CJEO Formal Opinion No. 2014-005 — Accepting Gifts of Little or Nominal Value Under The Ordinary Social Hospitality Exception

1
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINIONS
350 McAllister Street, Room 1144A
San Francisco, CA 94102
(855) 854-5366
www.JudicialEthicsOpinions.ca.gov
CJEO Formal Opinion No. 2014-005
[Issued August 26, 2014]
ACCEPTING GIFTS OF LITTLE OR NOMINAL VALUE UNDER THE
ORDINARY SOCIAL HOSPITALITY EXCEPTION
I. Question Presented
The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions has been asked to provide an opinion
on the following question:
May judges accept items of little or nominal value under the ordinary social
hospitality exception to the prohibitions against gifts in the California Code of
Judicial Ethics?
II. Summary of Conclusions
Items of little or nominal value when offered for no consideration as social
expressions of appreciation, esteem, or geniality are gifts within the meaning of the Code
of Judicial Ethics and subject to the canons governing gifts. Such gifts may not be
accepted if (1) they are offered by a party who has appeared or is likely to appear before
the judge, (2) they create a perception of influence or favor, or (3) a person aware of the

2
gift would reasonably believe that advantage was intended or would be obtained. When
determining if gifts are otherwise acceptable as ordinary social hospitality, judges should
consider whether they are ordinary by community standards, consistent with social
traditions, and hospitable in nature.
III. Authorities
A. Applicable Canons1
Terminology: “‘Gift’ denotes anything of value to the extent that consideration of
equal or greater value is not received and includes a rebate or discount in the price of
anything of value unless the rebate or discount is made in the regular course of business
to members of the public without regard to official status.”
Canon 1: “An independent, impartial, and honorable judiciary is indispensable to
justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and
enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that
the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved. The provisions of this
code are to be construed and applied to further that objective. . . .”
Canon 2A: “A judge shall . . . act at all times in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. . . .”
Advisory Committee commentary following canon 2A: “. . . A judge must avoid all
impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of
constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on the judge's
conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by other members of the community and
should do so freely and willingly.. [¶] The prohibition against behaving with impropriety
or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of
a judge. [¶] The test for the appearance of impropriety is whether a person aware of the
facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to act with integrity,
impartiality, and competence. . . .”
Canon 2B: “(1) A judge shall not allow . . . social . . . relationships to influence
the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment, nor shall a judge convey or permit others to
convey the impression that any individual is in a special position to influence the judge. .
[¶] (2) A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office or use the judicial title in any
1 All further references to canons and to Advisory Committee commentary are to
the California Code of Judicial Ethics unless otherwise indicated.

3
manner, including . . . to advance the pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or
others. . . .”
Canon 3C(3): “A judge shall require staff and court personnel under the judge’s
direction and control to observe appropriate standards of conduct . . . in the performance
of their official duties.”
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;
(2) demean the judicial office;
(3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties; or
(4) lead to frequent disqualification of the judge.”
Advisory Committee commentary following 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. . . . . [¶] Because a judge’s judicial
duties take precedence over all other activities (see Canon 3A), a judge must avoid
extrajudicial activities that might reasonably result in the judge being disqualified.”
Canon 4D(5): “Under no circumstance shall a judge accept a gift, bequest, or favor
if the donor is a party whose interests have come or are reasonably likely to come before
the judge. . . .”
Advisory Committee commentary following canon 4D(5): “In addition to the
prohibitions set forth in Canon 4D(5) regarding gifts, other laws may be applicable to
judges, including, for example, Code of Civil Procedure section 170.9 and the Political
Reform Act of 1974 (Gov. Code, § 81000 et seq.). . . . . [¶] The application of Canon
4D(5) requires recognition that a judge cannot reasonably be expected to anticipate all
persons or interests that may come before the court.”
Canon 4D(6): “A judge shall not accept . . . a gift, bequest, favor, or loan from
anyone except as hereinafter set forth, provided that acceptance would not reasonably be
perceived as intended to influence the judge in the performance of judicial duties:
“[¶] . . . [¶]
“(g) ordinary social hospitality; [¶] . . .”
Advisory Committee commentary following canon 4D(6)(g): “Although Canon
4D(6)(g) does not preclude ordinary social hospitality, a judge should carefully weigh
acceptance of such hospitality to avoid any appearance of impropriety or bias or any
appearance that the judge is misusing the prestige of judicial office. See Canons 2 and 2B.

