CJEO Formal Opinion No. 2016-008 — Attending Political Fundraising or Endorsement Events

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 2016-008
[Issued March 4, 2016]
ATTENDING POLITICAL FUNDRAISING OR ENDORSEMENT EVENTS
I. Question Presented
The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions has been asked to provide an opinion
on the following questions:
Under what circumstances does the California Code of Judicial Ethics
permit a judicial officer to attend, speak, appear as the guest of honor, or receive
an award at a political event where a nonjudicial candidate will be endorsed or
funds will be raised? To what extent are these activities permissible in the context
of a judicial campaign?
Does the code impose an obligation on judges attending a political event, or
engaging in the above-described activities, to inspect promotional material used
for such an event to ensure that the judicial title and prestige of office are not used
to advance the interests of the candidate or the political organization?

2
II. Summary of Conclusions
Judges are broadly prohibited from engaging in political activities that may create
the appearance of political bias or impropriety. (Canon 5.) They are specifically
prohibited from certain activities that are usually an integral part of political events, such
as making speeches for a political organization or nonjudicial candidate, and publicly
endorsing or personally soliciting funds for a nonjudicial candidate or political
organization.1 (Canon 5A(2) & (3).)
In deciding whether to attend a political fundraising or endorsement event, judges
must consider whether their presence may create the appearance that they are endorsing
or fundraising for a nonjudicial candidate or political organization. When attending, the
types of activities that would be likely to create the appearance of political bias include
being introduced as a judge, receiving an award, or being the guest of honor at the event.
Making speeches for a political organization or nonjudicial candidate is prohibited
(canon 5A(2)), but speaking about the law, the legal system, or the administration of
justice is permitted at a political event so long as the activity does not create the
appearance of political bias and is otherwise consistent with the code. (Canon 5D.) If the
event is being held for the purpose of endorsement or fundraising for a nonjudicial
candidate or political party, judges should consider whether speechmaking on even
permissible topics would create the appearance of speaking on behalf of, or lending the
prestige of office to, the candidate or political organization.
1 “Political organization” is a term defined in the code to include political parties or other
groups with the principal purpose of furthering candidates for nonjudicial office. (See p.
4, post.) This opinion discusses the canon 5 restrictions on political activities and
specifically focuses on activities at political events held for the purpose of endorsement
or fundraising, which may include events involving groups that fall within the definition
of political organizations. As is the pattern in canon 5 (see p. 8, post), this opinion uses
the defined term “political organization” when discussing activities involving such
groups in the broader context of political fundraising or endorsement events. (Canon 5
[restrictions on political activities generally]; canon 5A(2) & (3) [specific restrictions on
activities involving political organizations or nonjudicial candidates]; canon 5B
[permitting specific activities at political gatherings].)

3
Judges may endorse candidates for judicial office and may speak at political
gatherings on their behalf. (Canon 5A, C.) Candidates for judicial office may attend, be
introduced, and speak on their own behalf or on behalf of another candidate for judicial
office at a political event so long as the candidate does not commit to a position on an
issue that is likely to come before the courts and does not endorse or solicit funds for a
candidate for nonjudicial office or a political organization. (Canon 5A(2) & (3), B(1)(a),
C.)
While canon 5 does not include an express obligation on the part of judges who
are not running for election to inspect promotional material used for political fundraising
or endorsement events they are attending, judges do have an affirmative obligation to
guard against the impermissible use of their names or judicial titles. (Canon 2B(2).) The
committee advises judges to assess the likelihood that their attendance will be known to,
and possibly used by the promoters of the event, and if so, it would be wise for judges to
make reasonable efforts to ensure their title will not be used to promote the event. This
may include informing the promoters in advance of the ethical restrictions and reviewing
promotional material.
III. Authorities
A. Applicable Canons2
Preamble: “The code consists of broad declarations called canons, with subparts,
and a terminology section. Following many canons is a commentary section prepared by
the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics. The
commentary, by explanation and example, provides guidance as to the purpose and
meaning of the canons. The commentary does not constitute additional rules and should
not be so construed. All members of the judiciary must comply with the code.
Compliance is required to preserve the integrity of the bench and to ensure the confidence
of the public. [¶] The canons should be read together as a whole, and each provision
should be construed in context and consistent with every other provision. . . .”
2 All further references to canons and to Advisory Committee commentary are to the
California Code of Judicial Ethics unless otherwise indicated.

