Ohio Board Advisory Opinion Op. 21-08

This nonbinding advisory opinion is issued by the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct
in response to a prospective or hypothetical question regarding the application of
ethics rules applicable to Ohio judges and lawyers. The Ohio Board of Professional
Conduct is solely responsible for the content of this advisory opinion, and the advice
contained in this opinion does not reflect and should not be construed as reflecting the
opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Questions regarding this advisory opinion
should be directed to the staff of the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct.
OPINION 2021-8
Issued October 1, 2021
Judicial Participation in a Documentary Film
SYLLABUS: Subject to certain ethical limitations, a specialized docket court judge may
participate in a not-for-profit documentary film that includes the filming of courtroom
proceedings and interviews of the judge and court personnel.

65 SOUTH FRONT STREET, 5TH FLOOR, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-3431
Telephone: 614.387.9370 Fax: 614.387.9379
www.bpc.ohio.gov
PATRICIA A. WISE
CHAIR
RICHARD A. DOVE
DIRECTOR
HON. D. CHRIS COOK
VICE- CHAIR
D. ALLAN ASBURY
SENIOR COUNSEL
KRISTI R. MCANAUL
COUNSEL
OPINION 2021-8
Issued October 1, 2021
Judicial Participation in a Documentary Film
SYLLABUS: Subject to certain ethical limitations, a specialized docket court judge may
participate in a not-for-profit documentary film that includes the filming of courtroom
proceedings and interviews of the judge and court personnel.
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether a judge in a specialized docket court may permit a documentary
filmmaker to record court proceedings and interview the judge and court personnel as
part of a documentary film about community support of persons with serious mental
illness.
APPLICABLE RULES: Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.4, 2.10, 2.12, 3.1, and 3.12
OPINION:
A documentary filmmaker has approached a judge presiding over a specialized
docket court about filming court proceedings and potentially interviewing the judge and
court personnel for a documentary film. The specialized docket court is considered a
partner in a countywide effort to assist individuals diagnosed with mental illness and
involved in the criminal justice system and will be one focus of the documentary. The
documentary film will portray the work of law enforcement, medical providers, social
service workers, peer supporters, patients, and families in the county, in supporting
people with serious mental illness. The documentary film will be financially
underwritten by several nonprofit entities and will not be commercially marketed.

Op. 2021-08 2
Judge’s Participation in a Documentary Film
A judge’s participation in a documentary film is an extrajudicial activity. See Ca.
S.Ct. Comm. Inf. Op. 2014-04. A judge is generally permitted and even encouraged to
engage in extrajudicial activities, especially those that involve the law, the legal system,
or the administration of justice. Jud.Cond.R. 3.1, cmt.[1]. Participation by judges in certain
extrajudicial activities “further[s] public understanding of and respect for courts and the
judicial system.” Jud.Cond.R. 2.1, cmt.[2]. Given that the underlying subject of the
proposed documentary concerns the legal system, a judge’s involvement is permissible
if the judge aligns his or her conduct with certain ethical limitations imposed by the Code
of Judicial Conduct.
Jud. Cond. R. 3.1
A judge may participate in extrajudicial activities, including a documentary film,
to the extent they do not interfere with the proper performance of the judge’s official
duties. Jud.Cond.R. 3.1(A). When participating in a documentary film a judge must avoid
any appearance that he or she is devoting a significant amount of time unrelated to his or
her judicial responsibilities. A judge’s official duties must take precedence over the
judge’s participation in a documentary film. Jud.Cond.R. 2.1.
Moreover, a judge may not participate in a documentary if it would appear to a
reasonable person that the participation will undermine the judge’s independence,
integrity, or impartiality. Jud.Cond.R. 3.1(C). See In re Inquiry of Broadbelt, 146 N.J. 501,
515, 683 A.2d 543 (1996) (a judge should avoid appearing in either commercial or non-
commercial programs when the judge's association with that program compromises the
independence and integrity of the judiciary.) During the filming of the documentary
when court is in session, a judge should continue to carry out the regular and ordinary
functions of his or her judicial office. The judge must also uphold the integrity of the
judiciary and not engage in conduct during filming that would call into question whether
the proceedings or the judge’s official actions are provided for the benefit of the
documentary or are being conducted in the regular course of court business. Likewise, a
judge must be cognizant of the ethical requirement to avoid outside influence by third
parties including pressure or suggestions from a filmmaker to make certain rulings or