4
A judge should also consider whether acceptance would affect the integrity, impartiality, or
independence of the judiciary. See Canon 2A.”
B. Other Authorities
Code of Civil Procedure, section 170.9.
Government Code, section 81000 et seq.
Adams v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1995) 10 Cal.4th 866, 903-906.
Inquiry Concerning Wasilenko (2005) 49 Cal.4th CJP Supp. 26.
Commission on Judicial Performance, Annual Report (1992) Private
Admonishments B and H, pages 12-13, and 1992 Advisory Letters 15 and 17,
page 15; Annual Report (1998) Public Admonishment of Judge John Shook, pages
24-26; Annual Report (2002) Private Admonishment 3, page 22.
California Judges Association, Ethics Committee Advisory Opinion No. 43.
Rothman, California Judicial Conduct Handbook (3d ed. 2007) sections 9.30, 9.37,
9.38, 9.44, 9.51, 9.52, 9.57; id. (2013 supp.) appendix 10.
Edwards, The Role of the Juvenile Court Judge: Practice and Ethics (2012) Gifts
to the Juvenile Court (Parts 1-3).
Geyh et al., Judicial Conduct and Ethics (5th ed. 2013) section 7.14[5].
IV. Discussion
A. Introduction
In the course of their daily lives, judges are sometimes offered items of little or
nominal value as tokens of appreciation, expressions of esteem, acts of generosity, or
gestures of geniality. The personal and professional circumstances in which these items
are offered are as varied as the items themselves. Examples provided to the committee
include: a homemade food item brought to the judge by a juror; a coupon or gift card
redeemable for a cup of coffee offered to a judge who has provided volunteer services; a
baseball cap or jersey from the hometown team or the judge’s alma mater; a bottle of
wine offered at a holiday by a neighbor; a ticket to a local sporting or cultural event

5
offered by an acquaintance; pizza delivered by a law firm to courtroom staff following a
long trial. As varied as the examples are, the items are similarly low in extrinsic dollar
value but high in intrinsic social value.
These items present ethical questions for judges because the canons prohibit the
receipt of gifts except in the narrowest of circumstances. A judge may not accept gifts or
favors under any circumstances from a party who has appeared or is likely to appear
before the judge (canon 4D(5)). A judge also may not accept a gift from a nonparty if the
gift would reasonably be perceived as intended to influence the judge in the performance
of judicial duties (canon 4D(6)). Even when not prohibited under either of these
provisions, gifts may only be accepted if they fall within specified exceptions, one of
which is “ordinary social hospitality” (canon 4D(6)(g)).
The gracious and spontaneous offering of the small-value items the committee has
been asked to examine might lead an unwary judge to accept them based on several
faulty assumptions. One is that the items are de minimis and therefore do not fall within
the gift ban in the canons. Another incorrect assumption is that the ordinary social
hospitality exception is a catchall covering any circumstance not otherwise specified in
the gift exceptions. And finally, because the items are relatively insignificant in value, a
judge might erroneously assume that any ethical violation incurred by acceptance would
also be insignificant and easily cured by disclosing the gift or donating it to others.
The committee has been asked for guidance on avoiding these pitfalls. This
opinion addresses whether items of little or nominal value are gifts within the meaning of
the code, and if so, how to determine whether they may or may not be accepted under the
gift canons, and specifically, the ordinary social hospitality exception.
B. Gifts Defined
The California Code of Judicial Ethics defines a gift as “anything of value to the
extent that consideration of equal or greater value is not received and includes a rebate or
discount in the price of anything of value unless the rebate or discount is made in the
regular course of business to members of the public without regard to official status.”