4
Terminology: “‘Candidate for judicial office’ is a person seeking election to or
retention of a judicial office. A person becomes a candidate for judicial office as soon as
he or she makes a public announcement of candidacy, declares or files as a candidate
with the election authority, or authorizes solicitation or acceptance of contributions or
support.”
“‘Law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.’ When a judge engages
in an activity that relates to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, the
judge should also consider factors such as whether the activity upholds the integrity,
impartiality, and independence of the judiciary (Canons 1 and 2A), whether it impairs
public confidence in the judiciary (Canon 2), whether the judge is allowing the activity to
take precedence over judicial duties (Canon 3A), and whether engaging in the activity
would cause the judge to be disqualified (Canon 4A(4)).”
“‘Political organization’ means a political party, political action committee, or
other group, the principal purpose of which is to further the election or appointment of
candidates to nonjudicial office.”
Canon 2B(2): “A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office or use the
judicial title in any manner, including any oral or written communication, to advance the
pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or others. . . .”
Canon 4A(1): “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 . .
. .”
Canon 4C(3): “Subject to the following limitations and the other requirements of
this code, [¶] . . . [¶] (d) a judge . . .
“(i) . . . shall not personally participate in the solicitation of funds or other
fundraising activities . . . . [¶] . . . [¶]
“(iii) shall not personally participate in membership solicitation if the solicitation
might reasonably be perceived as coercive or if the membership solicitation is essentially
a fundraising mechanism . . . .
“(iv) shall not permit the use of the prestige of his or her judicial office for
fundraising or membership solicitation but may be a speaker, guest of honor, or recipient
of an award for public or charitable service provided the judge does not personally solicit
funds and complies with Canons 4A(1) . . . .”

5
Advisory Committee commentary following canon 4C(3)(d): “[A] judge must . . .
make reasonable efforts to ensure that . . . others subject to the judge’s direction and
control do not solicit funds on the judge’s behalf for any purpose, charitable or
otherwise. ”
Canon 5: “A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or
campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of
the judiciary. [¶] Judges and candidates for judicial office are entitled to entertain their
personal views on political questions. They are not required to surrender their rights or
opinions as citizens. They shall, however, not engage in political activity that may create
the appearance of political bias or impropriety. Judicial independence, impartiality, and
integrity shall dictate the conduct of judges and candidates for judicial office. [¶] Judges
and candidates for judicial office shall comply with all applicable election, election
campaign, and election campaign fundraising laws and regulations.”
Advisory Committee commentary following canon 5: “The term ‘political activity’
should not be construed so narrowly as to prevent private comment.”
Canon 5A: “Judges and candidates for judicial office shall not [¶] . . . [¶] (2) make
speeches for a political organization or candidate for nonjudicial office or publicly
endorse or publicly oppose a candidate for nonjudicial office; or [¶] (3) personally solicit
funds for a political organization or nonjudicial candidate . . . .”
Advisory Committee commentary following canon 5A: “In judicial elections,
judges are neither required to shield themselves from campaign contributions nor are
they prohibited from soliciting contributions from anyone, including attorneys.
Nevertheless, there are necessary limits on judges facing election if the appearance of
impropriety is to be avoided. In soliciting campaign contributions or endorsements, a
judge shall not use the prestige of judicial office in a manner that would reasonably be
perceived as coercive. See Canons 1, 2, 2A, and 2B . . . .
“Although attendance at political gatherings is not prohibited, any such
attendance should be restricted so that it would not constitute an express public
endorsement of a nonjudicial candidate or a measure not affecting the law, the legal
system, or the administration of justice otherwise prohibited by this canon. [¶]
“Under this canon, a judge may publicly endorse a candidate for judicial office.
Such endorsements are permitted because judicial officers have a special obligation to
uphold the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the judiciary and are in a unique
position to know the qualifications necessary to serve as a competent judicial officer.”

6
Canon 5B: “(1) A candidate for judicial office . . . shall not: [¶] (a) make
statements to the electorate . . . that commit the candidate . . . with respect to cases,
controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the courts . . . .”
Canon 5C: “Candidates for judicial office may speak to political gatherings only
on their own behalf or on behalf of another candidate for judicial office.”
Canon 5D: “A judge or candidate for judicial office may engage in activity in
relation to measures concerning improvement of the law, the legal system, or the
administration of justice, only if the conduct is consistent with this code.”
B. Other Authorities
Williams–Yulee v. Florida Bar (2015) 575 U.S. ___ [135 S.Ct. 1656, 191 L.Ed.2d
570]
Wolfson v. Concannon (9th Cir. 2016) 811 F.3d 1176 [2016 WL 363202]
Commission on Judicial Performance:
Annual Report (1986) advisory letter, page 5
Annual Report (1987) advisory letter, page 11
Annual Report (1989) advisory letter 24, page 25
Annual Report (1992) advisory letter 12, page 14
Annual Report (1997) advisory letter 23, page 22
Annual Report (2010) advisory letter 9, page 25
Annual Report (2011), private admonishment 4, page 23
Inquiry Concerning Judge Zellerbach, Public Admonishment (2011) pages 4-5
Rothman, California Judicial Conduct Handbook (3d ed. 2007) sections 10.16,
10.17, 10.53, 11.01, 11.07, 11.18
California Judges Association, Judicial Elections Handbook (13th ed. 2014) pages
57-58
California Judges Association, Ethics Committee (2000) Advisory Opinion No. 50
California Judges Association: Judicial Ethics Update (1982) page 5; Judicial
Ethics Update (1987) II.A; Judicial Ethics Update (1995) II.A.6; Judicial Ethics
Update (1997) III.M; Judicial Ethics Update (2000) III.C; Judicial Ethics Update
(2005) III.1; Judicial Ethics Update (2013/2014) III.4

