Judge ethically may permit arraignments to be broadcast by TV network but may not contract to provide "teaching segment" on the network.  [Added 11/29/11]

    Judge was approached by a production company that would like to broadcast Judge's criminal arraignments on a television network.  Additionally, the network would like to hire Judge to do a "teaching segment" during which Judge "would explain the law, sentencing choices, and interview different 'players' in the court system."  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible to accept the offer.

    The Committee had no difficulty concluding that Judge could permit the criminal arraignments to be broadcast.  Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.450 allows for media coverage of court proceedings and "is dispositive" of this issue.

    The Committee, however, answered "no" to Judge's teaching segment inquiry.  "Whether the judge’s activity is quasi-judicial [governed by Canon 4] or extrajudicial [governed by Canon 5], the Code [of Judicial Conduct] provides that the activity must not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially and that the activity does not lead to frequent disqualifications.  In addition to taping the judge’s arraignments, the judge would be discussing the law and sentencing choices.  This could lead to frequent disqualification of the judge and could cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially in cases discussed publicly by the judge."  Furthermore, the proposed conduct would violate Canon 3B(9), which "prohibits public comment, not only on the inquiring judge’s pending or impending cases, but on pending or impending cases in any court, if the comment might reasonably be expected to affect its outcome or impair its fairness.  Teaching segments, such as suggested by the judge, may reasonably be expected to impair the fairness of the tribunal.  Therefore, this Committee recommends that no judge should make public comments on pending or impending cases."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-18.

Retired judge who wishes to preside as senior judge in the future may not be board member of Innocence Project of Florida.  [Added 11/29/11]

    Retired Judge has not yet sought to be assigned to preside over any cases as a senior judge.  Retired Judge, however, does not want to jeopardize the option to be assigned to judicial service and be able to so preside in the future.  Retired Judge has been invited to serve on the board of directors of the Innocence Project of Florida, which investigates and "actively engag[es] in litigation to secure and test evidence and to set aside convictions of those it believes scientific evidence shows were wrongfully convicted."  Retired Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible to accept the offer.

    The Committee answered in the negative.  "[T]he Project’s litigation on behalf of individual clients will cast doubt on the judge’s impartiality.  Additionally, the likelihood of litigation will require the judge's resignation from the board under [Florida Code of Judicial Conduct] Canon 4D(1).  Therefore, as required by Canons 2A, 4A and D, the judge should decline the invitation.  However, if the Inquiring Judge enters the practice of law the judge would not be considered a Retired or Senior judge.  See Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.205(a)(3).  As such, the Inquiring Judge would not be subject to the Canons of Judicial Conduct and would be able to be a member of this board until such time as the judge would want to be eligible to return to Retired or Senior status, “upon cessation of the private practice of law and approval of the judge’s application to the court.”  See Fla.R.Jud.Admin., Rule 2.205(a)(3)(A)-(D)."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-19.

Judge seeking re-election  may sponsor hole at charity golf tournament hosted by young lawyers section of local bar association.  [Added 10/8/11]

    Judge plans to run for re-election in 2014.  Judge is considering sponsoring a hole at a charity golf tournament hosted by the Young Lawyers Section ("YLS") of the local bar association.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee "whether a judge is allowed to expend campaign contributions to be a hole sponsor at the golf tournament, appear at the golf hole and display campaign literature/logo.  In the Inquiring Judge’s assessment, only paid attendees would know about the judge’s hole sponsorship, and if necessary, the judge would advise the chairperson not to use the judge’s name or title to raise funds."

    The Committee declined to answer the question about whether spending campaign funds on the hole sponsorship is a question of statutory interpretation that was outside of the scope of its authority.

    Turning to the ethical considerations, the Committee addressed the 2008 amendments to the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, which revised Canons 4 and 5 of the Code to permit judicial participation in fundraising in the context of "quasi-judicial activities” (Canon 4) and “extrajudicial activities” (Canon 5).  See Re: Amendments to the Code of Judicial Conduct-Limitations on Judges’ Participation in Fundraising Activities, 983 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2008).  The Committee concluded that the proposed conduct was not permitted under amended Canon.  "[T]he Young Lawyers Section of the local bar association is an appropriate organization under the new test of Canon 4.  However, the facts of this inquiry show that the event does not concern the law, the legal system or the administration of justice, and the funds raised will not be used for a law-related purpose.  Therefore, the proposed activity is not a 'quasi-judicial' activity permitted under Canon 4."

The applicability of Canon 5 presented a closer question.  "Canon 5 and its Commentary now permit a judge to attend and participate in a charitable fundraiser if: 

1. There is no pre-event advertising of the judge’s attendance and participation, and

2. The judge engages in no direct fundraising or membership solicitation at the event, and

3. The judge is not a speaker, a guest of honor or otherwise “featured” at the event, and

4. The judge complies with all other provision of the Code."

    The Committee noted that the facts did not suggest any pre-event advertising or direct fundraising/solicitation, or that Judge would be a guest speaker or a guest of honor.  Rather, "[t]he only question is whether the judge’s sponsoring a hole and campaigning or advertising at the hole constitutes being 'featured' in violation of the Code’s Commentary."

    A majority of the Committee concluded that Judge would not be "featured" and thus the proposed conduct was permissible.  "Canon 5’s prohibition against being 'featured' at the event refers to conduct by the event sponsor, not by the participating judge.  Here, the judge may be engaging in self-featuring, or in featuring the judge’s candidacy, but such campaign conduct is permitted by law and is normal conduct for any public official who is required to run for office.  Engaging in such campaign conduct at a YLS Golf Tournament does not violate the prohibitions of Canon 5 against improper fundraising for a charity."

    A minority of the Committee was of the view that the conduct was prohibited by both Canon 4 and Canon 5.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-15.