6
(Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, Terminology, “Gift.”) This definition was added by amendment
to the terminology section of the code in 2013. Prior to the amendment, there was some
question as to whether an item of nominal value constituted a gift (see Cal. Judges
Assoc., Formal Ethics Opinion No. 43 (1996 rev.) p. 2 [only when property exchanged
without consideration is truly “de minimis” can it be said that it does not constitute a gift]
(CJA Opinion No. 43)). Under the broad definition provided in the code’s Terminology
section, gifts are “anything of value.” Even gifts of nominal value, therefore, are subject
to the canons that govern gifts.
The code’s definition of a gift references consideration, price, and the regular
course of business, which suggests that a way to determine if an item is “anything of
value” is to consider whether it could be exchanged for consideration on the open market.
For example, commercially purchased food has market value by virtue of its purchase
and would fall within the definition of a gift. Even homemade food items have a value
because of the purchased ingredients and individual effort in preparation. In either case,
when a judge or the judge’s staff2 is offered such an item, the judge must consider the
item a gift governed by the canons.3
2 Items offered to staff that are related to court business fall within the canons
governing gifts (canon 3C(3) [judges must require staff and court personnel under their
direction and control to observe appropriate standards of conduct in the performance of
their duties]; Rothman, Cal. Judicial Conduct Handbook (3d ed. 2007) § 9.57, pp. 503-
504) (Rothman).
3 Judge Leonard Edwards (Ret.) provides another example in his handbook, The
Role of the Juvenile Court Judge: Practice and Ethics (2012) Gifts to the Juvenile Court
(Part 2), pages 69-70 . He discusses artwork created by a special-needs dependent child
offered to a juvenile court judge. (Edwards, supra, p. 70.) Such a personalized
homemade item would not be exchanged on the open market and would not fall within
the gift definition in the code. Despite its significant therapeutic value to the dependent
child, the item would not be considered “anything of value” for purposes of the canon
prohibiting gifts from a party, discussed below, and could therefore be accepted by the
judge. See also, Judge Edwards’s distinction between items offered to a juvenile court
judge and gifts of value offered to the juvenile court, which includes a discussion of the
applicable rules for acceptance of such gifts by the court. (Id., pp. 67-73.)

7
C. Canons Governing Gifts4
The canons prohibiting acceptance of gifts are fundamental to the principles of
judicial independence and integrity: the purpose of the general gift ban is to ensure
impartial decisions. “When a judge receives something of value from a litigant or a
lawyer, there exists the potential that, at best, it will be perceived that the donor will
receive some advantage from the judge or, at worst, that a bribe has been given.”
(Rothman, supra, § 9.30, p. 471.) To fulfill that purpose, canon 4D(5) prohibits gifts
under any circumstance and without exception from “a party whose interests have come
or are reasonably likely to come before the judge.” Canon 4D(6) extends the prohibition
to gifts from a nonparty, except in specified circumstances, and even in those
circumstances, “provided that acceptance would not reasonably be perceived as intended
to influence the judge in the performance of judicial duties.” The specified exceptions to
the nonparty gift ban include “ordinary social hospitality” (canon 4D(6)(g)).5
Read together, canons 4D(5) and 4D(6) require that when offered a gift of nominal
value, a judge must consider three questions in order to determine if the gift might be
4 Code of Civil Procedure section 170.9 also governs gifts and sets dollar limitations
on gifts a judge is permitted to accept even if they are otherwise permissible under the
California Code of Judicial Ethics, which sets no monetary limit. Specifically, Code of
Civil Procedure section 170.9 currently sets a $390 limit on gifts a judge is permitted to
accept from a nonparty under several exceptions in canon 4D(6), including the ordinary
social hospitality exception in canon 4D(6)(g). (Code Civ. Pro., § 170.9(f); see Rothman
(2013 supp.) append. 10, pp. 7-12 (Rothman & MacLaren Guide to the No-Gift Rule).)
This opinion does not address Code of Civil Procedure section 170.9 because gifts of
nominal value fall below the set limit and would not otherwise be prohibited under the
statute. This opinion also does not address financial interest disclosure and reporting
requirements for gifts under the Political Reform Act of 1974 (see Gov. Code § 8100 et
seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 18110 et seq.; Rothman, supra, append. 10, Rothman &
MacLaren Guide to the No-Gift Rule, p. 12.)
5 As Judge Rothman notes, donation of a gift is not a specified exception to the ban
on gifts in canons 4D(5) or canon 4D(6). (Rothman, supra, § 9.51, pp. 496-497.)
Accepting improper gifts and donating or re-gifting them to charity does not avoid or
cure a violation of the California Code of Judicial Ethics. (Ibid.)