7
IV. Discussion
A. Restrictions on Political Activity
Canon 5 states that “A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in
political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or
impartiality of the judiciary.”3 This restrictive language “makes clear that the issue of
inappropriate political activity is connected to the central principal of judicial ethics: the
integrity of the judicial decision.” (Rothman, Cal. Judicial Conduct Handbook (3d ed.
2007) § 11.01, p. 567 (Rothman); see Williams–Yulee v. Florida Bar (2015) 575 U.S.
___, 135 S.Ct. 1656, 1665 (Williams–Yulee) [restrictions narrowly tailored to achieve the
compelling state interest in upholding public confidence in the judiciary withstand strict
scrutiny]; Wolfson v. Concannon (9th Cir. 2016) 811 F.3d 1176 (Wolfson) [under
Williams–Yulee, a state may properly restrict judges and judicial candidates from taking
part in political activities that undermine the public’s confidence that judges base rulings
on law and not on party affiliations].)
The text of canon 5 recognizes that judges do not surrender their rights as citizens
but also places general and specific restrictions on the exercise of those rights. As a
broad general matter, judges may not “engage in political activity that may create the
appearance of political bias or impropriety.” (Canon 5.) Thus, the fundamental test a
judge must apply when considering whether to participate as a citizen in any political
activity is whether the judge’s conduct will create the appearance of political bias or
impropriety.
The subparts of canon 5 prohibit specified activities, presumably because they
have been deemed to reflect impermissible political bias. Canon 5A(2) and (3) prohibit
3 The structure of the California Code of Judicial Ethics enactments is explained in the
preamble as consisting of “broad declarations called canons, with subparts, and a
terminology section,” followed by Supreme Court Advisory Committee commentary that
provides guidance on the meaning of the canons. (Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, Preamble.)

8
judges from making speeches for a political organization or candidate for nonjudicial
office, publicly endorsing or opposing a candidate for nonjudicial office, or personally
soliciting funds for a political organization or nonjudicial candidate. Canon 5A(3)
prohibits contributions to nonjudicial candidates or parties over certain amounts.4 Canon
5B also prohibits a judicial candidate from making statements that commit the candidate
with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the courts.
(Canon 5A(2), (3), B(1)(a).)
Other subparts of canon 5 specify activities that are permitted. Canon 5C permits
“[c]andidates for judicial office [to] speak to political gatherings only on their own behalf
or on behalf of another candidate for judicial office.” And significantly, canon 5D
permits “[a] judge or candidate for judicial office [to] engage in activity in relation to
measures concerning improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of
justice, only if the conduct is consistent with this code.”
Read together, canon 5 and its subparts (1) generally prohibit any political
activities that create the appearance of political bias, (2) specifically prohibit certain
activities that have been determined to be impermissible, such as public endorsements
and personal solicitations, and (3) specifically permit certain activities, such as those
concerning law and legal system improvements, so long as other canons are not violated,
including the canon 5 prohibition on activities that create the appearance of political bias
or impropriety.
Given this combination of prohibitions and permissions, the committee has been
asked to discuss what conduct is permissible at a political event where a nonjudicial
candidate will be endorsed or funds will be raised, including when a judicial candidate is
4 While the contribution limits appear to be somewhat arbitrary, the committee assumes
the canon’s authors concluded that contributions in excess of these limits would be
deemed to show political bias. (See Wolfson, supra, 811 F.3d 1176, fn. 10 [judges and
judicial candidates may make limited contributions to another candidate or political
organization as one of the few exceptions to a valid prohibition on endorsement or
campaign participation].)