Judge may not participate as member of the wait staff at charitable organization's fundraiser luncheon under facts as presented.  [Added 10/4/11]

    Judge was invited to attend a fundraising luncheon for a well-known charitable organization.  The wait staff at the luncheon would consist of Judge and some other elected officials, who would be referred to as "servants."  None of the wait staff would collect or solicit money.  The names of the wait staff would not be announced and their names would not be used in any pre-event advertisements.  Judge would not be asked to solicit money in any way from anyone at the event.  One non-judicial “servant” would make a personal appeal for contributions at the end of the luncheon, and other non-judicial “servants” would collect money at the end of the event.

    Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible to participate in the event.  Stating that the inquiry was controlled by Canon 5 of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, the Committee answered in the negative.

    The Committee observed that the Commentary to Canon 5 indicates that a judge's mere attendance at a fundraising event is not a violation of Canon 5 and that it is permissible for a judge to pass a collection plate at a place of worship, to serve as an usher, food server, or preparer, or to perform similar subsidiary and unadvertised functions at fundraisers.  Nevertheless, the Committee stated that it "has repeatedly concluded that judges may not personally or directly participate in charitable fundraising" and cited to Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinions 08-22, 01-09, 00-31, 99-15, 98-32, 90-20, and 90-12.  The Committee concluded:  "The facts presented by the inquiring judge here do not fall in the commentary’s permitted category of “food server.” By using only elected officials as its wait staff, or 'servants,' the charitable organization has made the judge a featured participant, whose presence is requested to enhance the collection of contributions.  Elected officials who are not judges will be collecting money at the end of the event.  A personal appeal for funds will be made at the end of the event by a non-judicial 'servant.'  The judge is then thrust into the business of fundraising, whether the judge intends this or not.  The inquiring judge should not participate as a member of the wait staff for this fund-raising event."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-14.

Judge may not directly solicit local banks and businesses to assist in providing goods or services to financial literacy educational program.  [Added 9/3/11]

    Judge is familiar with a "financial literacy" program whose goal is to educate families involved in dependency matters about effective budgeting.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible to write a letter to local banks and businesses to introduce them to the program and invite them to provide goods or services to assist the program.

    The Committee answered in the negative.  Judge's contemplated activities fall within the ambit of Canon 5 of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, rather than Canon 4.  "Canon 5C(3)(b)(i) provides that a 'judge may assist an organization in planning fund-raising and may participate in the management and investment of the organization’s funds, but shall not personally or directly participate in the solicitation of funds,' and Canon 5C(3)(b)(iii) provides that a judge 'shall not use or permit the use of prestige of judicial office for fund-raising.'  The Commentary to Canon 5C(3)(b) places the same restrictions on direct solicitation as Canon 4.  Direct solicitation by the judge to ask local banks and businesses to participate by providing goods and/or services is prohibited by the Canons."  (Emphasis by Committee.)  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-13.

Judge ethically may not attend veterans' organization fund-raiser at which judge will be honored and most funds go to assist veterans.  [Added 9/3/11]

    Judge was invited to attend an annual fund-raising event for a respected veterans' organization.  Judge would be honored at the event with an award for commitment to veterans and their families.  An estimated 50%-60% of the funds raised would go to assist veterans in need.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be permissible to attend under these circumstances.

    The Committee answered in the negative.  Mere attendance at a fundraising event no longer necessarily violates the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.  See Commentary to Canon 5C(3)(b).  The Committee stated that, under the 2008 amendments to the Code (see Re: Amendments to the Code of Judicial Conduct-Limitations on Judges’ Participation in Fundraising Activities, 983 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2008)), a judge is now permitted "to appear or speak at, receive an award or other recognition at, be featured on the program of, and permit the judge’s title to be used in conjunction with an organization’s fundraising event only if:
            1. The event concerns the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, and
            2. The funds raised will be used for a law related purpose, and
            3. The organization or governmental entity is devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, the judicial branch, or the administration of justice, and
            4. The judge, in participating in the event, does not violate any other provision of the Code (Canon 4A(1)-(6) specially noted)."  (Emphasis by Committee.)

    The Committee noted that the event in question "does not qualify under the 2008 amendments to the Code as law-related."  Accordingly, Judge was advised to decline the invitation.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-12.

Senior judge who works with mediation group may allow the group to use judge's image and bio in its ads.  [Added 8/18/11]

    Senior Judge, a Florida Supreme Court-certified mediator, has contracted with a mediation group go provide mediation services.  The group provides mediation services but is not engaged in the practice of law.  The group wishes to include Senior Judge's photo and biographical information on its website, and to use Senior Judge's name and photo in its other ads.  The title "judge" would not be used.  The biographical information would note Senior Judge's prior judicial experience but would not indicate Senior Judge's status as a senior judge.

    Senior Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee if this proposed conduct is ethically permissible.  The Committee answered in the affirmative.

    Canon 5F(2) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct authorizes senior judges to be affiliated with mediation entities.  In view of this, the Committee concluded:  "We believe that implicit in such authorization is that senior judges may permit such an entity to disclose the name (and image and biographical information) of such senior judge in its advertising and on its website.  However, a senior judge may not permit the mediation services entity, when referencing the senior judge, to 1) use the title 'judge;' 2) disclose the judge's senior judge status; or 3) use a photograph of the senior judge in a judicial robe.  To do so would lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the mediation services entity.  See Canon 2B.  Furthermore, to comply with Canon 5F(2) the senior judge may, in no other way advertise, solicit business, or participate in any other activity that would promote his or her mediation services."  (Emphasis in original.)  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-11.

