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

    Judge is assigned to the criminal division that includes defendants on felony probation, but no on community control  Judge does preside over first appearances of defendants arrested for alleged violations of community control.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible to rent a room in Judge's home to a person, not related to Judge, who is on community control.  Judge had arranged with the administrative judge to assign a different judge to preside over the prospective renter's first appearance if the renter was to be arrested for a community control violation.

    The Committee answered in the negative, for reasons that revolved around the possibility that the credibility of Judge personally and of the judicial office could be placed at issue.  For example, Judge could become a witness to the renter's conduct, or could have contact with the probation officers supervising the renter.  "The judge also would have a financial interest in rent which may compete with the individual’s requirement to pay supervision fees and other monetary conditions."  The Committee concluded that the situation inquired about by Judge "would likely violate Canons 2A, 2B, 5A, and 5D(1)(a) of the Code of Judicial Conduct."

    Canon 2A provides:  "A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."

    Canon 2B provides in pertinent part:  ". . .  A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge  . . ."

    Canon 5A provides in pertinent part:  "A judge shall conduct all of the judge's extra-judicial activities so that they do not:  (1)  cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge; (2) undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality; (3) demean the judicial office; . . . or (6)  appear to a reasonable person to be coercive."

    Canon 5D(1)(a) provides:  "A judge shall not engage in financial and business dealings that (a) may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge's judicial position[.]"

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]

    The Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee has published an advisory opinion regarding several aspects of a judge's use of social networking websites.  The Committee noted that the mere posting on or use of a social networking site by a judge is not prohibited by the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.  Certain specific activities, however, are ethically impermissible.  The Committee's conclusions are summarized below.

    A judge may post comments and other material on the judge's social networking site, provided the content of the comments does not otherwise violate the Code of Judicial Conduct.

    A committee of responsible persons conducting an election campaign on behalf of the judge's candidacy, may establish a social networking page which has an option for persons, including lawyers who may appear before the judge, to list themselves as "fans" or supporters of the judge's candidacy, so long as the judge or committee does not control who is permitted to list himself or herself as a supporter.  This practice is not prohibited by Canon 2B.  Again, the content must not otherwise violate the Code.

    The issue of identifying persons as a judge's "friends," however, presents additional ethical concerns.  "The inquiring judge proposes to identify lawyer who may appear in front of the judge as 'friends' on the judge's page and to permit those lawyers to identify the judge as a 'friend' on their pages.  To the extent that such identification is available for any other person to view, the Committee concludes that this practice would violate Canon 2B" ("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.").  According to the Committee, 3 elements must be present in order for the practice to fall within the prohibition of Canon 2B.  "First, the judge must establish the social networking page.  Second, the site must afford the judge the right to accept or reject contacts or 'friends' on the judge’s page, or denominate the judge as a 'friend' on another member's page.  Third, the identity of the 'friends' or contacts selected by the judge, and the judge's having denominated himself or herself as a 'friend' on another's page, must then be communicated to others.  Typically, this third element is fulfilled because each of a judge's 'friends' may see on the judge’s page who the judge’s other 'friends' are.  Similarly, all 'friends' of another user may see that the judge is also a 'friend' of that user.  It is this selection and communication process, the Committee believes, that violates Canon 2B, because the judge, by so doing, conveys or permits others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-20.

Judge ethically may endorse the Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation and may promote the Proclamation at bar association meetings.  [Added 10/21/09]

    Last year the Sedona Conference (a non-profit research and education organization) published the "Cooperation Proclamation," which has as its purpose "the launch of a 'coordinated effort to promote cooperation by all parties to the discovery process to achieve the goal of a ‘just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action,'' as well as 'promoting awareness of the need and advantages of cooperation' in the discovery process and 'a call to action.'"  Judge would like to endorse the Cooperation Proclamation and authorize the Sedona Conference to include Judge's name in its list of endorsements.  Further, Judge "wishes to promote, distribute, and speak at bar association meetings in support of the proclamation and its principles" in an effort to "assist in improving the quality of the practice of law in the state of Florida."

    Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether the proposed conduct was ethically permissible.  The Committee answered in the affirmative.