9
attending the event as part of his or her campaign for judicial office. This opinion
provides guidance to judges on how to decide whether to (1) attend, (2) speak, or (3)
appear as the guest of honor or receive an award at a political fundraising or endorsement
event. The opinion also discusses how those activities might differ for judicial candidates
and what obligations a judge has regarding promotional materials for such a political
gathering.
B. Political Fundraising or Endorsement Events
There are different types of political events and the same political activity in
different circumstances will have different ethical implications. Political groups may
meet for no reason other than to learn about the law or, for example, to visit or discuss an
historical site. The committee has been asked, however, to address political events that
are held for the purpose of fundraising for, or endorsement of, nonjudicial candidates or
political parties.
While it is clear a judge may never engage in certain political activities at such
events, i.e., personal fundraising for or public endorsement of a nonjudicial candidate or
political organization, there are other activities, such as speaking on the law, and silent
presence during solicitation or endorsement by others, that may or may not be
permissible under canon 5 depending on whether the context creates the appearance of
political bias.
C. Political Activities
1. Attendance
As we have described, a judge or judicial candidate is prohibited from engaging in
any political activities that create the appearance of political bias and canon 5A
specifically prohibits personally soliciting funds for a political organization or nonjudicial
candidate and publicly endorsing or opposing a candidate for nonjudicial office. (Canon
5A(2), (3).) Under these provisions a judge may not attend a political event and

10
personally request donations or publicly state his or her endorsement of or opposition to a
nonjudicial candidate. (Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP), Annual Rep. (2010)
advisory letter 9, p. 25 [advisory letter issued for publicly endorsing a candidate for
nonjudicial office, although the judge promptly arranged to have the endorsement
removed]; CJP, Annual Rep. (1989) advisory letter 24, p. 25 [advisory letter issued for
endorsing a candidate for city council]; CJP, Annual Rep. (1987) advisory letter, p. 11
[advisory letter issued for publicly endorsing candidates for nonjudicial office].)
As the Advisory Committee commentary to canon 5A illustrates, however,
attendance may be prohibited even if a judge does not make an express statement of
endorsement:
“Although attendance at political gatherings is not prohibited, any such attendance
should be restricted so that it would not constitute an express public endorsement
of a nonjudicial candidate or a measure not affecting the law, the legal system, or
the administration of justice otherwise prohibited by this canon.” (Advisory Com.
com., Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, foll. canon 5A [italics added].)
Thus, it is the committee’s opinion that attendance would be prohibited if the
judge’s presence could reasonably be construed to constitute a public endorsement or
otherwise create the appearance of political bias. (Canon 5.) Similarly, attendance might
be prohibited where it creates the appearance of a personal solicitation of funds. The
California Judicial Conduct Handbook cautions that under canon 5A(3), which prohibits
the personal solicitation of funds, “[e]ven the appearance of making such a solicitation
would be grounds for discipline.” (Rothman, supra, § 11.06, p. 573.) Indeed, discipline
has been imposed for such an appearance of solicitation. (CJP, Annual Rep. (1992)
advisory letter 12, p. 14 [advisory letter issued to a judge who gave the appearance of
soliciting contributions from attorneys and their clients for the election campaign of a
candidate for nonjudicial office].)
The question is, under what circumstances might attendance at a political
fundraising or endorsement event create the appearance of political bias?

11
To assist in answering that question, the committee looked to the canons that apply
to the governmental, civic, and charitable activities of judges. 5 Canon 4C(3)(d)(i)
prohibits judges from “personally participat[ing] in the solicitation of funds or other
fundraising activities” on behalf of civic or charitable organizations. 6 (Italics added.) In
that context, the California Judicial Conduct Handbook cautions that, although silent
presence during solicitation by others is permitted, judges should not attend a small
solicitation event where a potential donor might interpret the judge’s presence as intended
to influence the donation. (Rothman, supra, § 10.53, p. 564.) A judge's literal or
symbolic proximity to a personal solicitor can appear coercive or reflect political bias and
can undermine the integrity of the judiciary, whether or not the public might perceive the
judge as personally soliciting funds by proxy. (Canon 1 [“A judge shall uphold the
integrity and independence of the judiciary”]; canon 2B(2) [“A judge shall not lend the
prestige of judicial office or use the judicial title in any manner . . . to advance the …
interests of the judge or others”]; canon 4C(3)(d)(iii) [a judge “shall not personally
participate in membership solicitation if the solicitation might reasonably be perceived as
coercive or … is essentially a fundraising mechanism”]; canon 4C(3)(d)(iv) [a judge
“shall not permit the use of the prestige of his or her judicial office for fundraising or
5 Attendance at a political event necessarily involves governmental and civic activity that
is governed by canon 4 as well as by canon 5, which specifically addresses political and
campaign activity. (See canon 5 [governing judges’ rights as citizens]; see also Preamble
[the canons should be read together as a whole, and each provision should be construed in
context and consistent with every other provision]; Advisory Com. commentary, foll.
canon 5D [a judge must consider whether conduct would violate other provisions of the
code when deciding whether to engage in permitted activity].)
6 In the committee's view, the fact that canon 5A(3) proscribes only the personal
solicitation of funds does not mean “other fundraising activities” that are prohibited
under canon 4C(3)(d)(i) would be permitted at political events. Canon 5 broadly
prohibits “political activity that may create the appearance of political bias or
impropriety.” (Canon 5; see pt. IV.A, ante, at pp. 7-8.) This necessarily includes
activities that give the appearance of soliciting contributions. (CJP, Annual Rep. (1992)
advisory letter 12, p. 14; see pt. IV.C.1, post, at pp. 10-11.)

