CJEO Expedited Opinion No. 2021-039 — Gift Exchanges Between Judges and Their Staff

1
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINIONS
350 McAllister Street, Room 1144
San Francisco, CA 94102
(855) 854-5366
www.JudicialEthicsOpinions.ca.gov
CJEO Expedited Opinion1 2021-039
[Posted February 17, 2021]
GIFT EXCHANGES BETWEEN JUDGES AND THEIR STAFF
1 	The California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) issues
Expedited Opinions, formerly known as Oral Advice Summaries, pursuant to California
Rules of Court, rule 9.80(i)(1) [eff. Jan. 1, 2021]. Expedited Opinions are issued to requesting
judicial officers following a discretionary decision by CJEO to address the ethical issues raised
in an expedited process that does not include posting draft opinions for public comment, as
required for CJEO Formal Opinions. The CJEO Expedited Opinions are published in full,
without identifying information regarding the requesting judicial officer, to provide information
and analysis to the bench and public regarding judicial ethics.

2
I. Question
A judge has asked the committee to advise on whether judges may exchange gifts with
courtroom staff to celebrate birthdays and holidays.
II. Advice Provided
Judges may exchange modest gifts with their courtroom staff but, when giving or
accepting gifts, judges should treat all staff equally and maintain proper decorum. Judges
should not give any gifts that might (1) pressure staff to reciprocate, (2) be offensive,
demeaning, or otherwise inappropriate, or (3) be perceived as harassment.
III. Discussion
A. Judges are generally permitted to exchange gifts with their courtroom staff,
but should try to treat their courtroom staff equally
Judges are encouraged to maintain good relations with their courtroom staff and to
foster a healthy work environment. (Rothman et al., Cal. Judicial Conduct Handbook (4th ed.
2017) § 6:27, p. 367 (Rothman) [observing that judges depend on the goodwill of their staff to
ensure proper courtroom operations].) Acknowledging birthdays, holidays and other special
occasions can be an appropriate way to build morale among a judge and his or her staff. On
such occasions, there is no ethical impediment for a judge to exchange modest gifts with staff as
part of the celebrations. (Ibid. [noting that a judge may accept a gift from staff under Cal. Code
Jud. Ethics, canon 4D(6)(a)2 because the judge would be disqualified from hearing a case
involving staff]; Cal. Judges Assn., Jud. Ethics Com., Opn. No. 70 (2015) at pp. 1-2 (California
Judges Association Opinion No. 70).)
When giving gifts to their courtroom staff, judges must take care that they show no bias
or favoritism. (Inquiry Concerning Saucedo (2015) 62 Cal.4th CJP Supp. 1, 79 (Saucedo).) To
2 	All further references to canons and the code are to the California Code of Judicial
Ethics.

3
the extent reasonably possible, judges should endeavor to treat their staff equally. For example,
judges should not give holiday gifts to different staff members that are significantly
disproportionate. Similarly, judges should not celebrate the birthdays of certain of their staff
while ignoring the birthdays of others. Judges also should be sensitive to and respect the fact
that staff may come from different faiths and traditions. To the extent reasonably possible,
judges should tailor any gifts that they give to align with the heritage and belief systems of their
staff.
B. Judges cannot pressure staff to exchange gifts
Judges cannot pressure their courtroom staff to give a gift, even if such pressure is
implicit. For example, some staff might feel that an expensive or extravagant gift should be
reciprocated, particularly when such a gift is received from a workplace supervisor such as a
judge. For that reason, judges should take into account both the power and financial imbalances
between themselves and their staff, and keep any gifts modest. (See CJEO Formal Opinion No.
2014-005, Accepting Gifts of Little or Nominal Value Under the Ordinary Social Hospitality
Exception, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns, pp. 7, 11-14 [discussing what constitutes
“ordinary social hospitality” under canon 4D(6)(g))].) Judges should not solicit staff for a group
gift. In addition, judges can reduce the risk that staff feel coerced into giving a gift by telling
them that there is no obligation or expectation that they reciprocate any gifts they receive. (Cal.
Judges Assn. Opn. No. 70, supra, at p. 2.)
C. Judges cannot give gifts that are offensive, demeaning, or otherwise
inappropriate, or that would be perceived as harassment
Judges must demonstrate professionalism at all times and maintain appropriate decorum
with their courtroom staff. (Rothman, § 6:27, pp. 370-371.) Judges cannot give gifts that are
offensive or demeaning, for example by being obscene, profane or degrading in any way to the
recipient or to others. (Inquiry Concerning Block (Dec. 9, 2002) CJP No. 167, p. 4 [judge
disciplined for playing practical joke on court interpreter].) In addition, judges cannot give gifts
that would be perceived as harassing, for example if given in the expectation of fostering a

4
romantic or sexual relationship with a staff person. (Saucedo, supra, 62 Cal.4th at pp. CJP
Supp. 2, 18, 57-58.)
IV. Conclusion
Judges are allowed to give to and receive modest gifts from their courtroom staff to
celebrate birthdays and holidays, and are encouraged to do so when the gift exchange boosts
employee morale and fosters a healthy courtroom work environment. To the extent reasonably
possible, judges must treat their courtroom staff equally, and cannot give gifts that are
inappropriate or harassing, or of a nature or value that results in an expectation of, or the
perceived expectation of, a need for reciprocity.

This expedited opinion is advisory only. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.80(a), (e); Cal.
Supreme Ct. Com. Jud. Ethics Opns. (CJEO), Internal Operating Rules & Proc. rule 1(a), (b).)
It is based on facts and issues, or topics of interest, presented to the California Supreme Court
Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions in a request for an opinion (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
9.80(i)(2); CJEO rules 2(f), 6(c)), or on subjects deemed appropriate by the committee (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 9.80(i)(1); CJEO rule 6(a)). The conclusions expressed in this expedited
opinion 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)).)