Judge's spouse may host at their home a campaign event for another candidate, but judge should discourage it and may not attend.  [Added 7/22/11]

    Spouse, who is married to and lives with Judge, is an elected official in a municipality.  Spouse has been asked by a candidate to host a campaign event at their home.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether that would be ethically permissible.

    The conduct of Spouse is not governed by the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, so the Code does not prohibit Spouse from hosting the campaign event.  Judge, however, may not attend the event.  See Fla. JEAC Op. 06-11; Fla. JEAC Op. 07-13.  Furthermore, Judge should "adamantly and genuinely encourag[e] the spouse to host the event elsewhere."  The Committee was concerned that having the event at Judge's home "may create the appearance that the inquiring judge is:  (1) publicly endorsing the candidate; and (2) engaging in political activity" and could lead to Judge being accused of violating Canon 7A(1)(b) and Canon 7D.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-10.

Judge may publicly discuss concerns about how proposed legislation or constitutional amendments may affect judicial branch.  [Added 5/11/11]

    Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible to "publicly identify and explain the potential consequences to the judicial branch of proposed legislation, if enacted into law, or of proposed constitutional amendments, if approved as amendments to the Florida Constitution."

    The Committee answered in the affirmative.  "Canon 4 [of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct] encourages judges to express themselves on 'the law, the legal system, the administration of justice, and the role of the judiciary as an independent branch within our system of government,' not for the benefit of judges, but so that what judges have to offer the community on these subjects can be available to those charged with decision making.  In making public comments, we caution that accuracy and precision are hallmarks of good judges on the bench and off.  Inflammatory language is injudicious. 

    The Committee further noted:  "The commentary to Canon 4B states:  'As a judicial officer and person specially learned in the law, a judge is in a unique position to contribute to the improvement of the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, including, but not limited to, the improvement of the role of the judiciary as an independent branch of government, [and] the revision of substantive and procedural law . . . .'”

The Committee declined to offer its comments on the substance of Judge's views.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-07.

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee on judge's involvement with YWCA court-related childcare program.  [Added 5/9/11]

    Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee for an opinion concerning Judge's potential involvement in a YWCA (Young Women Christian Association) program that provides childcare while parents attend court-related matters in the domestic violence, family law, or criminal divisions.  The Committee's conclusions were summarized in the opinion as follows.  References in the body of the opinion to applicable provisions of the Florida Code of Judicial Ethics are noted in brackets.

QUESTION (1):  Whether a Judge may assist in planning fundraising activities for a childcare program which provides supervised childcare to parents and guardians who are attending court-related matters.

ANSWER:  Yes.  [See Canon 5C(3)(b).]

QUESTION (2):  Whether a Judge may speak and be featured on a program and permit the Judge’s title to be used for a fundraiser for a program which provides supervised childcare to parents and guardians who are attending court-related matters.

ANSWER:  No.  [See Canon 5C(3)(b).]

QUESTION (3):  Whether a Judge may make a recommendation to public and private fund-granting organizations on behalf of a program that provides supervised childcare to parents and guardians who are attending court-related matters?

ANSWER:  Yes.  [See Canon 4D(2)(c).]

QUESTION (4):  To what extent may a judge be involved in fundraising for a program which provides supervised childcare to parents and guardians who are attending court related matters if the program is under the umbrella of an organization that has an advocacy component?

ANSWER:  This inquiry is too broad to be answered.  [See Canon 4A(1)-(6) and Canon 5A(1)-(6).]

    In its opinion, the Committee explained its reasoning.  "The supervised childcare program for court participants is only one of the numerous programs sponsored by the local YWCA in the Inquiring Judge’s circuit.  Although this program is law-related, it is nevertheless under the umbrella of the YWCA, an organization that is not solely devoted to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.   To permit judges to fundraise for a nonprofit organization which is not solely law-related, but which develops programs that are law-related would undermine the intention of the Supreme Court when it amended Canon 4D in 2008."  See In re Amendments to the Code of Judicial Conduct-Limitations on Judges’ Participation in Fundraising Activities, 983 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2008).

    Regarding the proposed recommendations by Judge, the Committee stated:  "Canon 4D(2)(c) permits a judge to make recommendations to public and private fund-granting organizations on projects and programs concerning the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.  This Canon does not limit judges to only seeking grants for organizations solely devoted to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, but also to any project or program concerning the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.  The supervised childcare program, which aids the court system, certainly falls into this category."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2011-06.

Judge ethically may not chair educational non-profit organization designed to support public school board.  [Added 4/22/11]

    Judge was asked to chair a non-profit educational organization whose stated purposes included working with the county's public school system to improve the quality of instruction in certain public schools.  Although not a "school board" under Florida law, the organization "is closely aligned with some of the functions and duties statutorily assigned to school boards."  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible for Judge to accept the appointment.

    The Committee answered in the negative.  "With regard to involvement in public school boards, the Commentary to [Florida Code of Judicial Conduct] Canon 5C(2) explains, 'service on the board of a public educational institution, unless it were a law school, would be prohibited under Canon 5C(2), but service on the board of a public law school or any private educational institution would generally be permitted under Canon 5C(3).'  (Emphasis in opinion).  The Committee compared the articles of incorporation of the organization in question with the statutory duties of a school board and concluded that "many of the organization’s functions align.  Further, because the main purpose of the organization is to 'support,' 'provide assistance to,' 'work with,' and seek approval from the school board and the superintendent, the prohibitions enunciated in the Canon 5C(2) apply.  Therefore, because the contemplated organization is a non-law related  public school that is so closely aligned with the roles of the school board and the superintendent, the Inquiring Judge may not serve as the chair."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-05.