12
membership solicitation . . .”]; canon 5 [a judge shall “not engage in political activity that
may create the appearance of political bias or impropriety”].)
The size of the group being solicited is particularly relevant in the context of
political events where the donations solicited for a nonjudicial candidate could imply an
endorsement in the form of financial support. If a judge is standing next to someone who
is asking a small number of individuals for donations, it would be reasonable to interpret
the judge’s presence as joining the solicitation. Similarly, the judge’s silent presence in
the small group could create the appearance of an endorsement of the candidate for whom
the funds are being solicited. Conversely, a judge’s mere presence at a large fundraising
event should not give the appearance of personal solicitation or public endorsement,
particularly if the judge does not wear a name badge or other insignia bearing his or her
title.
The makeup of those in attendance is another factor judges should consider when
deciding whether to attend an endorsement or fundraising event. If many of those in
attendance are likely to know the judge as a judge (for example, a room full of
prosecutors or public defenders), then the judge’s mere attendance is likely to be
noteworthy both to the legal community and in the press. Attendance at even a larger
gathering in these circumstances might create the appearance of endorsement or political
bias. (Canon 5.)
A judge should also consider whether the judge’s presence will connect his or her
judicial title to the fundraising or endorsement purpose. Canons 2B(2) and 4C(3)(d)(iv)
prohibit the use of judicial title in any manner to advance the interests of others or to raise
funds. At political events where the purpose is to raise funds and endorse a specific
candidate, a judge’s presence at a small gathering could create the appearance of political
support for, or lending judicial prestige to, the candidate. In contrast, where the purpose
of the event is to allow competing candidates to speak or debate, a judge’s attendance is
unlikely to be construed as an endorsement or as lending the prestige of the judge’s title,
even if those candidates or others engage in direct solicitation. (California Judges

13
Association (CJA) Judicial Ethics Update (2005) III.1 [judge may serve as a neutral
moderator at a forum for candidates for city council election].)
At a larger event where the purpose is to fundraise or endorse a nonjudicial
candidate, consideration should be given to whether special attention will be drawn to the
presence of a judge in a manner that will be likely to lend the judicial title to that purpose.
(CJA Judicial Ethics Update (1995) II.A.6 [a judge may not lead pledge of allegiance at
fundraiser for a candidate for partisan political office].) Indeed, the California Judicial
Conduct Handbook advises that when attending a political event, a judge who is not a
judicial candidate should request that he or she not be introduced because it could be
construed as an endorsement for the nonjudicial candidate or political organization.
(Rothman, supra, § 11.18, p. 575; see also CJA Judicial Ethics Update (2000) III.C
[judge may attend a campaign kickoff for a nonjudicial candidate but may not be
introduced].)
In sum, when deciding whether to attend a political fundraising or endorsement
event, judges should consider the size of the event, the audience, and whether attention
will be drawn to their presence in a manner that will create the appearance of political
bias by connecting them as judges to fundraising by others or that will be construed as an
endorsement of a nonjudicial candidate. These considerations are particularly relevant
when a judge is considering making a speech, receiving an award, or being a guest of
honor at such a fundraising or endorsement event, as discussed below.
2. Making Speeches
Canon 5A(2) specifically prohibits judges from “mak[ing] speeches for a political
organization or candidate for nonjudicial office.” Canon 5D, however, specifically
permits judges and candidates to engage in activity in relation to measures concerning
improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. Both the
definition of the phrase “law, the legal system, or the administration of justice” and the
Advisory Committee commentary following canon 5D make clear that any activity
undertaken under canon 5D is nevertheless circumscribed by the other provisions of the

14
code. (Terminology, “Law, the legal system, or the administration of justice”; Advisory
Com. commentary, foll. canon 5D.) Read together, canon 5A(2) and canon 5D raise
questions about the extent to which speechmaking about the law, the legal system, or the
administration of justice is permitted at a political fundraising or endorsement event.7
It is the committee’s conclusion that any speechmaking that reasonably could
create the appearance of fundraising or of an endorsement of a nonjudicial candidate or
political organization would violate the provisions of canon 5 and would not be
permitted, even if the speech discusses the law, the legal system, or the administration of
justice. Judges have been disciplined for speaking at events where their actions
contributed to either the fundraising or endorsement purposes of an event. (CJP, Annual
Rep. (1987) advisory letter, p. 11 [judge disciplined for being a featured speaker at a
nonjudicial candidate’s campaign event]; CJP, Inquiry Concerning Judge Zellerbach
(2011) Public Admonishment, p. 4 [judge disciplined for speaking at a gathering about
how the policies adopted by a candidate for district attorney would impact the court,
which appeared to be a public opposition to a nonjudicial candidate in violation of canon
5A(2)].) If the speech can be understood as expressly or implicitly soliciting funds for, or
endorsing or opposing, a nonjudicial candidate or political organization, the fact that the
judge is also speaking on a permissible topic would not remedy its impropriety.
The canons provide a narrow allowance for a judge to speak to a political
gathering, provided the circumstances “would not give rise to the perception that the
judge was speaking on behalf of, rather than to, the organization,” and the topic is strictly
concerning “the law and the administration of justice.” (Rothman, supra, § 10.17, p.
532.) When choosing to speak within this constraint at a political event, however, judges
7 The committee does not intend to suggest that judges may not speak on other politically
neutral topics, such as music, art, or gardening. The committee limits its discussion in
this opinion to speaking on the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice in
the context of a political event because judges are more likely to be asked to speak on
such topics and because the canons specifically call out these topics as permissible
speechmaking material.