    "The Committee is of the opinion that endorsement of the Cooperation Proclamation in the manner described by the inquiring judge is a quasi-judicial activity concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, which is encouraged by the Code of Judicial Conduct," specifically by Canon 4B of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.  The Committee did caution Judge, however, that "while such quasi-judicial activities are encouraged by Canon 4B, they are also subject to other provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  For example, a judge 'shall not personally or directly participate in the solicitation of funds,' or engage in activities that 'cast reasonable doubt on his or her capacity to act impartially as a judge' or 'lead to frequent disqualification of a judge.'  See Canon 4D(2)(a) and 4A(1).  Accordingly, as was  recommended by the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial Conference of the United States, this Committee also recommends that the judge retain some measure of control over the use of the judge’s endorsement, including the right to veto inappropriate use of the endorsement."  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]

    Judge's grandfather left a substantial devise in trust to Judge's uncle (the grandfather's son).  Judge was named as one of two trustees.  Judge's uncle has hired counsel and has initiated litigation in an effort to have the trust dissolved.  The litigation is not in Judge's circuit.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee for an opinion regarding whether Judge may continue to serve as trustee.

    The Committee answered in the affirmative.  Canon 5E of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct states that a judge:  (1) "shall not serve as executor, administrator or other personal representative, trustee, guardian, attorney in fact or other fiduciary, except for the estate, trust or person of a member of the judge’s family, and then only if such service will not interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties" and (2) shall not serve as a fiduciary if it is likely that the judge as a fiduciary will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge, or if the estate, trust or ward becomes involved in adversary proceedings in the court on which the judge serves or one under its appellate jurisdiction."  (Emphasis by Committee.)  The Definitions section of the Code defines "member of the judge's family" as "a spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, or other relative or person with whom the judge maintains a close familial relationship."

    The majority of the Committee considered the trust to be the grandfather's trust, and thus it was unnecessary for the Committee to determine whether the uncle was a "member of the judge's family" as defined in the Code.  Consequently, it was permissible for Judge to serve as a trustee of the trust.

    (A minority of the Committee viewed the trust as the uncle's trust, which would mean that the uncle was a family member only is he had a "close familial relationship" with Judge.  The fact of such a relationship was not alleged in Judge's inquiry, so the minority was of the view that Judge should not serve as trustee.)  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]

    Judge, while in private practice, was involved with a non-profit legal aid services corporation.  In 2006 the corporation filmed an anniversary celebration video in which Judge (while still in private practice) was interviewed and urged others to partner with the corporation.  Recently the corporation indicated that it would like to use the videotaped interview as part of its fundraising campaign.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether, under several possible scenarios, it would be ethically permissible to allow the interview to be used.

    The Committee answered in the negative.  "Canon 5C(3)(b)(i) [of the Code of Judicial Conduct] provides that a judge 'shall not personally or directly participate in the solicitation of funds,' and 5C(3)(b)(iii) provides that a judge 'shall not use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising....'  Under this Canon, judges cannot solicit lawyers, law firms or other corporations to donate funds to the legal services corporations and they must not permit the use of the prestige of judicial office to do so.  Under Canon 5C(3)(b) 'a judge must also make reasonable efforts to ensure that the judge’s staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control do not solicit funds on the judge’s behalf for any purpose, charitable or otherwise.'   Commentary to Canon 5C(3)(b)."  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]

    A municipal ordinance created a Board of Ethics that is designed to address ethical issues arising in the legislative and executive branches of government.  The ordinance requires that the chief judge appoint 2 of the 5 Board members.  Chief Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee for an opinion regarding whether it would be ethically permissible to make the appointments.

    The Committee answered in the negative.  The Committee noted that the Code of Judicial Conduct "clearly endeavors to maintain the separation of powers" and quoted the following provisions from Canon 5(C):

(1) a judge shall not appear at a public hearing before, or otherwise consult with, a legislative or executive body or official except on matters concerning the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice ....

(2) a judge shall not accept appointment to a governmental committee or commission or other governmental position that is concerned with issues of fact or policy on matters other than the improvement of the law, the legal system, the judicial branch, or the administration of justice ....

(Emphasis in Committee opinion.)

