CJEO Formal Opinion No. 2023-024 — Accepting Invitations to Law Firm Celebrations

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 2023-024
[Posted August 29, 2023]
ACCEPTING INVITATIONS TO LAW FIRM CELEBRATIONS
I. Question
The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions has been asked whether a judicial
officer may accept an invitation from a for-profit law firm to attend its 50th anniversary
celebration, which will take place at the law firm’s offices and include complimentary
food and beverages.
II. Summary of Conclusions
The committee advises that a judicial officer may not accept an invitation to a law
firm’s 50th anniversary celebration under these circumstances as it could likely violate

2
several canons in the Code of Judicial Ethics,1 namely: (1) the prohibitions against
suggesting bias or that anyone has a special position of influence over the judicial officer
(canons 2, 2A, and 2B(1)); (2) the prohibition against lending judicial prestige to advance
a person’s pecuniary or personal interests (canon 2B(2)); and (3) the prohibition against
accepting gifts absent certain exceptions (canon 4D(6)). There are exceptions to this
general advice. For example, it may be permissible for a judicial officer to attend the
celebration of a law firm with which the judicial officer has a preexisting relationship
warranting disqualification, provided the judicial officer’s attendance is otherwise
consistent with the canons.
III. Authorities
A. Applicable Canons
Terminology: “ ‘Gift’ means anything of value to the extent that consideration of
equal or greater value is not received, and includes a rebate or discount in the price of
anything of value unless the rebate or discount is made in the regular course of business
to members of the public without regard to official status.”
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
1 All further references to the code, canons, 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(1): “A judge shall hear and decide all matters assigned to the judge
except those in which he or she is disqualified.”
Canon 3E(5): “Disqualification of an appellate justice is also required in the
following instances[:] [¶] . . . [¶]
(e)(ii): a lawyer or spouse or registered domestic partner of a lawyer in the
proceeding is the spouse, registered domestic partner, former spouse, former registered
domestic partner, child, sibling, or parent of the justice or of the justice’s spouse or
registered domestic partner, or such a person is associated in the private practice of law
with a lawyer in the proceeding.”
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 4D(5): “Under no circumstance shall a judge accept a gift, bequest, or
favor if the donor is a party whose interests have come or are reasonably likely to come
before the judge. . . .”
Canon 4D(6): “A judge shall not accept and shall discourage members of the
judge’s family residing in the judge’s household from accepting a gift, bequest, favor, or
loan from anyone except as hereinafter set forth. Gifts that are permitted by Canons
4D(6)(a) through (i) may only be accepted if the gift, bequest, favor, or loan would
neither influence nor reasonably be perceived as intended to influence the judge in the
performance of judicial duties:
(a) a gift, bequest, favor, or loan from a person whose preexisting relationship with
the judge would prevent the judge under Canon 3E from hearing a case involving that
person;

4
(b) a gift for a special occasion from a relative or friend, if the gift is fairly
commensurate with the occasion and the relationship; [¶] . . . [¶]
(d) any gift incidental to a public testimonial, or educational or resource materials
supplied by publishers on a complimentary basis for official use, or a discounted or
complimentary membership in a bar-related association, or an invitation to the judge and
the judge’s spouse or registered domestic partner or guest to attend a bar-related function
or an activity devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the
administration of justice; [¶] . . . [¶]
(g) ordinary social hospitality; [¶] . . . [¶]
(i) a nominal gift, provided the gift is not from a lawyer, law firm, or other person
likely to appear before the court on which the judge serves, unless one or more of the
exceptions in this canon applies.”
Advisory Committee commentary following canon 4D(6)(a): “Upon appointment
or election as a judge or within a reasonable period of time thereafter, a judge may
attend an event honoring the judge’s appointment or election as a judge provided that (1)
the judge would otherwise be disqualified from hearing any matter involving the person
or entity holding or funding the event, and (2) a reasonable person would not conclude
that attendance at the event undermines the judge’s integrity, impartiality, or
independence.”
B. Constitutional Provisions, Statutes, and Other Authorities
Code of Civil Procedure sections 170.1 and 170.9
Adams v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1995) 10 Cal.4th 866
Commission on Judicial Performance, Public Censure of Former Judge Steven C.
Baily (2019)
Commission on Judicial Performance, Public Censure of Admonishment of Judge
John P. Shook (1988)
CJEO Formal Opinion 2014-005 (2014), Accepting Gifts of Little or Nominal
Value Under the Social Hospitality Exception, California Supreme Court
Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions

5
CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2019-030 (2019), Acceptance of a Private
Testimonial Dinner and Honors, 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
California Judges Association, Judicial Ethics Committee, Advisory Opinion
No. 43 (1996)
California Judges Association, Judicial Ethics Update (Feb. 2010)
California Judges Association, Judicial Ethics Update (Nov. 2012)
California Judges Association, Judicial Ethics Update (Jan. 2018)
California Judges Association, Judicial Ethics Update (Jan. 2019)
Rothman et al., California Judicial Conduct Handbook (4th ed. 2017) sections 9:7,
9:41, 9:44, 9:52, and 9:53
IV. Discussion
Judicial officers are often invited to celebrations hosted by law firms, such as
events celebrating the holidays, a law firm opening or merger, or a significant
anniversary. When considering whether to accept such an invitation, the judicial officer
is advised to consider whether it would implicate any of the following canons.
A. Bias or Special Influence
First, a judicial officer must consider whether attending the law firm celebration
will compromise public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary or suggest that the
law firm is in a special position to influence the judicial officer. (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 4A(1) [a judge must conduct all
extrajudicial activities in a manner that does not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s
capacity to act impartially]; canon 2B(1) [a judge must not allow family, social, political,
or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgement, nor shall a