15
should be careful to “deliver a nonpartisan speech on improvement of the law, the legal
system, or the administration of justice.” (Rothman, supra, § 11.07, p. 574.)
When a judge speaks at a political event, the judge is likely to be introduced as a
judicial officer and extended some special recognition. Depending on the context, even a
speech devoted exclusively to permissible subjects may be seen as endorsing a political
candidate or party. For example, a judge speaking to a political organization on the
origins of the Constitution during a meeting devoted to the history of the law would
probably raise no ethical issues. But if the same speech were given at an event designed
to garner political or financial support for a nonjudicial candidate and could reasonably
be perceived as an endorsement of the candidate, or as lending the prestige of the judge’s
office to the candidate, the committee’s opinion is that this activity would be barred by
the canons. (Canons 5 & 5A, 2B; Rothman, supra, § 11.07, p. 574.)
To summarize, although a speech may relate to the legal system or the
administration of justice, the speech’s context will be crucial in determining its
permissibility. Judges invited to speak at a political fundraising or endorsement event
should consider whether any speech at the event, even on permissible topics, could
compromise judicial integrity by creating the appearance of political bias or public
support of a political party or a nonjudicial candidate, or by lending the prestige of the
judicial office to that candidate.
3. Receiving an Award or Being a Guest of Honor
The canons permit a judge to accept an award or to be specially recognized as a
guest of honor, even at a fundraising event. Canon 4C(3)(d)(iv) provides that a judge
may "be a . . . guest of honor, or recipient of an award for public or charitable service
provided the judge does not personally solicit funds . . . ." Thus, judges are free to accept
awards from specialty bar organizations or other interest groups, so long as doing so does
not give the appearance of favor or constitute improper fundraising. (Rothman, supra, §
10.16, p. 530 [judge may speak as a guest at a specialty bar event if the judge is also
available to speak at opposing bar association functions]; CJA Opinion No. 50 (2000) p.

16
2 [judge accepting an award from an agency or group should make clear that the judge is
open to receiving awards from agencies or groups with opposing interests].)
In the context of a political endorsement or fundraising event for a party or
nonjudicial candidate, however, acceptance of an award or being acknowledged as a
guest of honor singles out the recipient as a focal point of that event, and therefore would
likely create the appearance that the judge is associated with the purpose of the event, i.e.,
fundraising or endorsement of a political organization or nonjudicial candidate. (CJA
Opinion No. 50, supra, p. 3 [judge should decline any award that would entangle the
judge in political endorsements or fundraising]; CJA Judicial Ethics Update (1987) II.A
[it is inappropriate for a judge to be a guest of honor at a fundraising event for a partisan
political organization].) It is therefore the committee’s opinion that special recognition at
such an event would likely violate canon 5 by creating the appearance of political bias.
D. Judicial Campaign Activities
The prohibitions in canon 5A discussed above are tailored to apply only to
political activities involving candidates for nonjudicial office. Thus, a judge is not
prohibited from publicly endorsing a candidate for judicial office. Indeed, “[s]uch
endorsements are permitted because judicial officers have a special obligation to uphold
the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the judiciary and are in a unique position
to know the qualifications necessary to serve as a competent judicial officer.” (Advisory
Com. com., Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, foll. canon 5A.)
Nor are judges who are themselves candidates in an election for judicial office
prohibited under canon 5A from campaigning vigorously and effectively:
“In judicial elections, judges are neither required to shield themselves from
campaign contributions nor are they prohibited from soliciting contributions from
anyone, including attorneys. Nevertheless, there are necessary limits on judges
facing election if the appearance of impropriety is to be avoided. In soliciting
campaign contributions or endorsements, a judge shall not use the prestige of
judicial office in a manner that would reasonably be perceived as coercive. See

