CJEO Formal Opinion No. 2023-023 — Guidelines for Hosting Educational Presentations by Outside Speakers and Groups

1
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINIONS
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
(855) 854-5366
www.JudicialEthicsOpinions.ca.gov
CJEO Formal Opinion 2023-023
[Posted July 19, 2023]
GUIDELINES FOR HOSTING EDUCATIONAL PRESENTATIONS BY
OUTSIDE SPEAKERS AND GROUPS
I. Question
The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) has been asked for guidance
regarding factors that courts1 should consider when the court invites, or court resources
are being used to host, outside speakers and groups to provide educational presentations
to judges and court staff.
1 The committee is authorized to provide ethics advice to judicial officers and
judicial candidates, as opposed to non-judicial officer court administrators. (California
Rules of Court, rule 9.80(a).) This opinion is intended to provide guidance to those
judicial officers making decisions about educational content and speakers on behalf of the
court.

2
II. Summary of Conclusions
The code generally permits and encourages judges to participate in educational
activities, and judges are required to maintain professional competence in the law.
Courts may provide educational opportunities for judges and court staff, including
presentations by outside speakers and groups, on topics relevant to the work of the courts
or the judicial branch. To ensure that presentations by outside speakers and groups
comply with the Code of Judicial Ethics,2 the committee advises that: (1) the presentation
does not undermine judicial impartiality; (2) the speakers represent a balance of interests
and viewpoints; (3) the presentation does not lend judicial prestige to advance the
interests of the outside speaker or group; (4) the presentation does not constitute improper
political activity; and (5) the outside speakers or groups are not involved, or likely to be
involved, in proceedings before the court.
III. Authorities
A. Applicable Canons
Canon 1: “A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.”
Canon 2: “A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in
all of the judge’s activities.”
Canon 2A: “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. A judge shall not make statements, whether public or nonpublic, that commit
the judge with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the
courts or that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of
judicial office.”
Advisory Committee commentary following canon 2 and 2A: “The test for the
appearance of impropriety is whether a person aware of the facts might reasonably
2 All further references to the code, canons, terminology, and advisory committee
commentary are to the California Code of Judicial Ethics unless otherwise indicated.

3
entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to act with integrity, impartiality, and
competence.”
Canon 2B(1): “A judge shall not allow family, social, political, or other
relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment, nor shall a judge
convey or permit others to convey the impression that any individual is in a special
position to influence the judge.”
Canon 2B(2): “A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office or use the
judicial title in any manner, including any oral or written communication, to advance the
pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or others.”
Canon 3B(2): “A judge shall be faithful to the law regardless of partisan interests,
public clamor, or fear of criticism, and shall maintain professional competence in the
law.”
Canon 3B(5): “A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.”
Canon 3B(7): “A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte
communications, that is, any communications to or from the judge outside the presence
of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding, and shall make reasonable
efforts to avoid such communications, except as follows….”
Canon 3B(9): “A judge shall not make any public comment about a pending or
impending proceeding in any court, and shall not make any nonpublic comment that
might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.”
Canon 3C(2): “A judge shall maintain professional competence in judicial
administration, and shall cooperate with other judges and court officials in the
administration of court business.”
Canon 4A: “A judge shall conduct all of the judge’s extrajudicial activities so that
they do not (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially… or (4)
lead to frequent disqualification of the judge.”
Canon 4B: “A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in activities
concerning legal and nonlegal subject matters, subject to the requirements of this code.”
Advisory Committee commentary following canon 4B: “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
revision of substantive and procedural law and improvement of criminal and juvenile