    The Committee concluded:  "The municipality, through its ordinance, has delegated an executive or legislative function to a judicial officer.  The appointment process would involve consultation with the legislative body and is not a matter concerning the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, and thus is precluded by Canon 5(C)(1).  Furthermore, if the inquiring judge exercises this power of appointment, the judge is accepting a governmental position concerned with fact or policy on matters other than the improvement of the law, the legal system, the judicial branch, or the administration of justice.  This, likewise, is precluded by Canon 5(C)(2)."  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]

    Judge would like to join a local firearms club in order to use its shooting range.  As a condition precedent to membership the club requires proof of membership in the National Rifle Association ("NRA").  The NRA engages in a variety of activities relating to gun ownership and use, including lobbying efforts through its Institute for Legislative Action.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee for an opinion regarding whether Judge ethically may join the club.

    The majority of the Committee answered in the affirmative.  "This Committee has consistently cautioned judges against lending the prestige of the judicial office to further the interests of advocacy groups, and it has specifically opined that judges cannot be personally involved with any lobbying activities for such organizations.  However, the Committee has historically taken the position that mere membership in an organization which is well-known for its positions on political or controversial issues or promotes a particular legislative agenda is not prohibited by the Code of Judicial Conduct."  The Committee then reviewed a number of its prior opinions before concluding:  "[E]ight members of the Committee see no proscription to the judge’s membership in the local gun club where the club requires proof of membership in the NRA as a condition precedent to club membership, so long as the judge does not become personally involved in the NRA’s lobbying or fund-raising efforts and does not participate in the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action and so long as lobbying on issues likely to come before the judge does not become the primary purpose of the NRA."  The Committee reminded Judge of the commentary to Canon 5C(3)(a) which provides in pertinent part, “The changing nature of some organizations and their relationship to the law makes it necessary for a judge to regularly reexamine the activities of each organization with which the judge is affiliated in order to determine if it is proper for the judge to continue the affiliation.”

    One Committee member disagreed, and "would advise the inquiring judge against joining the National Rifle Association in order to comply fully with Canon 2A’s command that a judge act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary, Canon 2B’s directive that a judge not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of another, Canon 2B’s proscription that a judge not convey the impression that others are in a special position to influence the judge, and Canon 5A’s cautions that a judge be circumspect in the judge’s extra-judicial activities, all as interpreted in JEAC precedent."  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]

    Judge was asked to join a newly created committee of the nonprofit organization "Women in Distress," which is a "nationally accredited, state certified, full service domestic violence center."  The primary purpose of the new Judicial and Legal Education Committee, which would have no fundraising responsibility or advocacy activities, is to "educate lawyers and judges and to ultimately encourage lawyers to provide pro bono services."  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible to join the committee.

    The Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee answered in the negative.  "Pursuant to Canon 2B [of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct], 'a judge shall not lend the prestige of office to advance the private interests of the judge or others.'  Canon 2B.  The involvement of the judge on this Committee would indirectly advance the private interests of this non-profit organization by receiving local attorneys’ free legal services.   Furthermore, any involvement with this organization would detract from the judge’s role as a neutral and impartial magistrate, especially if the organization is paying for the judge’s lunches at these meetings.  Canons 2A & 5A."

Note:  In a prior opinion (91-22) the Committee had concluded that a judge's membership in the Women in Distress organization would violate Canons 2A, 2B, and 5A.  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]

    Judge is president of a local Inn of Court.  In response to an inquiry from Judge, the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee addressed "whether the judge, acting in the capacity as president of the organization, may transmit a letter concerning legislation pertaining to the funding and duties of the judiciary to local legislators."

    The Committee answered in the affirmative.  The Inns of Court are devoted to improvement of the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.  Canon 4D of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct permits judges to be officers in such organizations.  Canon 5A(1), however, prohibits judges from engaging in extra-judicial activities that would cast doubt on their impartiality.  According to the Committee, joining or being an officer in an "advocacy group" would violated Canon 5A(1).  The Inns of Court are not an advocacy group.  Consequently, the Committee concluded that Judge ethically may transmit the organization's letter to legislators.  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]

Before being appointed to judicial office Judge handled several legal matters on a contingent fee basis.  Judgments were obtained but not satisfied.  Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethical to receive fees for legal work performed before assuming the bench if payment was to be made on any of the outstanding judgments.