6
judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that any individual is in a special
position to influence the judge].) Put another way, a judicial officer must consider
whether attendance might reasonably suggest that the judicial officer is biased in favor of
the law firm or under the influence of the law firm.
To determine whether attendance would suggest bias or special influence, a
judicial officer must be guided by the perspective of an objective observer. (Advisory
Comm. commentary foll. canon 2A [the test for impropriety is whether a person aware of
the facts might reasonably doubt the judge’s integrity or impartiality].) In the
committee’s view, attending a law firm’s 50th anniversary celebration may suggest that a
judicial officer has a special relationship or close association with the law firm. This may
cause an observer to reasonably question the judge or court’s impartiality in cases
involving the law firm or suspect that the law firm has special sway or influence over the
judicial officer in carrying out judicial decisions. For these reasons, the committee
advises against attending a law firm celebration under the circumstances presented here.
B. Lending Prestige
A judicial officer must also consider whether attending the law firm celebration
would impermissibly lend judicial prestige to advance the law firm’s interests. (Canon
2B(2) [a judge shall not lend judicial prestige or use judicial title in any manner to
advance the pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or others].) While they may have
social aspects, law firm celebrations are typically attended by clients, or prospective
clients, and are generally geared toward promoting the law firm as a business. The
Rothman treatise explains that a law firm holiday party, for example, “may have social
purposes, but such an event is undoubtedly centered on the advancement of the business
of the firm,” and is treated as a business expense. (Rothman et al., Cal. Judicial Conduct
Handbook (4th ed. 2017) (Rothman) § 9:44, p. 633 [disagreeing with Cal. Judges Assn.,
Jud. Ethics Update (Feb. 2010) p. 5, which advised that a judge may attend a law firm
celebration for the political appointment of one of its lawyers].)

7
A judicial officer’s attendance at a law firm’s anniversary celebration may lend
prestige to the law firm by suggesting that the law firm has a favored position with the
judiciary or is endorsed by the judicial officer or the court, leading to increased business.
Due to the risk of lending judicial prestige to advance the law firm’s interests or
suggesting the judiciary’s endorsement, the committee advises against attending a law
firm anniversary celebration, as it is described here. (CJEO Expedited Opinion 2021-038
(2021), Acceptance of Attorney Services from a Law Firm, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud.
Ethics Opns., p. 4 [advising against placing a law firm’s incoming associate in an
appellate justice’s chambers because it would give the law firm a favored position not
enjoyed by its competitors and might be viewed as having the court’s endorsement];
Rothman, supra, § 9:7, p. 591, citing Cal. Judges Assn., Jud. Ethics Update (Nov. 2012)
p. 4 [a judge may not endorse an attorney’s law practice].)
C. Gifts
In addition, a judicial officer must consider whether the law firm celebration will
include food, beverages, or any other tokens or favors that qualify as gifts. Judicial
officers are prohibited from accepting gifts from any party appearing before, or
“reasonably likely” to appear before, the judicial officer. (Canon 4D(5).) With regard to
accepting gifts from a law firm, judicial officers are generally governed by canon 4D(6),
which prohibits judicial officers from accepting gifts, bequests, favors, and loans from
anyone unless the gift: (1) falls into one of the exceptions enumerated in the code; and (2)
would not “reasonably be perceived as intended to influence the judge in the performance
of judicial duties.”
Under the question presented here, the law firm’s 50th anniversary celebration will
include complimentary food and beverages, which are gifts not falling within any
enumerated exception to the gift prohibition. The code defines a gift as “anything of
value to the extent that consideration of equal or greater value is not received….” (Cal.
Code Jud. Ethics, Terminology, “Gift”; Code of Civ. Proc., § 170.9, subd. (l) [defining
“gift” in similar terms].) This includes items having small or nominal dollar value.