4
justice. To the extent that time permits, a judge may do so, either independently or
through a bar or judicial association or other group dedicated to the improvement of the
law.”
Canon 4C(3)(c): “[A] judge shall not serve as an officer, director, trustee, or
nonlegal advisor if it is likely that the organization (i) will be engaged in judicial
proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge, or (ii) will be engaged
frequently in adversary proceedings in the court of which the judge is a member or in any
court subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the court of which the judge is a member.
Canon 5: “Judges and candidates for judicial office are entitled to entertain their
personal views on political questions. They are not required to surrender their rights or
opinions as citizens. They shall, however, not engage in political activity that may create
the appearance of political bias or impropriety. Judicial independence, impartiality, and
integrity shall dictate the conduct of judges and candidates for judicial office.”
Canon 5D: “A judge or candidate for judicial office may engage in activity in
relation to measures concerning improvement of the law, the legal system, or the
administration of justice, only if the conduct is consistent with this code.”
B. Constitutional Provisions, Statutes, and Other Authorities
Code of Civil Procedure, section 170.1, subd. (a)(6)(iii)
California Rules of Court, rules 9.80(a), 10.451(a), and 10.481(b)
People v. Freeman (2010) 47 Cal.4th 993
Wechsler v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 384
United Farm Workers v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 97
CJEO Formal Opinion 2018-012 (2018), Providing Educational Presentations at
Specialty Bar Events, California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics
Opinions
CJEO Formal Opinion 2014-006 (2014), Judicial Comment at Public Hearings
and Consultation with Public Officials and Other Branches of Government,
California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions
CJEO Expedited Opinion 2021-038 (2021), Acceptance of Attorney Services from
a Law Firm, California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions

5
CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2017-021 (2017), Disqualification for Acquaintance
with Leaders of an Amicus Curiae, California Supreme Court Committee on
Judicial Ethics Opinions
CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2014-005 (2014), Disqualification for Membership
in an Amicus Curiae, California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics
Opinions
California Judges Association, Judicial Ethics Committee, Opinion No. 53 (2003)
California Judges Association, Judicial Ethics Update (January 2017)
California Judges Association, Judicial Ethics Update (June 2007)
Rothman et al., California Judicial Conduct Handbook (4th ed. 2017) section 7:57
Geyh et al., Judicial Conduct and Ethics (6th ed. 2020) section 8.02
New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinion No. 22-22(A) (2022)
IV. Discussion
The code generally permits and encourages judges to engage in educational
activities, particularly those concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration
of justice. (Canon 4B [judges may speak, write, lecture, teach and participate in activities
concerning legal and nonlegal subjects, subject to the requirements of the code];
Advisory Com. commentary foll. canon 4B [because judges are specially learned in the
law, they are in a unique position to contribute to the improvement of the law, the legal
system, and the administration of justice, and may do so independently, through bar or
judicial associations, or others means].) Moreover, judges have a duty to maintain
professional competence in the law and judicial administration. (Canon 3B(2) [judges
must be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law]; canon 3C(2)
[judges must maintain professional competence in judicial administration and cooperate
with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business].)
Further, the California Rules of Court recognize the importance of judicial
education in maintaining a fair, effective, and efficient judiciary. (California Rules of

6
Court, rule 10.451(a) [judicial branch education for all justices, judges, and subordinate
judicial officers, and court personnel is essential to enhance the fair, effective, and
efficient administration of justice and vital to the judicial branch’s long-range strategic
plan].) To this end, courts and judicial branch supervisors may provide educational
opportunities to judges and court staff. (Id. [responsibility for planning, conducting, and
overseeing judicial branch education properly resides within the judicial branch].) This
may take the form of internal trainings by established judicial branch providers, such as
the Center for Judicial Education and Research (CJER) or presentations and panels by
outside speakers and groups. Presentations by outside speakers and groups may cover
various topics, provided that the presentation is consistent with the code and “the subject
matter is relevant to the work of the courts or the judicial branch.” (Id.)
When inviting3 outside speakers and groups to provide educational presentations,
courts are advised to consider the following factors to ensure compliance with the code.
A. Undermining Impartiality
First and foremost, the code imparts on all judges a duty to preserve public
confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. (Canons 1, 2, and 2A [judges must
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and avoid
impropriety in all activities]; canon 3B(5) [judges shall perform judicial duties without
bias or prejudice]; canon 4A(1) [judges shall conduct all extrajudicial activities so that
they do not cast reasonable doubt on impartiality].) This duty prohibits not only actual
bias, but also creating an appearance of bias. (People v. Freeman (2010) 47 Cal.4th 993,
1000–1001 [in the context of judicial disqualification, rules are not only concerned with
3 This opinion is intended to provide guidance for situations where the court invites,
hosts, or otherwise provides court resources to support an educational presentation by an
outside speaker or group.