8
accepted: (1) Is it offered by a party? (2) Would acceptance create a perception of
influence? and (3) Is it otherwise acceptable as ordinary social hospitality?
1. Gifts Offered by a Party Are Banned
Canon 4D(5) prohibits acceptance of gifts from a party whose interests have come
or are reasonably likely to come before the judge. On its face, this broadly includes past,
present, and future parties. No exceptions or time limits are provided in the text of canon
4D(5) so it would appear that the absolute ban on gifts from parties extends to any party
who has appeared or will appear before the judge in the judge’s career. (Rothman,
supra, § 9.37, pp. 478-499; id., appen. 10, Rothman & MacLaren Guide to the No-Gift
Rule, p. 4) [canon 4D(5) ban on gifts from parties lasts forever].)
A judge offered a gift of little or nominal value will know if the person offering
the gift is a current party and has a duty to know whether the person offering the gift is a
former party. Under either circumstance, the judge may not accept the gift even if it is
offered in the context of ordinary social hospitality.
If the gift is not offered by a former or current party, the judge must next consider
whether the person offering the gift is reasonably likely to appear before the judge in the
future. The Advisory Committee commentary to canon 4D(5) acknowledges that “[t]he
application of Canon 4D(5) requires recognition that a judge cannot reasonably be
expected to anticipate all persons or interests that may come before the court.” (Advisory
Com. commentary, Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, foll. canon 4D(5).)
Although the list of reasonably likely parties could theoretically include anyone in
the world, Judge Rothman observes that, in practical terms, the circumstances in which a
judge may accept a gift are limited by the exceptions in canon 4D(6)(a)-(j), and in those
circumstances, the judge will be in a position to know or find out whether the donor is
reasonably likely to appear (Rothman, supra, § 9.37, pp. 479-498; id., Rothman &
MacLaren Guide to the No-Gift Rule, p. 4). The committee agrees that judges will know
or be able to reasonably determine if a person offering a gift of little or nominal value is
likely to appear as a party before the judge.

9
The committee notes, however, that the size of the community and of the judge’s
court may factor into the likelihood of someone appearing before the judge. Although
the prohibition against accepting gifts from a party applies equally to all judges, the
reasonable likelihood of a party appearing before a judge varies with the circumstances of
the judge’s position and the community in which the judge sits. (Inquiry Concerning
Wasilenko (2005) 49 Cal.4th CJP Supp. 26, 46 [canons impose uniform statewide
standards although ethical duties may arise more frequently in a small town where a
judge knows a party than in a major metropolitan area].) If a judge is one of very few
bench officers in a small community, the likelihood of hearing any particular community
member’s matter is relatively high compared to that of a judge who is one of hundreds of
judicial officers in a geographically large or densely populated community.
In most circumstances, attorneys do not appear in court as parties, so gifts from
attorneys are usually not subject to the absolute ban on gifts from parties imposed by
canon 4D(5). (Rothman, supra, § 9.38, p. 480; id., appen. 10, Rothman & MacLaren
Guide to the No-Gift Rule, p. 4.) However, gifts from attorneys who appear before
judges in the course of business may create a perception of influence, which would
preclude acceptance under canon 4D(6), as discussed below.6
2. Nonparty Gifts That Raise a Perception of Influence Are Banned
Canon 4D(6) prohibits judges from accepting gifts from a nonparty that would
reasonably be perceived as intended to influence the judge in the performance of judicial
duties. Canon 4D(6) underscores that judicial impartiality is so fundamental to the
6 The committee notes that rule 5-300 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the
State Bar prohibits attorneys from giving “anything of value,” either directly or
indirectly, to a judge or court employee, except in specified circumstances. However,
whether an attorney may give a gift is not dispositive of whether a judge may accept the
gift under the canons and statutes governing gifts.

