(1), (3), (4) & (5), 170.5, subd. (b); canons 3E(4), 3E(5)(d), (e), (f)(iii), (i); CJEO Oral
Advice Summary No. 2013-001, Disclosure When A Judge’s Spouse Serves on a City
Commission, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 2.) However, because the
constitutional and code prohibitions on practicing law apply to all judicial conduct and
are not limited to presiding over case matters, disqualification alone does not make
advice that constitutes the practice of law otherwise permissible.

10
permitted to provide a family member with general legal information, including, for
example, statements of law, explanations of court procedures and court rules, and
guidance about legal requirements, similar to the kinds of information that judges often
provide to self-represented parties appearing before them. (Canon 3B(8) [judges must
provide due process to all litigants]; Advisory Com. commentary foll. canon 3B(8)
[judges have the discretion to take reasonable steps, appropriate under the circumstances
and consistent with the law and the canons, to enable self-represented litigants to be
heard]; Holloway v. Quetel (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1435 (Quetel) [judges must
ensure self-represented litigants a fair hearing without assuming or appearing to assume
the role of advocate]; Rothman et al., Cal. Judicial Conduct Handbook (4th ed. 2017) §
2:28, pp. 98-100 (Rothman) [interpreting these authorities from an ethics point of view,
judges are permitted to explain court procedures, inform a party of the process for
securing witnesses, and even inform a party of missing elements of proof or other legal
requirements].)5
If a judge is advising a family member in connection with a matter in which the
judge is personally involved or the judge’s personal interests are implicated, such advice
5 The analogy to self-represented litigants is not to the canon 3B(8) general duty to
provide all litigants with due process; it is to the discretion recognized in the advisory
committee commentary to 3B(8) about the reasonable steps under the law and canons that
may be taken to ensure self-represented litigants are heard without the judge appearing to
practice law. (Canon 3B(8); Advisory Com. commentary foll. canon 3B(8); Quetel,
supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at p.1435.) It is also to Judge Rothman’s interpretation of those
authorities as permitting judges to explain court procedures and provide self-represented
litigants with information about legal processes and requirements from an ethics point of
view. (Rothman, supra, § 2:28, pp. 99-100). The practical value of this analogy,
however, is that judges who often hear matters involving self-represented litigants are
practiced at exercising that discretion and determining what law-related advice they may
provide without advocating or practicing law, which is the same discretion this
committee concludes judges are permitted to exercise when advising family members
outside of the courtroom setting.

11
is permissible.6 (Advisory Com. commentary foll. canon 4G [judges may act for
themselves in all legal matters].) Additionally, a judge is more likely permitted to
provide law-related advice where the judge does not appear publicly on behalf of the
family member or act as an advocate, and the advice given to the family member is
limited to the kind and quality of information that a nonlawyer might provide in a similar
situation. (Altizer v. Highsmith (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 331, 341 [acting in a clerical
capacity or as a scrivener is not the unauthorized practice of law].) In general, assisting a
family member in these circumstances would not impair a judge from fulfilling the
judge’s official duties or create an undisclosed conflict of interest.
D. Determining What Advice is Permissible
While each circumstance must be determined based on the specific facts involved,
the examples described above may assist in deciding whether to provide a family member
with law-related advice. The most obvious risks arise in the context of a family member
asking a judge for advice about active litigation in which the family member is involved,
whether as a party or otherwise. In providing a family member with support in a
nonlegal manner, the judge must avoid the risk of engaging in the practice of law by
offering advice on legal issues in the case, providing or offering to provide research on
any legal issues in the case, or in any way acting or appearing to act as an advocate
arguing on behalf of the family member. (Canons 2B(1), (2) & 4G; Doan v. Commission
on Judicial Performance (1995) 11 Cal.4th 294, 320-321, 336-337 [judge’s offer to
conduct legal research constituted the practice of law].) These restrictions on the practice
6 In addition, canon 4E(1) permits judges to serve as an executor, administrator,
trustee, guardian, attorney in fact, or other fiduciary or personal representative of a family
member, so long as such service (i) will not interfere with the proper performance of
judicial duties, (ii) is not likely to come before the judge, or (iii) is not likely to come
before the judge’s court or appellate district. These permissions and limitations are in
line with the guidance provided in this opinion and would not be prohibited as the
practice of law.

12
of law prohibit any substantive involvement by a judge in the prosecution, defense, or
settlement of any litigation on behalf of a member of the judge’s family.7 In addition, a
judge who actively assists a family member involved in litigation runs the risk of
violating the prohibition against improper ex parte communications by commenting on
pending or impending cases. (Canons 3B(7) & (9); Inquiry Concerning Judge Stanford
(2012) 53 Cal.4th CJP Supp. 1, 13-14, 21 [judge’s discussion of a speeding ticket with
his son-in-law constituted ex parte communication]; Doan, supra¸ at pp. 318-319
[judge’s discussion of criminal charges filed against her gardener was an improper ex
parte contact].) In sum, a judge is only permitted to offer limited assistance to a family
member involved in litigation. Beyond providing moral support, the judge risks violating
constitutional and code prohibitions against practicing law.
Judges should also exercise caution when asked for law-related advice in other
contexts as well. For example, if a family member asks for help drafting a demand letter,
a judge could agree to assist with clerical tasks such as proofreading the letter or acting as
a scrivener to fill in the blanks of an incomplete draft with information that the family
member provides or that is generally known. But if asked to advise on what to include in
the letter or how to write it, a judge must consider the likelihood that providing such
guidance would put the judge in the role of an advocate, either on behalf of the family
member or of a legal position that advances the interests of the family member, and for
that reason would be impermissible. (Adams, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 906-908 [providing
an issue analysis constituted the practice of law]; Quetel, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at p.
1434.)
As another example, a judge would be permitted to assist a family member asking
for help with an employment offer by discussing standard business terms included in the
offer, such as the amount of compensation, location of the position, or hours required. It
7 As noted at page 12, ante, a judge may act on his or her own behalf in connection
with litigation that also involves a member of the judge’s family. (Advisory Com.
commentary foll. canon 4G.)