Judge may appear in TV public service spots for parenting help line sponsored by non-profit organization.  [Added 4/15/11]

    Judge presided over Juvenile Delinquency Court.  Subsequently Judge began speaking to and working with local groups regarding the need for a focus on parenting.  Judge now wishes to appear in public service announcements on television that urge parents who want help or information to call a particular helpline sponsored by a non-profit organization.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether this would be permissible.

    Regarding the general concept of appearing in such spots, the Committee answered in the affirmative.  "[T]his committee has recently issued Fla. JEAC Op. 11-01, where it approved a judge's creation and private maintenance of a website designed primarily to focus high school students on colleges or trade school preparation.  There, we cautioned the judge to ensure that the website not be of a commercial nature and to avoid including links to commercial sites.  Additionally, the Committee cautioned the judge not to use the site as a 'forum for discussion of pending legal matters or otherwise be maintained so as to cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge.  See Canon 3B(9), Canon 5A(1) [of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct].' Therefore, the contemplated conduct herein, subject to the above-referenced cautions, is permitted under the Code."

    As is its custom, the Committee declined to comment on the specific public service announcements themselves.  The Committee, however, did state:  "[W]hile this committee is declining to screen the proposed language used in the public announcement spots, the referral or suggestion to call the parenting help line seems to be acceptable.  As noted in Fla. JEAC  Op. 11-01, the Florida Supreme Court, in In re: Report of The Family Court Steering Committee, 794 So.2d 518 (Fla. 2001), adopted certain recommendations and characteristics of a model family court.  This model included juvenile delinquency and dependency cases, termination of parental rights and cases of children or families in need of supervision.  Id. at 525.  Within the recommendations adopted were that 'courts must coordinate and maximize court resources and establish links with this community resources,' Id. at 522, and 'each circuit to provide regular public information through the Internet and any other media that is easily accessible to the community about...what services are available . . .,' Id. at 534. Therefore, urging parents to call the parenting help line run by the Florida Department of Children Family Services would not be prohibited and would not appear to cast doubt on the Inquiring Judge's capacity to act impartially."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-04.

Senior judge who holds several residential mortgages on properties not ethically prohibited from presiding over mortgage foreclosure cases.  [Added 2/17/11]

    A senior judge owns several residential mortgages on properties that are income-producing for the judge.  The judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible for the judge to preside over mortgage foreclosure cases as a senior judge.  The Committee answered in the negative.

    The Committee noted that Canons 5D(1)(a) and 5D(2) [of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct] do not prohibit a judge from owning residential mortgages and deriving income from those properties.  A majority of the Committee concluded:  "Here, the inquiring senior judge is essentially acting as a mortgagee, owning each residential mortgage, and deriving income from each mortgagor/borrower.  Under these circumstances, nothing prohibits the inquiring judge from handling mortgage foreclosure matters as a senior judge unless the inquiring senior judge is placed in the unusual circumstance of personally initiating a foreclosure action against any one of the borrowers who should default on the residential mortgages.  In the event that this situation arises, then the inquiring senior judge should discontinue handling mortgage foreclosure matters in which the judge's ruling on an issue reasonably could be perceived  as providing the judge with persuasive authority in the judge's favor, or some other advantage, in the judge's own case."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-02.

Neither judge nor someone on judge's behalf may accept award to be bestowed by Junior League at fundraising event.  [Added 2/17/11]

    Judge agreed to be nominated for an award to be granted by the Junior League.  It was not until later that Judge learned that the award would be presented to Judge at a fundraising event.  Judge then asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible under these circumstances to attend and accept the award.  If that would not be permissible, Judge asked whether Judge's spouse or someone else could accept on Judge's behalf.  The Committee answered "no" to both inquiries.

    A judge may not accept awards or other honors at fundraising events for organizations unless the fundraising event "concerns the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, and the judge does not engage in the direct solicitation of funds."  Commentary to Canon 4(D)(2), Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.  The Junior League is not a law-related organization.  Furthermore, "a judge’s participation in a fundraiser as a guest of honor, featured speaker or other “draw” runs afoul of Canon 5, which forbids a judge to 'use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising.'  Fla. Code Jud. Conduct  Canon 5C(3)(b)(iii)."

    Regarding a substitute to accept for Judge, the Committee concluded:  "Substituting the judge’s spouse or other designee for the judge as a surrogate recipient of the award would not cure the problem.  It is the prestige of judicial office, not the actual appearance or charisma of the particular incumbent, that the canons prohibit being put to use in service of private interests (subject always to the 'law-related' exception)."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2011-03.

Judge may create and maintain a website designed primarily to focus high school students on college or trade school preparation.  [Added 2/3/11]

    The Florida Supreme Court Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee was asked by a judge whether it would be ethically permissible for the judge to create and privately maintain a website designed primarily to focus high school students on college or trade school preparation.  Specifically, the site would contain scholarship information provided by the school system.  "The site would also have a page dedicated to linking those who suffer from domestic violence with assistance.  This domestic violence page would suggest counseling and treatment for those who may need treatment at any of the state certified Batterer’s Intervention Programs.  The site would have links on the main page to the Army, Navy, and Air Force recruiting offices.  Finally the website would have a biographic page and briefly mention a domestic violence case that the inquiring judge was recused from because the violence occurred in front of the judge."

    The Committee maintained its previously-announced policy of not screening the content of the website, much as it declines to vet specific campaign literature.  Therefore, the Committee's advice to the judge addressed "only the concepts of the contemplated conduct."

    A majority of the Committee concluded that the proposed conduct would be permissible, provided that the content of the website complied with applicable provisions of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.  The Committee noted that, while a judge's use of a website is not ethically prohibited, a judge may not do something on the web that the judge could not ethically do in person.  The majority pointed out the need for the site to not be of a commercial nature and to avoid linking to commercial sites (see JEAC Opinion 07-21), the fact that the website "may not be used as a forum for the discussion of pending legal matters or otherwise be maintained so as to cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge" (see Canon 3B(9), Canon 5A(1)), and the need to refrain from a discussion on the site of pending legal matters (see Canon 3B(9)).