Op. 2021-08 3
reach a specific result in a case. Jud.Cond.R. 2.4 (a judge shall not allow other interests to
influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment).
Avoiding the Abuse of the Prestige of Office
Under the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge may not abuse the prestige of office
to advance the economic interests of others. Jud.Cond.R. 1.3. Consequently, a judge must
consider any potential pecuniary benefit to the filmmaker or others in order to avoid the
potential for an abuse of the prestige of office. When a documentary, including the one
in question, is entirely grant funded, will not be commercially marketed, and will not
generate any income for any person or entity, a judge’s involvement in the project does
not implicate Jud.Cond.R. 1.3. Judicial involvement in a documentary film that will be
commercially marketed or serve as a source of income for a person or entity may, in some
circumstances, be construed as an abuse of the prestige of office. Ark. Eth. Adv. Comm.
2013-02 (taping or televising court proceedings for for-profit entity violates Rule 1.3.)
In addition, a judge involved in a documentary film must be careful to avoid
abusing the prestige of office to advance his or her own personal interests. Potential
personal interests in this context generally consist of esteem, publicity, and notoriety for
the judge. Consequently, a judge should discourage a documentary filmmaker to make
him or her the focus or subject of the film. A judge’s role in the documentary, regardless
of whether the judge is being interviewed or merely observed on camera, should be
limited and comparable to the roles of other public officials taking part in the film. The
more focused the documentary is on a judge, the greater the likelihood that an abuse of
the prestige of office to further the personal interests of the judge may arise.
Discussion of Impending/Pending Matters
As part of the documentary film a director or producer may desire to interview
the judge or court personnel. While a judge may generally participate in such an
interview, the judge cannot publicly comment on pending or impending matters in his
or her court. Jud.Cond.R. 2.10(A). During the filming of a documentary interview, a
judge may not comment about a participant’s case including, but not limited to, any
treatment by a third-party provider, an overview of the underlying facts, the applicable
law, the judge’s judicial mental process, or the likely outcome in a case. Because cases on
a specialized docket may be transferred to the regular docket, appealed, or even

Op. 2021-08 4
reopened, a judge must refrain from discussing the specifics of open and closed cases
with a documentary filmmaker. A judge may, however, comment on the function of the
specialized docket court, provide an overview of the court’s general functions, processes,
and procedures, and its overall mission. See Jud.Cond.R. 2.10(D)(a judge may make
public statements in the course of official duties and explain court procedures.) A judge
should also ensure that his or her staff complies with the same conduct expected of the
judge and not comment with the documentary filmmakers on a pending or impending
matter that will be heard in the specialized docket court. See Jud.Cond.R. 2.12.
Compensation
Although a judge’s participation in the documentary is an extrajudicial activity, a
judge may not accept any compensation from a documentary filmmaker. Doing so
eliminates any appearance of impropriety, avoids undermining the judge’s
independence, integrity, or impartiality, and ensures compliance with state law.
Jud.Cond.R. 3.12. A judge is already compensated by state law for the performance of
his or her regular judicial duties that occur when regular court proceedings are filmed or
when the judge is interviewed during regular court hours. Any additional compensation
to the judge for performing official duties constitutes supplemental income prohibited by
R.C. 2921.43. The statutory prohibition against the receipt of supplemental income also
applies to court personnel.
Incidental Use of Court Facilities and Personnel
The production of a documentary film will involve the use of court premises and
the judge’s and staff’s time. A judge may engage in the incidental use of court premises,
personnel, or other resources when engaging in an extrajudicial activity. Jud.Cond.R.
3.1(E). Therefore, a judge may permit the infrequent or occasional use of court premises
by a documentary filmmaker to record court proceedings and the use of staff to assist in
making arrangements for the filming of proceedings or interviews. In addition, a judge
should ensure that the filming does not interfere with the regular daily operation of the
court. For example, the judge should avoid suggestions by the filmmaker when to hear
certain matters at a specific time, in a particular order, or to allow for a “second take” of
matters that have already been heard on the record.