10
public’s trust in the integrity of the judiciary that it is repeated throughout the code.7 The
test for the appearance of impropriety is an objective one: “whether a person aware of the
facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to act with integrity,
impartiality, and competence.” (Advisory Com. commentary, Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, foll.
canon 2A.)
Judges offered gifts of nominal value from a non-party must apply this objective
test to determine if acceptance would create a perception of influence. Gifts offered by
attorneys must be closely scrutinized. In Adams v. Commission on Judicial Performance
(1995) 10 Cal.4th 866 (Adams), the court found that accepting gifts from attorneys who
appeared before the judge is “‘“inherently wrong”’” and “‘“has a subtle, corruptive
effect, no matter how much a particular judge may feel that he is above improper
influence.”’” (Id., at p. 879.)8 Although in Adams the particular attorneys regularly
appeared before the judge, the committee agrees with Judge Rothman that “[i]n light of
this very strong statement by the California Supreme Court, whenever a judge is offered a
gift from a lawyer or law firm, the judge should view the offer as presumptively
improper.” (Rothman, supra, § 9.52, p. 497.) Indeed, when judges have been disciplined
for improperly accepting gifts, the donor has most often been an attorney.9 Judges
7 (See canons 1 [upholding the integrity and independence of the judiciary], 2
[avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities], 2A [promoting
public confidence], 2B(1) [improper to permit others to convey a position of influence],
and 4A(1) [prohibiting conduct that casts reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act
impartially].)
8 In the example provided to the committee of a pizza delivered by a law firm to
courtroom staff following a long trial, Adams makes clear that such gifts are
unacceptable. (See ante, fn. 2.) Judge Rothman advises that improper perishable gifts
should be disposed of or returned, and either way, a letter should be sent documenting
that the gift was not accepted and advising the sender that to do so would have violated
the canon. (Rothman, supra, § 9.51, pp. 496-497, fn. 176.)
9 (See Adams, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 897-901 [improper gifts of dinner, computer,
fee writeoffs, condo, and fishing trip from attorneys]; Com. on Jud. Performance, Annual
Rep. (1998) Public Admonishment of Judge John Shook, pp. 24-26 [improper gifts of

11
offered gifts of even nominal value from attorneys should presume they are likely to be
improper and carefully consider whether a person aware of the gift might entertain a
reasonable perception of influence.
Once a judge has determined that a gift of little or nominal value is not offered by
a past, present or future party (canon 4D(5)) and does not create a perception of influence
(canon 4D(6)), the judge must consider whether the gift falls within the exception for
ordinary social hospitality.
3. The Ordinary Social Hospitality Exception
Canon 4D(6)(g) excepts a gift offered in the context of “ordinary social
hospitality,” provided the gift is not otherwise prohibited under canons 4D(5) and
4D(6).10 Although the term “ordinary social hospitality” is not defined in the code,
guidance is provided elsewhere.
Seeking to address when invitations to social events hosted by attorneys cease to
be ordinary social hospitality and become unacceptable gifts, the California Judges
Association (CJA) provides the following definition in an advisory opinion:
“‘[O]rdinary social hospitality’ . . . is that type of social event or other gift which
is so common among people in the judge’s community that no reasonable person
would believe that (1) the donor was intending to or would obtain any advantage
or (2) the donee would believe that the donor intended to obtain any advantage.”
(CJA Opinion No. 43, supra, p. 4.)
lunch and transport for the judge and judge’s staff by an attorney]; Com. on Jud.
Performance, Annual Rep. (1992) Private Admonishments B & H, pp. 12-13, and 1992
Advisory Letters 15 & 17, p. 15 [improper unspecified gifts from attorneys who practiced
before the judges]; Com. on Jud. Performance, Annual Rep. (2002) Private
Admonishment 3, p. 22 [improper unspecified gifts from attorneys].)
10 As the Advisory Committee commentary cautions, “[a]lthough Canon 4D(6)(g)
does not preclude ordinary social hospitality, a judge should carefully weigh acceptance
of such hospitality to avoid any appearance of impropriety or bias or any appearance that
the judge is misusing the prestige of judicial office. . . . [Citation.] A judge should also
consider whether acceptance would affect the integrity, impartiality, or independence of
the judiciary.” (Advisory Com. commentary, Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, foll. canon
4D(6)(g).).