    A minority of the Committee would have reviewed the website and would have rephrased the judge's inquiry as "May a judge create and privately maintain a website designed primarily to focus high school students on college or trade school preparation to the extent the judge also intends to include links for:  (1) assistance for domestic violence victims and batterers, and (2) description of a domestic violence case from which the inquiring judge was recused?”  The minority would have then answered the rephrased inquiry as follows:  "Yes, to the extent the inquiring judge intends to include a link for assistance for domestic violence victims and batterers.  No, to the extent the inquiring judge intends to include a link describing a domestic violence case from which the inquiring judge was recused.  As to the remainder of the inquiry, the committee does not have enough information to render an opinion.”  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2011-01.

Judge ethically may not sit on board of charitable foundation related to for-profit rehabilitation program to which judge directs misdemeanants.  [Added 12/xx/10]

    Judge has been asked to sit on the board of a non-profit foundation that engages in some charitable activities.  The foundation's sole source of financial support is an individual who owns a for-profit rehabilitation program to which Judge and other county judges routinely direct misdemeanants.  Judge asked the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible to sit on the foundation's board.

    A majority of the Committee answered in the negative.  Even though the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct permits a judge to "serve as an officer, director, trustee, or non-legal advisor of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, sororal, or civic organization not conducted for profit, subject to [certain] limitations and the other requirements of this Code" (Canon 5C(3)), a judge may not serve as an officer, director, trustee or advisor to an organization that frequently appears in court proceedings of a kind the judge hears (Canon 5C(3)(a)).  The foundation and the rehabilitation program are legally separate entities, but are related because the principal of both entities is the same and they have similar names.  The Committee majority was concerned that "the public would view the two entities as alter egos of one another and therefore would view the inquiring judge's service on the board of the non-profit foundation as involvement with the for-profit rehabilitation program."

    The majority also concluded that "service on the board of the foundation so closely linked to the for-profit rehabilitation program would violate Canon 5A(1) in that such service would 'cast reasonable doubt upon the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge' when the judge, as a part of his judicial duties, routinely directs misdemeanants to the rehabilitation program."

    A minority of the Committee viewed the proposed conduct as permissible because the foundation and the rehabilitation program are separate entities.    Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-38.

Judge may not allow juvenile offenders to perform community service hours by running in jogging program with him.  [Added 12/3/10]

    Judge presides over cases in a juvenile division.  Offenders sometimes are ordered to perform community service hours as a condition of their probation.  Judge would like to establish an optional jogging program that would allow juveniles to perform some community service hours by jogging with Judge.  Other court personnel would be present and, if any case raised conflict issues, Judge would recuse himself.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether the proposed conduct would be ethically permissible.

    Although the program seemed "well-intentioned," the Committee answered in the negative.  Judge's participation "likely would violate Canons 2A [judge shall act in manner that promotes public confidence in integrity and impartiality of judiciary], 2B [judge shall not allow relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment], 3B(7) [judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications], and 5A(1), (2), (5) & (6) [judge shall conduct extra-judicial activities so that they do not cast reasonable doubt on judge’s impartially, undermine judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality, lead to frequent disqualification, or appear to be coercive] of the Code of Judicial Conduct."

    The Committee was concerned that a juvenile would chose not to participate might fear receiving less favorable treatment from Judge, that Judge might have personal knowledge of juveniles' involvement in the program, that juveniles might make or attempt to make ex parte communications to Judge, and that Judge might have to recuse himself frequently.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-37.

Retiring judge may not send out announcements about joining mediation firm while still a sitting judge.  [Added 11/18/10]

    Judge plans to retire at the end of the year.  Judge will not be seeking senior judge status but instead will be joining a mediation firm.  The mediation firm would liked to send out announcements stating that Judge will be joining the firm.  The announcement would be sent out prior to the end of the year, while Judge is still on the bench.

    The Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee concluded that the proposed conduct was not permissible.  "Canon 2B of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct states in part that '[a] judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.'  If the Inquiring Judge permits this announcement to be sent out, the mediation firm’s interest will be advanced in several potential ways.  For example, lawyers having cases before the Inquiring Judge may use the mediation firm in their other cases in order to curry favor with the Judge.  Litigants and lawyers may be inclined to use the mediation firm while the Inquiring Judge is still a sitting judge because of the Judge’s unique position of still being a judge but having an already established business relationship with the mediation firm.  Further, the mediation firm’s announcement that the Inquiring Judge will be joining the firm gives the impression that the firm and its mediators who are lawyers are in a special position to influence the Judge."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-35.

Judge may not contact another judge to discuss drug program as alternative to jail in case involving defendant related to judge's friend.  [Added 11/18/10]

    Judge has a friend whose grandson is the defendant in a criminal proceeding.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible for Judge "to either write a letter to the presiding judge advocating a drug program which may be used as an alternative to incarceration or, if subpoenaed, appear before the presiding judge to explain the program."  The Committee answered in the negative.

    The Committee concluded that Judge "cannot write a letter on behalf of the friend's grandson to advocate the drug program as an alternative to incarceration.  To do so would violate Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct by permitting the judge's social or other relationship to influence the judge's conduct, by making a public comment while a proceeding is pending in court that is made intending, if not expecting, to affect the proceeding's outcome and by lending the prestige of the inquirer's judicial office for the advancement of the private interests of the inquiring judge's friend's grandson.  Additionally, this conduct would impair the confidence of the public in the integrity of the judicial system and in the inquiring judge and would be a violation of Canon 1."

