Opinion No. 01-11

October 9, 2001

Topic: Appropriateness or propriety of a former law firm honoring a judge at a party or gathering after his/her investiture.

Digest: It is proper for a judge to be feted at a post-investiture party sponsored by his/her former law firm, so long as it is not intended to advance the interests or status of the law firm.

References: Illinois Supreme Court Rules 62B and 63C(1)(c).

FACTS

A judge's former law firm sponsors a post-investiture party to honor its former member.

QUESTION

May a judge's former law firm sponsor or host a post-investiture gathering?

OPINION

A judge may permit his/her former law firm to sponsor or host a post-investiture party taking into consideration practical considerations and propriety.

This inquiry elicits two basic concerns: first, the motivation of the former law firm in honoring the judge and, second, any future relationship the judge may have with the law firm.

First: It would not be unexpected that a former law firm would honor a former member of the firm who becomes a judge by hosting a party. Although the judge should be consulted and may need to exercise selected control over the particulars of the gathering, it would be common courtesy to permit such a celebration.

Rule 62 provides:

A judge should not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of others; nor should a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.

In order to avoid any appearance of impropriety, a judge should be concerned about the magnitude or extravagance of the celebration and the number and nature of those invited.

Second: The disqualification requirements under Rule 63 are clearly defined and should be strictly adhered to by the new judge involving his former law firm.

Rule 63 provides that "A judge should perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently". Specifically, a judge should disqualify himself or herself per paragraph (c), when

…the judge was, within the preceding three years, associated in the private practice of law with any law firm or lawyer currently representing any party in the controversy (provided that referral of cases when no monetary interest was retained shall not be deemed an association within the meaning of this subparagraph) or, for a period of seven years following the last date on which the judge represented any party to the controversy while the judge was an attorney engaged in the private practice of law.