Ohio Board Advisory Opinion Op 87-042

The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 3370, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6105
(614) 644-5800 FAX: (614) 644-5804
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
OPINION 87-042
Issued: September 25, 1987
[Former CJC Opinion-provides advice under the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct which is superseded by the
Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, eff. 3/1/2009.]
[Not Current- subsequent rule amendments to Canons 1 through 6, Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, eff. May 1, 1997]
SYLLABUS: A judge should not consent to having his picture appear on the wall of a clothing
store in exchange for free neckties, and should not lend the prestige of his office to advance the
private interests of others.
OPINION: We have before us your request for our opinion on whether a judge may have his or
her picture displayed on a local clothing store's "wall of fame." The local clothing store is offering
six free neckties in exchange for an 8 x 10 photograph for display on the "wall of fame."
It is our opinion that under the Code of Judicial Conduct (the Code), a judge should not
participate in such a program. Under Canon 1 of the Code, "a judge should . . . observe high
standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved."
Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 1. Canon 2 states that a judge should conduct himself at all times
in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Code
of Judicial Conduct Canon 2(A).
Furthermore, a judge should not lend the prestige of his office to advance the private
interests of others. Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2(B). More than likely, the clothing store
intends to increase its business profits by having a judge's picture on the "wall of fame." A judge
therefore would be advancing the private interests of the store by lending his prestige to the "wall
of fame" which is proscribed under Canon 2(B) of the Code.

Op. 87-042 2
In conclusion, and based on the foregoing, it is our opinion that a judge should not allow his
picture to be displayed on the "wall of fame" at a local clothing store.
This is an informal, non-binding advisory opinion, based upon the facts as presented
and limited to questions arising under the Code of Judicial Conduct.
James W. Mason, Esq.
Secretary
Board of Commissioners
on Grievances and Discipline