7
the due process rights of the parties, but also public confidence in the impartiality of the
judiciary, which is why the appearance of bias is itself a ground for disqualification].)
When determining whether an educational presentation by an outside group
undermines the appearance of impartiality, the court must be guided by how the activity
would objectively appear to a member of the public. (Advisory Comm. com. foll. canon
2A [the test for impropriety is whether a person aware of the facts might reasonably
doubt the judge’s integrity or impartiality]; Wechsler v. Superior Court (2014) 224
Cal.App.4th 384, 391 [the test for the perception of bias in the context of disqualification
is an objective one: if a fully informed, reasonable member of the public would fairly
entertain doubts that the judge is impartial, the judge should disqualify].) In other words,
the court must consider how the court’s hosting of the presentation might appear to a
reasonable member of the public (United Farm Workers v. Superior Court (1985) 170
Cal.App.3d 97, 104 [discussing the objective standard in the context of judicial
disqualification].)4
In the committee’s view, a reasonable member of the public would expect judges
to engage in educational activities relevant to the work of the judicial branch, including
inviting presentations by outside speakers and groups having a variety of views on
different topics. However, such presentations are subject to the requirements of the code,
such as the duty to preserve public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.
(Canons 1, 2, and 2A.) While nothing prohibits outside speakers and groups from
expressing their own viewpoints, the presentation must not be conducted in a manner that
suggests the judiciary is expressing a view on, or has pre-decided, any issue before the
4 The canon 2A test for an appearance of impropriety in a judge’s conduct is nearly
identical to the test used for discretionary disqualification in specific matters before the
judge. (Advisory Com. com. foll. canons 2 and 2A [“the test for the appearance of
impropriety is whether a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that
the judge would be able to act with . . . impartiality”]; Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1, subd.
(a)(6)(iii) [a judge shall be disqualified if for any reason “a person aware of the facts
might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial”].)

8
court. (Canon 2A [a judge shall not make public or nonpublic statements that commit the
judge with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the
courts or that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of
judicial office].) For example, it would be proper for a law professor to discuss the
evolution of class action laws. However, it would be improper for a well-known
plaintiff-side class action attorney to instruct judges how to draft pro-plaintiff class action
decisions in a manner that avoids being overturned on appeal.
To avoid the appearance of impropriety, the committee advises courts to ensure
that the content, format, and circumstances of presentations by outside speakers and
groups do not imply that the judiciary is aligned with, or biased in favor of, the outside
speaker or group on any question before the court. (Geyh et al., Judicial Conduct and
Ethics (6th ed. 2020) § 9.05, p. 6 [judges can, by their attendance at some public or
private events, create the impression that they support or ascribe to the views of those
who host the events, which, under some circumstances may cast doubt on their
impartiality or create an appearance of impropriety].)
B. Special Influence
As an extension of the duty to ensure public trust, the code prohibits a judge from
allowing anyone to influence the judge’s judicial decision making or from conveying the
impression that anyone is in a special position to influence the judge. (Canon 2B(1)
[judges must not allow family, social, political, or other relationships to influence the
judge’s judicial conduct or judgment, or convey the impression that any individual is in a
special position to influence the judge]; CJEO Expedited Opinion 2021-038 (2021),
Acceptance of Attorney Services from a Law Firm, Cal. Supreme Ct. Com. Jud. Ethics
Opns., p. 3 [even if there is no actual influence, allowing a law firm attorney to work in a
justice’s chambers casts a shadow of influence, which must be avoided].)
To avoid the impression of special influence, the committee advises that
educational speakers represent a balance of interests and viewpoints. By hosting
speakers having different interests and viewpoints, the court avoids the suggestion that