    Similarly, the proposed testimony would be impermissible.  "[T]his contemplated conduct will violate Canons 2A and B, 3B(9) and 4A in that the testimony on behalf of the judge's friend's grandson will lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of others; the appearance as a witness by the judge will erode public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; will be perceived as testimony seeking to affect the out-come of the sentencing proceeding; will cast doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge; and undermine the judge's independence, integrity or impartially.  Therefore, the inquiring judge should not appear as a witness before the presiding judge."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-34.

Judge may not accept civic award at event that would serve as fundraiser, though not advertised as such.  [Added 11/16/10]

    An organization "devoted to providing business training and networking opportunities for women" would like to honor Judge with an award at the group's annual awards ceremony.  The event is not advertised as a fundraiser, but "to the extent that revenues from the sale of tickets and ads exceed expenses, the event may raise money for the organization.  Additionally, the organization will conduct a raffle at the event to raise money for a scholarship fund."  Judge asked whether it would be ethically permissible to accept the award.  The Committee answered in the negative.

    Because the organization is not one that is "to the improvement of the law, the legal system, the judicial branch, [and] the administration of justice” as described in Canon 4D(2)(b) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Judge could not attend the event to accept the award if the event is a fundraiser.  See Canon 5C(3)(b).  The fact that the event is not advertised as a fundraiser is not determinative; rather , "whether or not the event is actually a fundraiser for the organization is dependent upon an objective consideration of all the relevant and material facts related to the contemplated conduct."  (Emphasis by Committee.)  Here, "[t]he organization is selling tickets and congratulatory, business, or personal ads in an event publication to cover event expenses.  To the extent that revenues from the sale of tickets and ads exceed expenses, the event may raise money for the organization.  Additionally, the organization will conduct a raffle at the event to raise money for a scholarship fund.  The committee concludes on these facts that the event is actually a fundraiser and, thus, the judge may not attend for the purpose of receiving the [award]."

The Committee went on to offer a test to be used to evaluate whether an event is a "fundraiser" for purposes of the Code:

    "a.  If an organization holds an event, and sells tickets for the dinner at a price which roughly corresponds to the costs of putting on the event, then it is not a fundraiser.  It is the judge’s responsibility to ensure the ticket price meets this requirement.
      b.  If the ticket price is more than the costs of putting on the event, or if other aspects of the event have a fundraising purpose, then it is a fundraiser and the judge may not participate as a part of the draw (featured speaker, guest of honor, etc.)  A non-exhaustive list of such aspects include

i. Selling ads for a program.
ii. Raffle.
iii. Auction of contributed items.
iv. Similar activities at or associated with the event to raise money for the organization or its causes."

    A minority of the Committee expressed the view that the event at issue was not a "fundraiser".

Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-33.

Circuit's Chief Judge may send letter to "Members of the Bar" urging them to join Florida Bar's "One" pro bono campaign.  [Added 9/20/10]

    A circuit's Chief Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible to send a letter to "Members of the Bar" urging them to "join or participate in the in the [Florida] Bar’s 'One Campaign' by donating pro bono legal services.  The proposed letter also refers to a potential monetary donation to a legal aid organization as an alternative to service."

    The Committee answered in the affirmative, observing that "the inquiring judge’s proposed letter of support for the 'One Campaign' of The Florida Bar is precisely the type of judicial conduct the 2008 amendments to the Code were intended to permit."  (See In Re: Amendments to the Code of Judicial Conduct - Limitations on Judges’ Participation in Fundraising Activities, 983 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2008).)

    Canons 4 and 5 of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, as amended in 2008, now permits judges to participate in fund-raising activities for organizations on a limited basis.  "The new rule applies only if the following four conditions are met:  1. The organization is devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, the judicial branch, or the administration of justice, and 2. The fundraising event concerns the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, and 3. The funds raised will be used for a law related purpose, and  4. Participation in such activities would not cast doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge and is consistent with other provisions of the code."  (Emphasis by Committee.)  These conditions were met in the Chief Judge's situation.

    The Committee also concluded that the Commentary to Canon 4D(2) permits a judge to solicit for memberships in an organization as long as the solicitation is not directed at individuals who are likely to appear in the court in which the judge sits.  That condition was not a problem in the Chief Judge's inquiry because the proposed letter would be sent to "Members of the Bar" and, as such, "is a general solicitation, not direct or individual."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-31.

Judge may not write letter of commendation on behalf of convicted felon who is seeking pardon from governor.  [Added 8/12/10]

    Judge is familiar with a person who served as case manager and court liaison between drug court and a mental health agency.  Judge admired and appreciated the person's work.  The person is a convicted felon who is seeking a pardon from the governor.  The person has asked Judge to write a letter of commendation in support of the pardon request.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible to write the letter.

    The Committee answered in the negative.  Canon 2B of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others, and the proposed letter of commendation would do this.  The Commentary to Canon 2B does provide an exception for some letters of recommendation:  "Although a judge shall be sensitive to possible abuse of the prestige of office, a judge may, based on the judge's personal knowledge, serve as a reference or provide a letter of recommendation.  However, a judge must not initiate the communication of information to a sentencing judge or a probation or corrections officer but may provide to such persons information for the record in response to a formal request."

    The Committee, however, stated that it "has previously adhered to the view that a judge should not write voluntary character reference letters on behalf of persons involved in investigative and adjudicative proceedings.  In Fla. JEAC Op. 97-7, this Committee opined  that a letter of reference and support for an individual's use before the Florida Cabinet in an application for clemency was improper and in violation of Canons 1 and 2.  The same rationale applies to a letter of commendation in support of a petition for a pardon from the Governor."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-29.