12
This definition has been cited in a wide variety of jurisdictions and sources
(Adams, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 880; Rothman, supra, § 9.44, p. 489; Geyh, supra, §
7.14[5], p. 7-57; Ariz. Jud. Ethics Advisory Com., Opinion 95-13, pp. 1-2; Okla. Jud.
Ethics Advisory Panel, Opinion 2005-1, p. 2). The committee agrees with this definition,
which incorporates the prohibitions of canons 4D(5) and 4D(6), as discussed above, and
focuses on a reasonable perception of an intent to gain advantage. (See Adams, supra, 10
Cal.4th at p. 880 [“in determining the propriety of activity that arguably might qualify as
social hospitality, the focus is upon the reasonable perceptions of an objective observer . . .
.”].)
CJA Opinion No. 43 also focuses on the “commonness” of the gift in the judge’s
community. This focus reflects the concept “that within a judge’s community, residents
will socialize in the normal course of their lives and that judges should not be barred from
joining them.” (Geyh et al., Judicial Conduct and Ethics (5th ed. 2013) § 7.14[5], p. 7-57
(Geyh); see Advisory Com. commentary, Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, 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].) The words of
the ordinary social hospitality exception reflect that concept, and provide analytical tools
for judges to use in determining whether the exception applies to gifts they have
determined are not otherwise banned under canons 4D(5) and 4D(6).
a. Ordinary
Ordinary social hospitality gifts are those that are ordinary by community
standards (CJA Opinion No. 43, supra, p. 4 [factor 1]). In the context of a gift of
nominal value, a judge should consider whether the gift appears customary or reasonable,
rather than excessive, in the community in which it is offered. A gift that would fall
within the exception would be one that is ordinarily exchanged among members of the
community. A gift card offered in thanks to volunteers, for example, may be an ordinary
and reasonable practice in some communities, but not in others.

13
b. Social
Social traditions and purposes are also indicators of whether gifts are ordinary
social hospitality (CJA Opinion No. 43, supra, p. 4 [factors 2, 6]). Judge Rothman makes
the distinction between relationships for the purpose of socializing and relationships for
the purpose of advancing business interests. (Rothman, supra, § 9.44, pp. 489-490.)
Gifts that have a business purpose or advance the business interests of the person offering
the gift do not fall within the ordinary social hospitality exception. (Ibid.; see canon
2B(2) [prohibiting use of prestige of office for personal or pecuniary advantage of
others].) When offered a gift of nominal value, a judge should consider whether it is
something that would traditionally be offered in circumstances involving socializing
rather than business.
Careful consideration of this distinction should be given in the example of a
baseball cap or jersey bearing the logo of the hometown team or the judge’s alma mater.
Is the cap being offered for the purpose of socializing as opposed to advancing the
interests of the team or school, and is it traditionally offered regardless of judicial office?
c. Hospitality
Gifts of ordinary social hospitality must also be hospitable in nature and bear some
relationship to hosting or being hosted. A judge’s own social conduct is a reasonable
measure of hospitality (CJA Opinion No. 43, supra, p. 4 [factors 3, 5]). If the judge is
hosting a social event, is the gift something the judge would give a host if the judge were
a guest? If the judge is a guest, is the gift something the judge would offer his or her
guests when hosting a similar event? A history of reciprocal hospitality between the
judge and the person offering the gift supports an inference that the gift is ordinary social
hospitality. A gift that is commensurate with the occasion is also hospitable in nature,
such as a bottle of wine offered at a holiday by a neighbor. A gift of a ticket to a local
sporting or cultural event offered by an acquaintance, however, may not qualify as

14
hospitality. If the acquaintance is not hosting the event, and the judge will not be the
acquaintance’s guest, the ticket may not be hospitable in nature.11
VI. Conclusions
Items of little or nominal value are subject to the canons governing gifts. Under
canons 4D(5) and 4D(6), judges may not accept items of little or nominal value if the gift
is offered by a party, if acceptance of the gift would create a perception of influence, or if
a reasonable person would believe that advantage was intended or would be obtained by
acceptance of the gift.
In the committee’s opinion, items of little or nominal value that are not otherwise
banned may be accepted under the ordinary social hospitality exception in canon
4D(6)(g) if the gift is ordinary by community standards, offered for social traditions or
purposes, and hospitable in nature.

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)).
11 Judge Rothman provides the similar example of an attorney who offers a judge
two tickets to a professional sporting event that the attorney cannot use (Rothman, supra,
§ 9.52, p. 498). He similarly concludes that it would not be appropriate for the judge to
accept the tickets, unless the relationship with the attorney is such that the judge would
not sit on any case involving the attorney. For support, he cites another exception under
canon 4D(6), allowing gifts from a person whose preexisting relationship with the judge
would require disqualification (Rothman, § 9.52, p. 498, citing former canon 4D(6)(f),
now canon 4D(6)(a)). Although this opinion examines only the ordinary social
hospitality exception, Judge Rothman’s example illustrates that judges should be familiar
with all of the canon 4D(6) exceptions when considering whether gifts that are not
otherwise banned may be accepted.