The Committee answered in the affirmative.  "As long as the fee is properly calculated based upon legal services the judge performed on behalf of the client prior to assuming the bench, and the applicable requirements of The Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct are satisfied, no impropriety appears, and the judge may collect a fee.  However, the judge may not provide legal assistance to a former client with regard to seeking satisfaction of a judgment.  See Canon 5G of the Code of Judicial Conduct ('A judge shall not practice law.'); see also JEAC Op. 05-19 (judge may not discuss former clients' cases with their new lawyers except as to matters which would not constitute the practice of law)."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-09.

unethical for judge to attend and receive award at fundraiser for "ORT America" organization  [Added 4/20/09]

    Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible to attend and receive an award at ORT America’s Jurisprudence Award Tribute event.  ("ORT" stands for "Organization for Rehabilitation through Training."  ORT America is the domestic fundraising arm of World ORT.)  The event would be a fundraiser for the organization, with any net proceeds going to an international project and ORT's general account.  Judge's name and position would be on publicity for the event.

    Judge inquired in light of the recent amendment to Canon 4D of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.  Amended Canon 4D permits judges to speak and receive awards at fundraising events of organizations or governmental entities "devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, the judicial branch, or the administration of justice," provided that the event "concerns the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice."  See In re Amendments to the Code of Judicial Conduct - Limitations on Judges' Participation in Fund-raising Activities, 983 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2008).

The Committee came to the "inescapable conclusion" that ORT America was not the type of organization contemplated by the amendment to Canon 4D.  "Furthermore, the event described herein, even if ORT could be said to fit the definition of a law-related organization contemplated by Canon 4D, would not concern the law, the legal system nor the administration of justice and the funds raised would not be used for a law related purpose, as required by Canon 4D(2)(b)."  Finally, the Committee noted that "Canon 5C(3)(b)(iii) provides that a judge 'shall not use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund raising . . .' by a governmental, civic or charitable organization.  Therefore, the judge is required to decline this invitation under Canon 5 as well."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-07.

Judge may not serve on county ethics commission that is establishing ethics code for county commission  [Add3d 4/8/09]

    Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible for the judge "to serve on a local county ethics commission that was created for the sole purpose of preparing a code of ethics regulating the behavior of county commissioners to be considered by the county commission and/or the electors of the county."  The Committee answered in the negative.

    Canon 5C(1) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct provides that "a judge shall not . . . consult with an executive or legislative body or official except on matters concerning the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. . .”   Canon 5C(2) provides that a judge "shall not accept appointment to a governmental committee or commission or other governmental position that is concerned with issues of fact or policy on matters other than the improvement of the law, the legal system, the judicial branch, or the administration of justice.”  Judge's proposed conduct would run afoul of these provisions.  "Drafting a policy to regulate the behavior of the public officials does not involve matters that improve the law, the legal system or the administration of justice and therefore is prohibited under Canon 5."  Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2009-06.

Ethically permissible for judge to serve as officer of public university's alumni association  [Added 3/10/09]

    Judge asked the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee whether it would be ethically permissible to serve as an officer of a Florida public university's alumni association.  Judge's duties would not include any fundraising or soliciting.

    The Committee answered the question in the affirmative.  Past Committee opinions had included that a judge's service on a university's board of trustees (other than a public law school) is ethically prohibited by Canon 5C(2) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.  See Opinions 03-21 and 07-08.  The Committee stated, however, that Canon 5C(3) "specifically authorizes judges to serve as officers of civic organizations not conduct for profit."  The alumni association is such a not-for-profit organization.  "In summary, although Canon 5 imposes certain restrictions, there is no canonical impediment to the inquiring judge’s contemplated service as an officer in the alumni association of a public university in Florida, so long as other requirements of the Code, including Canons 5A and 5C(3), are met."  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]

    A Florida Judge is an officer and director of a closely held family corporation.  The corporation is "solely an agricultural enterprise."  The corporation plans to sell real property that will result in "substantial income to the business and significant compensation" to Judge.  Judge's compensation will be based on a percentage of the value of the sale transaction.  Judge requested an advisory opinion from the Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.

    The Committee concluded that the conduct was permitted by Canon 5D of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.  The language of Canon 5D(3) "authorizing a judge to 'manage and participate in' a business closely held by the judge or members of the judge’s family includes participation as an officer, director, manager, general partner, advisor or employee of a closely  held family corporation.  Any other interpretation would defy logic."  Additionally, "Canon 5D(2) authorizes the judge to 'hold and manage investments of the judge and members of the judge’s family, including real estate, and engage in other remunerative activity.'  This language authorizes the judge to receive compensation from the closely held family corporation.  There are no restrictions on how the compensation is to be determined.  Thus, compensation on a percentage or commission basis is authorized."  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.