A full-time magistrate who hears family and civil matters in one county may not work as mediator on weekends in another county.  [Added 8/9/10]

    General Magistrate is employed in that position full-time and hears civil and family matters exclusively in one county of a multi-county circuit.  General Magistrate "is also certified as a family mediator and proposes to offer, and to advertise, mediation services on weekends and days off from employment with the state in an adjoining county."  General Magistrate asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether this proposed conduct was ethically permissible.  The Committee answered in the negative.

    Canons 1, 2A, and 3 of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct apply to the conduct of a general magistrate (along with such other provisions of the Code as might reasonably be relevant).  See "Application" section of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  After reviewing some of its prior opinions, the Committee concluded:  "[I]t appears that combining the roles of a civil/family general magistrate and a private certified family mediator in one individual creates the specific conflict  proscribed by the Code.  Family magistrate work and family mediation involve the same field of law; combining the two roles in one person could cause an erosion of the public’s confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the general master, in violation of Canon 2A.  Attempting to avoid the conflict by crossing an adjoining county line to offer the conflicting service is not a realistic remedy."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-26.

Judge ethically may serve as honorary chairman for bench-bar tennis tournament organized by local bar association.  [Added 8/2/10]

    Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible for Judge to serve as "honorary chairman" for a bench-bar tennis tournament organized by the local bar association to promote collegiality between lawyers and judges.  The event would not be a fundraiser, the costs would be paid by donations from lawyer and non-lawyer sponsors, and Judge would not be involved in soliciting or collecting donations.

    The Committee answered in the affirmative.  Although Canon 2B of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judges from lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the judge's private interests or convey the impression that others are in a special position to influence the judge, the Committee was of the view that Canon 2B must be read in conjunction with Canon 4D(2)(b).  Canon 4D(2)(b) provides that a judge "may appear or speak at, receive an award or other recognition at, be featured on the program of, and permit the judge’s title to be used in conjunction with an event of [an organization devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, the judicial branch, or the administration of justice], but if the event serves a fund-raising purpose, the judge may participate only if the event concerns the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice and the funds raised will be used for a law related purpose."

    In the opinion of the Committee, Judge's "participation as “Honorary Chairman” of the Bench-Bar tennis tournament would comply with Canon 4D(2)(b)."  The event will not serve a fund-raising purpose, but even if it did the Committee would consider Judge's participation permissible because the funds would be used for a law-related purpose and Judge would not be involved in soliciting them.  The Committee commented:  "If we were to opine otherwise on the instant issue, then it would call into question a number of voluntary bar association events at which individual judges speak, receive awards or other recognition, are featured, or are the guests of honor.  Such events regularly rely on lawyer and nonlawyer sponsors to defray the events’ costs."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-24.

Judge may speak about judiciary's role in foreclosure cases at "recovery rally" organized by high school students, even if U.S. President also speaks.  [Added 6/1/10]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-13.

Judge who retains personal counsel may negotiate discounted fee, but the reduction may have to be reported as a gift.  [Added 5/10/10]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-11.

Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee reaffirms its position on judges' naming lawyers as "friends" on social networking websites.  [Added 4/30/10]  -- 

    The Committee, however, did state that a judge's participation in a "subject matter" forum is not prohibited by Canon 2B.  "All Committee members continue to agree that because the organization, as opposed to the judge, determines and controls who may have access and participate in that type of social networking site, it is ethically permissible for a judge to be a member of a voluntary bar association’s Facebook page and the judge is not required to 'de-friend' lawyers who are also members on that organization’s Facebook page and who use Facebook to communicate among themselves about that organization and other non-legal matters."

    A minority of the Committee issued its own opinion, believing that Opinion 2009-20 "was wrongly decided and should be receded from."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-06.

Judge's assistant need not refrain from "friending" on social networking websites lawyers who appear before judge if site does not refer to judge or judge's office.  [Added 4/30/10]

    In view of Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-20, which recommends that judges who use social networking websites refrain from adding lawyers who are likely to appear before them as "friends" on the sites, a judge asked the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether this recommendation also applies to the judge's judicial assistant.

    The Committee concluded:  "As long as a judicial assistant utilizes the social networking site outside of the judicial assistant’s administrative responsibilities and independent of the judge, thereby making no reference to the judge or the judge’s office, this Committee believes that there is no prohibition for a judicial assistant to add lawyers who may appear before the judge as 'friends' on a social networking site."  The Committee cautioned, however, that "in the unlikely event that a lawyer attempts an ex-parte communication through the social networking site, the judge should direct the judicial assistant to immediately 'de-friend' the lawyer and to immediately report it to the judge."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-04.

Judge who is asked to serve as president of local chapter of ABOTA may do so.  [Added 4/21/10]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-03.

Unethical for judge to rent a room in judge's home to non-related person on community control.  [Added 1/25/10]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-01.

Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee issues opinion regarding judge's use of social networking websites.  [Added 12/17/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-20.  NOTE:  Because the Committee's conclusions reached in Opinion 2009-20 were based solely on Canon 2, they apply to sitting judges but not to judicial candidates.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2010-05.

Judge ethically may endorse the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation and may promote the Proclamation at bar association meetings.  [Added 10/21/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-19.

Judge ethically may serve as trustee of trust created by judge's grandfather for benefit of judge's uncle.  [Added 10/9/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-18.

Judge may not permit legal services corporation to use in fundraising campaign taped interview of judge, while in private practice, urging others to partner with corporation.  [Added 9/16/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-15.

Chief judge ethically may not appoint members to municipal Board of Ethics that addresses ethical issues in legislative and judicial branches of government.  [Added 9/16/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-14.

not unethical for judge to become member of local gun club that requires that its members also be members of National Rifle Association.  [Added 9/8/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-13.