17
Canons 1, 2, 2A, and 2B. ” (Advisory Com. com., foll. canon 5A; see also CJA,
Judicial Elections Handbook (13th ed. 2014) pp. 20-24).
Thus, there is no conflict between the prohibitions in canon 5A and the
permissions in canon 5C. Canon 5A(2) prohibits judges and judicial candidates from
making speeches for nonjudicial candidates, while canon 5C permits “[c]andidates for
judicial office [to] speak to political gatherings only on their own behalf or on behalf of
another candidate for judicial office.” A judge or judicial candidate who speaks at an
event on his or her own behalf must take care, however, not to violate canon 5B, which
forbids statements by judicial candidates to the electorate “ that commit the candidate . . .
with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the courts.”
(Canon 5B(1)(a); see also CJA, Judicial Elections Handbook (13th ed. 2014) pp. 33-34.)
In short, a judge or judicial candidate may only fundraise and solicit support for
the judge’s own campaign or for other judicial candidates. (CJP Annual Rep. (1986)
advisory letter, p. 5 [advisory letter issued where judge arranged a political mailer that
paired the judge with, and endorsed, a candidate for nonjudicial office]; CJP Annual
Report (2011) private admonishment 4, p. 23 [private admonishment issued for not
promptly removing endorsements of nonjudicial candidates which the judge had made
prior to becoming a candidate].)
An effective campaign for judicial office often requires the broadest possible
exposure to the electorate. Attending and appearing as a judicial candidate at an event
devoted primarily to fundraising and promoting nonjudicial candidates or issues may
provide such exposure and the opportunity to engage in judicial campaign contribution
solicitation that is explicitly permitted under the Advisory Committee commentary to
canon 5A. However, because the general and specific restrictions on political activities
in canon 5 expressly apply to both judges and candidates for judicial office (see p. 5,
ante), care must be taken so that a judicial candidate’s activities at such an event do not
appear to endorse a political party or candidates for nonjudicial office. (Wolfson, supra,
811 F.3d 1176 [the compelling state interest in preserving public confidence in the
integrity of the judiciary warrants foreclosing judicial candidates from engaging in

18
political campaigns other than their own]; CJA, Judicial Elections Handbook, supra, p.
58 [judicial candidates may not endorse candidates for nonjudicial office, including
candidates for city attorney, district attorneys, and sheriff.)
As the Judicial Elections Handbook advises:
“[Candidates may] attend fundraisers and other political events for nonjudicial
candidates . . . [¶] as long as these activities do not appear to endorse political
parties, issues or candidates for nonjudicial office. Subject to these restrictions,
judicial candidates may attend, hand out their own promotional material, solicit
funds, and meet voters and supporters.” (CJA, Judicial Elections Handbook,
supra, p. 57.)
Subject to the general canon 5 restrictions on judges and candidates, prohibited
activities might also include attendance at events of only one political party or
nonjudicial candidate to the exclusion of others, which could create the appearance of
political bias. (CJA Judicial Ethics Update (2013/2014) III.4 [a judge running for
election may make campaign speeches at partisan political meetings so long as the judge
is available to both political groups].) Thus, depending on the context, being a guest of
honor or a featured speaker might be prohibited, unless the judge is speaking only on
behalf of his or her own candidacy or on behalf of another judicial candidate. (Canon 5;
CJA, Judicial Elections Handbook, supra, p. 58.)
The committee therefore concludes that a candidate for judicial office may attend,
be introduced, and speak on his or her own behalf, or on behalf of another candidate for
judicial office, at a political event held for the purpose of endorsing or fundraising for a
nonjudicial candidate, so long as the candidate does not commit to a position on an issue
that is likely to come before the courts, endorse or solicit funds for a candidate for
nonjudicial office or a political organization, or otherwise engage in campaign conduct
that might create the appearance of political bias. (Canons 5, 5A(2) & (3), 5B(1)(a), 5C.)
E. Obligation to Inspect Promotional Material for Political Events
Canon 5B(2) requires candidates for judicial office to review and approve their
campaign materials before dissemination. But canon 5 does not similarly provide that a