9
any particular speaker has a favored position with, or special access to, the judiciary.
This is consistent with the committee’s previous advice that when judges themselves
choose to be presenters, they make themselves equally available to audiences
representing opposing sides. (CJEO Formal Opinion 2018-012 (2018), Providing
Educational Presentations at Specialty Bar Events, Cal. Supreme Ct. Com. Jud. Ethics
Opns., pp. 2, 7–8 [judges may give educational presentations to specialty bar
associations, provided they are equally available to bar associations having opposing
interests or viewpoints]; CJA Update (June 2007) p. 3 [a judge may speak with newly
hired district attorneys about trial practice provided the judge is available to give similar
talks to the public defender’s office]; CJA Update (January 2017), p. 10 [judge may
address attorneys at the annual conference of the League of California Cities provided the
judge does not cast doubt on impartiality and is available to speak to other groups of
attorneys with different legal perspectives].)
This balance may be achieved in various ways. For example, if the court is
hosting a single-day educational panel, it might invite speakers representing different
perspectives to participate in the same panel. If the court were hosting a series of
discussions, it might select a series of speakers representing different viewpoints to
present at subsequent sessions.
C. Lending Prestige
When inviting outside speakers and groups to provide educational presentations,
courts are advised to consider whether hosting the presentation will improperly lend
judicial prestige to advance the interests of the speaker or group. (Canon 2B(2) [judges
shall not lend judicial prestige or title to advance the pecuniary or personal interests of
the judge or others].) The prohibition against lending judicial prestige to advance
interests is not limited to financial interests. For example, if the court were to host an
educational presentation by an outside speaker or group with a particular policy goal or
political agenda, the court may impermissibly lend judicial prestige to the extent that the
speaker or group uses the educational presentation as a platform to advocate for its own

10
goals. The risk of improperly lending prestige is heightened when the speaker or group is
a partisan entity, such as an advocacy organization with a well-known political agenda, as
opposed to a neutral think-tank.5
D. Improper Political Activity
In addition, the committee advises courts to consider whether an educational
presentation by an outside speaker or group constitutes improper political activity.
Judges are prohibited from engaging in political activity except as it relates to “the law,
the legal system, and the administration of justice” and is otherwise consistent with the
code. (Canon 5 [judges shall not engage in political activity that may create the
appearance of political bias or impropriety]; canon 5D [judges may engage in activity
relating to measures concerning improvement of the law, the legal system, or the
administration of justice provided the activity is consistent with the code]; CJEO Formal
Opinion 2014-006 (2014), Judicial Comment at Public Hearings and Consultation with
Public Officials and Other Branches of Government, Cal. Supreme Ct. Com. Jud. Ethics
Opns., p. 7 [judges may advocate only on behalf of the legal system, focusing on court
users, the courts, or the administration of justice].)
Depending on the circumstances, it may be reasonable for a member of the public
to assume the court ascribes to, or may be swayed by, the views of a speaker it decides to
host. For this reason, courts are advised to exercise caution when considering speakers
who have made political statements on partisan issues, are strongly associated with certain
5 There may be other situations where a court’s invitation to an outside speaker or
group to present may improperly lend judicial prestige to advance pecuniary or personal
interests in violation of canon 2B(2). For example, if a retired judge serving as a private
meditator or a private mediation service gave or sponsored an educational presentation to
the court, it would be improper for the retired judge or private mediation service to use
the prestige associated with presenting to the judiciary to promote business. Depending
on the circumstances, such a presentation may also convey the impression that the retired
judge or private mediation service has a favored or special position of influence over the
judiciary in violation of canon 2B(1).

