CJEO Oral Advice Summary No. 2015-011 — Use of Judicial Title on a Scholarship Fund

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 Oral Advice Summary No. 2015-011
[Posted July 20, 2015]
USE OF JUDICIAL TITLE ON A SCHOLARSHIP FUND
I. Question:
May a legal educational institution name a scholarship after a sitting judicial
officer and raise donations to fund the scholarship in the judge’s name?
II. Oral Advice Provided:
A 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.
Canon 2B(2) broadly prohibits lending the prestige of judicial office or using the
judicial title in any manner to advance the interests of others. (Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, canon
2b(2).)1 Canon 4C(d)(i) prohibits solicitation of funds or other fundraising activities.
1 All further references to canons are to the California Code of Judicial Ethics.

2
Read together, these canons preclude a judge from allowing his or her name to be used in
any manner that involves a fundraising activity for the direct benefit of another, including
the use of judicial title in scholarship fundraising activities. (California Judges
Association (CJA) Judicial Ethics Update (1983) I.A. [a judge is prohibited from
allowing his or her name to appear in the letterhead of a scholarship fund committee
when the letterhead is to be used in soliciting members of the bar and corporations to
donate money to the scholarship fund]; CJA Judicial Ethics Update (1982) I.C.
[prohibiting the same use of judicial title on the letterhead of a scholarship fund
committee honoring a deceased judge when the letter is to be used in soliciting members
of the bar and corporations to donate money to the fund].)
While the canons contain several exceptions for activities concerning the law, the
legal system, and the administration of justice, there is no applicable exception for
fundraising activities using the judicial title for the direct benefit of a scholarship fund or
recipient. For example, canon 4B authorizes judges to participate in educational
activities concerning legal matters, but those activities are still subject to the requirements
of the code, including the canons prohibiting fundraising. As the advisory committee
commentary to canon 4B explains, this exception applies narrowly to legal educational
materials where the use of judicial title is necessary to identify a judge as an author or
speaker. (Advisory Com. commentary, Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, foll. canon 4B.)
Similarly, canon 4C(d)(iv) prohibits the use of judicial prestige for fundraising, but
permits a judge to be a speaker, guest of honor, or recipient of an award by a public or
charitable service so long as the judge does not personally solicit funds. While naming a
scholarship after a judge is indeed an honor, the solicitation of donations to fund the
scholarship will necessarily use the judge’s name in a manner that amounts to personal
solicitation. (CJA Ethics Update (2009) IV.C.1. [a women lawyers association may
establish and exclusively fund a scholarship in the judge’s name with no other
contributions to the scholarship fund to be sought or accepted].)

3
In the event that the honor is bestowed without the judge’s prior authorization, the
judge must take reasonable steps to correct the impermissible use of judicial title for
fundraising activities. (Rothman, Cal. Judicial Conduct Handbook (3d ed. 2007) § 10.51,
p. 562 [a judge must make reasonable efforts to ensure against unauthorized uses of
judicial title for fundraising, including appropriate notification and, if necessary, a request
that clarification be sent to any recipients of unauthorized solicitations].)

This oral advice summary 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
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)).