19
noncandidate judge is obligated to inspect promotional material used for political
fundraising events a judge plans to attend. Nevertheless, several canons provide that
there is a duty to ensure that the prestige of judicial office and judicial title are not used to
advance the interests of others, cast doubt on impartiality, or solicit funds. (Canon 2B(2)
[a judge shall not lend the prestige of office or use judicial title in any manner, including
oral and written communications, to advance the interests of others]; canon 4A(1) [a
judge shall conduct all extrajudicial activities so doubt is not cast as to impartiality];
canon 4C(3) [a judge shall not permit the use of the prestige of office for fundraising];
Advisory Com. com., foll. canon 4C(3)(d) [a judge must make reasonable efforts to
ensure that others subject to the judge’s direction and control do not solicit funds on the
judge’s behalf for any purpose, charitable or otherwise].) In the context of political
events held for the purpose of endorsing or raising funds for a nonjudicial candidate or
party, the canons may impose implicit duties when a judge accepts a personal invitation
to attend.
In the committee’s opinion, a judge must consider the circumstances of the
invitation and the event to assess the likelihood that his or her judicial title will be known
to the event promoters. If so, the judge would be wise to make reasonable efforts to
ensure that judicial title is not used to promote attendance, solicit funds, or otherwise
advance political interests. This may include advising the event organizers of the
restrictions placed on judges under the California Code of Judicial Ethics, such as an
advisement against being identified in promotional materials or publically introduced at
the event.8
Although the code does not place an affirmative duty on judges to review and
approve promotional materials after accepting an invitation to attend a political event, the
8 It is the committee’s view that this issue comes into play only where the judge has been
personally invited to attend by the event’s sponsors or organizers. A judge’s decision to
attend an event, whose attendance is not requested and probably not expected, should not
give rise to any need to inspect promotional materials or inform the organizers in advance
of the judge’s ethical restrictions.

20
duty to take corrective action for impermissible use of judicial title is mandatory. (CJP,
Annual Rep. (1997) advisory letter 23, p. 22 [judge listed in an endorsement of a
candidate for nonjudicial office disciplined for failing to seek a retraction or otherwise
ameliorate the problem, even though the endorsement was unauthorized].)
The California Judicial Conduct Handbook provides the following guidance
regarding such corrective action:
“In the event the judge’s name somehow shows up on literature as an
endorsement, or on literature soliciting funds or participation in a campaign event,
the judge should immediately take action. The judge should notify the candidate
or organization that the judge has not authorized use of his or her name, and
prohibit future use of the judge’s name. If possible, request that the organization
clarify to the recipients of the flier that the judge took no part in the endorsement,
and request that the campaign withdraw the offending material. The judge’s
position on this request would be greatly strengthened if the judge told the
candidate in writing about this issue.” (Rothman, supra, § 11.05, p. 572; see also
CJA Judicial Ethics Update (1997) II.M [judge erroneously listed as an endorser
of a candidate advised to send a written request for a retraction].)
It is the committee’s view that prevention is the most effective course of action
when a judge concludes his or her attendance might be used to promote a political
fundraising or endorsement event. Advising event organizers of ethical restrictions and
reviewing promotional materials in advance would eliminate the necessity of taking
corrective action after judicial title has been used without consent. In the special
circumstance of accepting an invitation to speak about the law, the legal system or the
administration of justice at a political event, steps should be taken to prevent, and must be
taken to correct, the impermissible use of judicial title to endorse or fundraise in
promotional materials.
V. Conclusions
Under any circumstances, judges must refrain from (1) publicly endorsing or
opposing, (2) personally soliciting funds for, or (3) making a speech for any nonjudicial
candidate or political organization. Beyond these specific proscriptions, canon 5 broadly

21
prohibits judges and candidates from engaging in political activities that may create the
appearance of political bias. When deciding whether to attend political fundraising
events where a nonjudicial candidate will be endorsed, judges must consider whether
their presence could create the appearance of an endorsement or solicitation due to the
size of the event or the makeup of the attendees.
Additional activities that could appear to be an endorsement or solicitation of
funds include being introduced, receiving an award, or being a speaker or a guest of
honor at a political event where the primary purpose is to raise funds for or endorse a
nonjudicial candidate or political organization.
Although making speeches in support of a political organization or nonjudicial
candidate is prohibited, speaking at a political gathering about the law, the legal system,
or the administration of justice may be permitted. The committee advises judges to
consider the context of the gathering, including its primary purpose, in deciding whether
or not to be a speaker. If the judge concludes that he or she can accept the speaking
invitation, the judge must restrict his or her remarks to the law, the legal system, and the
administration of justice and must avoid statements that may appear to be an endorsement
or solicitation.
Judges may endorse candidates for judicial office and speak on their behalf.
Judicial candidates may speak to political gatherings on their own behalf or on behalf of
another judicial candidate and may be introduced as judicial candidates at gatherings for
nonjudicial candidates. Candidates for judicial office may not, however, make speeches
that make commitments with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to
come before the courts, and may not solicit funds for or endorse nonjudicial candidates.
Because judges have an affirmative obligation to guard against impermissible uses
of their judicial titles (canon 2B(2)), the committee advises judges accepting a personal
invitation to attend a political fundraising or endorsement event to assess the likelihood
that their attendance will be known to the promoters and their name might be used to
promote the event. If likely, preventative measures are recommended to inform
promoters of the restrictions on the use of judges’ names. If a judge’s name is used for

22
promotional purposes, corrective action must be taken. Similarly, when a judge accepts
an invitation to speak about the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice at a
political fundraising or endorsement event, steps should be taken to prevent, and must be
taken to correct the impermissible use of judicial title to endorse or fundraise in
promotional materials.

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 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)).