11
political viewpoints, or have engaged in political or other activities that would cause a
person aware of the facts to doubt the impartiality of the judiciary. (Advisory Com. com.
foll. canon 2A.)
E. Pending Proceedings
Lastly, the committee advises that when hosting outside speakers and groups,
courts consider the extent to which the speaker or group is involved, or is likely to be
involved, in proceedings pending before the court. For example, politically active
organizations may be involved in lawsuits, either as parties or amicus curiae, relating to
the issues they plan to present. If the court were to host such a presentation, it may create
the impression that the court is biased in favor of the organization or has pre-decided an
issue in its favor. 6 (Canon 2A [judges must promote public confidence in impartiality
and shall not make statements suggesting the judge has pre-decided an issue or case].) In
addition, depending on the content and format of the presentation, there may be a risk of
exposing judges in the audience to ex parte information relating to a pending proceeding
or of creating the appearance the judiciary is commenting on a pending proceeding.
(Canon 3B(7) [judges shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications,
defined as any communication outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending
or impending proceeding]; canon 3B(9) [judges shall not make a public comment on a
proceeding pending in any court].)
Even if the outside speaker or group is not currently involved in litigation before
the court, it would be improper for the court to host a speaker or group who is likely to
6 Educational speakers may be experts in their field and, in some cases, serve as
expert witnesses in litigation. An educational speaker’s appearance as an expert or other
witness in litigation does not raise the same bias concerns as speakers who are involved
in litigation as parties. However, depending on the circumstances, a judge may be
required to disclose previous attendance at an educational presentation at which an expert
witness in the judge’s matter appeared as a speaker.

12
have future litigation before the court that may later require the court or judges in the
audience to disqualify.7 (Canon 4A(4) [judges shall conduct extra-judicial activities in a
manner that does not lead to frequent disqualification].) Because judges have a duty to
avoid disqualification, the code prohibits judges from serving in leadership positions in
organizations frequently involved in litigation. (Canon 4C(3)(c) [judges shall not serve
as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor to organizations likely to be engaged in
judicial proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge or in adversarial
proceedings in the court in which the judge is a member].) For the same reason, courts
and judges are advised to avoid close public associations with organizations frequently
involved in litigation. (Rothman, supra, § 7:57, p. 478, citing Cal. Judges Assn., Jud.
Ethics Com., Opn. No. 53 (2003) [depending on the nature of the organization,
membership in a nonprofit organization that represents a side in litigation may raise a
question as to the judge’s capacity to be impartial]; N.Y. Advisory Com. on Jud. Ethics
Opn. No. 23-22(A) (2022), pp. 1–2 [a judge may be a regular member of the New York
Civil Liberties union, but not on the board of directors, due to the extensive lobbying,
advocacy, and litigation activities of the organization].)
7 In the case of organizations that frequently appear as amicus curiae, the risk of
future disqualifications may depend on the nature of the organization and the degree of
the court’s association with it. (CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2014-005 (2014),
Disqualification for Membership in an Amicus Curiae, Cal. Supreme Ct. Com. Jud.
Ethics Opns., pp. 2–3 [appellate justices have discretion to disqualify when they are
members of an organization filing an amicus brief in a pending matter, with factors to
consider being the nature of the organization and the justice’s level of involvement;
CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2017-021 (2017), Disqualification for Acquaintance with
Leaders of an Amicus Curiae, Cal. Supreme Ct. Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 2–3
[appellate justice has discretion but is not required to disqualify due to a casual
acquaintance with leaders of an amicus curiae when contacts have been limited].)

13
V. Conclusion
The code broadly permits and encourages judicial education. To this end, courts
may invite outside speakers and groups to provide educational presentations to judges
and court staff on issues relevant to the work of the courts or judicial branch. To ensure
compliance with the code, courts are advised to ensure: that presentations do not
undermine judicial impartiality; that presenters represent a balance of viewpoints; that the
court is not improperly lending judicial prestige to advance the interests of any outside
speaker or group; that presentations do not constitute improper political activity; and that
outside speakers and groups are not involved, or likely to be involved, in a proceeding
pending before the court.

This opinion is advisory only (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.80(a), (e); Cal. Com.
Jud. Ethics Opns., Internal Operating Rules & Proc. (CJEO) rule 1(a), (b)). It is based
on facts and issues, or topics of interest, presented to the California Supreme Court
Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions in a request for an opinion (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 9.80(i)(3); CJEO rule 2(f), 6(c)), or on subjects deemed appropriate by the
committee (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.80(i)(1); CJEO rule 6(a)). The conclusions
expressed in this opinion are those of the committee and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the California Supreme Court or any other entity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
9.80(b); CJEO rule 1(a)).)