13
may also be permissible for a judge to provide generalized, abstract information about
provisions usually included in a standard employment offer. But before discussing any of
the law-related terms actually included in an offer or advising the family member on
terms that may be missing from it, a judge should evaluate whether such advice would
cross the line into advocacy or negotiation and therefore constitute the practice of law.
V. Conclusion
Judges are prohibited by the California Constitution and California Code of
Judicial Ethics from practicing law. Based on the purposes of the constitutional
prohibition, case law interpreting the practice of law, and the provisions of the code, the
committee concludes that judges may not: (1) accept compensation for help with legal
matters; (2) neglect official duties in favor of a matter involving a family member; (3)
provide advice that would cause a reasonable person to question judicial independence or
integrity; or (4) act, or appear to act, as an advocate.
Within these constraints, however, judges may provide limited law-related advice
to a family member that does not constitute the practice of law. Such advice may include
statements of law, explanations of court procedures and court rules, and guidance about
legal requirements, similar to the kinds of information that judges are permitted and
experienced in providing to a self-represented party appearing before them. Judges may
also provide advice relating to a matter in which they are personally involved when
acting in their own personal interests or acting in a representative capacity as permitted
under the code.
It is often difficult for judges to assess whether and to what extent their advice to
family members in law-related matters might constitute the practice of law. The
examples and guidance provided may help judges evaluate whether specific advice they
have been asked to give a family member is permissible and how they may assist family
members generally in matters involving the law.

14

This opinion is advisory only (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.80(a), (e); Cal. Com.
Jud. Ethics Opns., Internal Operating Rules & Proc. (CJEO) 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 rule 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)).)

15
Appendix A - Cases Defining the Practice of Law
Acts That Are Clearly Prohibited as the Practice of Law
a. Performing professional services in a court proceeding (People v.
Merchants’ Protective Corp. (1922) 189 Cal. 531, 535) (Merchants’
Protective);
b. Preparing a legal instrument or contract (Merchants’ Protective, supra, 189
Cal. at p. 535);
c. Assuming the role of an advocate (Holloway v. Quetel (2015) 242
Cal.App.4th 1425, 1434);
d. Assisting in the preparation of settlement conference briefs (Adams v.
Commission on Judicial Performance (1995) 10 Cal.4th 866, 906-908
(Adams) [including drafting an “issue analysis” that was incorporated
almost verbatim into a brief]);
e. Advising the filing of a particular motion (Adams, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp.
906-908 [including reviewing and approving of the motion]);
f. Attempting to negotiate a dismissal of son’s criminal matters (Public
Reproval of Judge Schatz (1989) Com. on Jud. Performance, pp. 1-3);
g. Negotiating the settlement of a claim on behalf of a relative (Com. on Jud.
Performance, 1992 Ann. Rep., p. 13);
h. Providing advice about potential penalties and defenses to an alcohol-
related citation (Inquiry Concerning Saucedo (2015) 62 Cal.4th CJP Supp.
1, 11-12, 42-43; see id. at p. CJP Supp. 12 [including writing a letter that
detailed the potential penalties for the offense, identified several potential
defenses to the charge, and said that if a further notice to appear was issued,
he would “ ‘find out and let [Tovar’s son] know how Fresno County
handles minor in possession of alcohol cases whether filed as infractions or
misdemeanors’ ”]);
i. Offering to conduct legal research (Doan v. Commission on Judicial
Performance (1995) 11 Cal.4th 294, 320-321, 336-337 [including
reviewing trial transcripts and briefs]);
j. Offering unsolicited advice to defendants on what they should tell potential
employers about indictments against them (Inquiry Concerning Judge
Kreep (2017) 3 Cal.5th CJP Supp. 1, 35);

16
k. Attending the deposition of a fiancée where the parties were aware of the
judge’s position, which created the appearance that the judge was acting as
a legal advocate and was using the prestige of office to benefit the deponent
(Com. on Jud. Performance, 2010 Ann. Rep., p. 25).
Some Examples of Acts That Are Permitted
a. Directing a person to community resources for finding a lawyer (Advisory
Com. commentary foll. canon 3B(8); Rothman et al., Cal. Judicial Conduct
Handbook (4th ed. 2017) § 2:28 (Rothman));
b. Explaining court procedures (Advisory Com. commentary foll. canon
3B(8); Rothman, supra, § 2:28);
c. Informing a party of the process for securing witnesses (Advisory Com.
commentary foll. canon 3B(8); Rothman, supra, § 2:28);
d. Informing a party of missing elements of proof or other legal requirements
(Advisory Com. commentary foll. canon 3B(8); Rothman, supra, § 2:28).