Judge may not join judicial and legal education committee of nonprofit organization named "Women in Distress."  [Added 7/8/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-11.

Judge who is president of  Inn of Court may contact legislators to urge action on legislation relating to judicial funding and duties.  [Added 6/19/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-08.

Judge recently appointed to bench may receive contingent fee for legal work performed before taking office.  [Added 6/8/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-09.

Unethical for judge to attend and receive award at fundraiser for "ORT America" organization.  [Added 4/20/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-07.

Judge may not serve on county ethics commission that is establishing ethics code for county commission.  [Added 4/8/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-06.

Ethically permissible for judge to serve as officer of public university's alumni association.  [Added 3/10/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-04.

Judge may serve as officer of closely held family corporation and be paid commission on sale of corporate real estate.  [Added 1/10/09]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-25.

Judge may not appear as "dignitary guest" in tax-exempt ballet company's fund-raising production of "The Nutcracker."  [Added 12/17/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-22.

Judge may buy congratulatory ad in program for fundraising event sponsored by Anti-Defamation League honoring 2 members of legal community.  [Added 12/11/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-23.

Judge may serve on charitable group's executive committee if judge is not directly involved in fund-raising.  [Added 10/17/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-20 (October 13, 2008).

Judge may not accept invitation to 2-day hunt with former litigant's husband on land controlled by that family, per Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.  [Added 10/9/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-19 (October 7, 2008).

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee cautiously concludes that judge may speak at fundraising dinner for drug court.  [Added 9/18/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2008-17.

Judge may not serve as trustee or executor for out-of-state friend, even where it is unlikely that any legal proceedings would occur in Florida.  [Added 2/26/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2008-05 (February 15, 2008).

Judge may not be advisory board member for internet company offering divorce-related information, but may write article to be published on company's website.  [Added 1/2/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2007-21 (December 18, 2007).

Unethical for judge to attend and speak at partisan ladies group luncheon.  [Added 1/2/08]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2007-20 (December 14, 2007).

Judge may not solicit businesses for donations of gift certificates to be given to juveniles on probation as rewards for good behavior.  [Added 12/14/07]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2007-18.

Judge serving on local canvassing board ethically may accept offer from supervisor of elections to pay for out-of-town workshop.  [Added 10/10/2007]  --  Judicial Ethics Opinion 2007-15.

Senior judge may not advertise mediation services in ads targeted at non-lawyers, even if ad does not indicate that senior judge served on the bench.  [Added 8/15/07]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2007-12.

Ethically permissible for judge to speak at CLE seminar sponsored by private organization, receive honorarium, and allow organization to use judge's photo and bio in seminar advertising.  [Added 5/11/07]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2007-09.

Impermissible for judge to accept position on board of trustees of branch campus of state university.  [Added 5/3/07]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2007-08.

Judge may write letter recommending former staff attorney for public service fellowship.  [Added 4/23/07]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2007-06.

Ethically permissible for judge to accept appointment to constitutional taxation and budget reform commission.   [Added 3/1/07]  --  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2007-03.

Unethical for judge to join Florida Highway Patrol Auxiliary, even in purely administrative capacity.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-29.

Permissible for judge to speak to community groups about dangers of online predators.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-30.

Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opines on newly-elected judge's continued service in various extra-judicial activities and posts.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-28.

Ethically permissible for judge to serve on county's affordable housing advisory board and county's public policy institute that appoints members to housing board.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-23.

Not unethical for judge to participate in panel discussion on underage drinking sponsored by MADD chapter.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2006-17.

Judge who prosecuted murder cases while assistant state attorney may, but is not required to, meet with current state attorney to discuss claims made by defendant in Rule 3.850 motion.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2006-12.

Judge may not allow former law firm to publish congratulatory announcements in Bar News or in letters to clients.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-10.

Judge who formerly practiced with legal services organization may not place congratulatory message in ad for organization's anniversary luncheon.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-09.

Permissible for judge sitting on charity's "advisory board of directors" to allow name and title to be listed on charity's letterhead.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-05.

Improper for judge who sat on arbitration panel before taking bench to talk with parties and their lawyers about arbitration decision.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-07.

Unethical for judge to serve on committee that helps select nominees to U.S. military academies.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-04.

Senior judge subject to recall may write articles for newspaper but may not own or be employee of paper.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2006-02.

Judge may not discuss former clients' cases with their new lawyers (except when it would not constitute practice of law).  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2005-19.

Improper for judge to run in marathon sponsored by charitable organization unless it is not fundraiser and no attention is called to judge's participation.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2005-14.

Judge may attend legal seminars sponsored by criminal defense lawyers association or equivalent prosecutors' group.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2005-13.

Judge may not narrate video to be used in fundraising effort for historic courtroom restoration.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2005-12

County court judge may teach in police academy at local community college.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2005-11.

Senior Judge may not testify as expert witness on receiver's fees.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2005-10.

Upon assuming bench judge should close trust account because continuing to operate it for outstanding disbursements is ethically prohibited.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2005-08.

Judge may work at fund-raising school concession stand, but not as cashier.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2005-07.

Judge may not serve as guardian of person for child who is not member of judge's family.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2005-03.

Judge-elect retained as expert witness prior to election should not testify in matter even pursuant to subpoena.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2004-37.

Unethical for judge to dress as Santa Claus to help collect money for Salvation Army.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2004-36.

Judge may not prepare affidavit regarding character of lawyer in Bar disciplinary proceeding, even pursuant to subpoena duces tecum.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2004-22.

Subject to Canon 7, judicial candidate may provide responses to questions for publication in connection with newspaper opinion survey.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2004-24 (Election).

First cousin of judge's spouse is not "family member" to whom judge ethically may give legal advice.  Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee Opinion 2004-15.