8
(CJEO Formal Opinion 2014-005 (2014), Accepting Gifts of Little or Nominal Value
Under the Social Hospitality Exception, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 6;
Rothman, supra, § 9:44, p. 634.) While there is an exception to the gift prohibition for
“nominal” gifts, this exception does not apply to gifts from lawyers or law firms. (Canon
4D(6)(i) [permitting nominal gifts provided they are not from a lawyer, law firm, or
person likely to appear before the court on which the judge serves].)
There is another exception to the gift prohibition for “ordinary social hospitality,”
which is also inapplicable here. (Canon 4D(6)(g).) When determining whether the
ordinary social hospitality exception applies, the crux of the analysis is whether an
activity is primarily social or business-oriented in nature. (CJEO Formal Opinion 2014-
005, supra, at p. 13 [when offered gifts of nominal value, a judge should consider
whether it is something that would traditionally be offered in circumstances involving
socializing rather than business].) The committee agrees with the cautious approach
expressed in Rothman that law firm celebrations are typically “[e]vents which, at their
essence, involve a business purpose” and therefore “do not constitute ‘social hospitality’
as that term is commonly understood.” (Rothman, supra, § 9:53, p. 643.) There may be
exceptions to this general rule for functions hosted by lawyers that have no business
purpose. (Cal. Judges Assn., Jud. Ethics Update (Jan. 2018), p. 5 [judge may attend a
memorial service for a deceased lawyer, paid for by the judge’s spouse who is also
lawyer, because there is no business purpose to the event and therefore it falls within the
ordinary social hospitality exception].) However, a law firm’s 50th anniversary
celebration, absent additional facts, would not fall within this category.
A determination of whether an event falls within the ordinary social hospitality
exception “focuses on a reasonable perception of an intent to gain advantage.” (CJEO
Formal Opinion 2014-005, supra, at p. 12, citing Adams v. Commission on Judicial
Performance (1995) 10 Cal.4th 866, 880; Cal. Judges Assn., Jud. Ethics Com., Advisory
Opn. No. 43 (1996), p. 4 (CJA Opinion No. 43) [ordinary social hospitality is the type of
social event so common in the judge’s community that no reasonable person would

9
believe the donor intended to obtain an advantage].) Under the question presented here,
an observer may reasonably perceive that a law firm has invited a judicial officer to its
anniversary celebration to enhance its own reputation or to gain favor or an advantage
with the judicial officer or the court.
Even if gifts incident to a law firm’s 50th anniversary celebration did fall within
the exception for ordinary social hospitality, a judicial officer may not accept them if they
would “reasonably be perceived as intended to influence the judge in the performance of
judicial duties.” (Canon 4D(6)). The risk that gifts will be perceived as intended to
influence a judicial officer is heightened when the donor is a lawyer or law firm. Gifts
from lawyers are “ ‘ “inherently wrong” ’ ” and have a “ ‘ “subtle, corruptive effect, no
matter how much a particular judge may feel he is above improper influence.” ’ ”
(Adams, supra, at p. 879 [judge disciplined for, among other misconduct, accepting a
fishing trip and various gifts from lawyers over a period of years]; Com. on Jud.
Performance, Public Censure of Former Judge Steven C. Bailey (2019), p. 16, 19-20
[judge disciplined for accepting charity event tickets and other gifts from a lawyer whom
the judge had appointed as a special master]; Com. on Jud. Performance, Public
Admonishment of Judge John P. Shook (1988), p. 4 [judge disciplined for accepting
lunches and a limousine ride from attorneys].) As a result, gifts from lawyers or law
firms are “presumptively improper.” (Rothman, supra, § 9:52, p. 641 [italics in
original].) Even when there is no actual influence, a judicial officer must refrain from
accepting any gift that creates the perception of influence. (CJEO Expedited Opinion
2021-038, supra, p. 3 [even when there is no actual influence, accepting attorney services
from a law firm would cast a shadow of influence, which must be avoided].)2
2 Attending a law firm celebration is distinguishable from attending a bar
association or legal education event sponsored by law firms. Such activities do not
generally undermine judicial impartiality, and a specific exception to the gift prohibition
applies. (Rothman, supra, § 9:41, p. 627 [judges may attend bar-related functions with
complimentary food and beverages, even when underwritten by law firms, because
judges are expected to maintain relationships with the bar and such events do not cast

10
D. Special Circumstances
There may be special circumstances, which the question presented does not
implicate here, where a judicial officer may attend a law firm function or celebration
consistent with the canons. For example, it is generally permissible to attend a
celebration of a law firm with which the judicial officer has a preexisting relationship
warranting disqualification, such as the opening of an adult child’s law practice or a
holiday party at a law firm where the judicial officer’s spouse works. In these cases, the
judicial officer would be disqualified from cases involving the law firm in any event and
exceptions to the gift prohibitions apply. (Canon 3E(5)(e)(ii) [appellate justices are
disqualified when a spouse or other close relation is a lawyer in the proceeding or in
private practice with a lawyer in the proceeding]; Civ. Proc., § 170.1(a)(5) [applying the
same rule to trial court judges]; 4D(6)(a) [providing an exception to the gift prohibition
for gifts from a person who has a preexisting relationship with the judge that would
trigger disqualification]; canon 4D(6)(b) [providing an exception to the gift rule for gifts
from relatives and friends if the gift is fairly commensurate with the occasion and
relationship]; Cal. Judges Assn., Jud. Ethics Update (Jan. 2019) p. 2 [judge may attend a
law firm open house where the judge’s spouse works and complimentary food and
beverages will be served].) 3 However, even in such cases, judicial officers are advised to
doubt on impartiality]; canon 4D(6)(d) [providing an exception for gifts incident to bar-
related functions and activities devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system,
or the administration of justice].) In recent years, law firms have increasingly hosted law
student mixers and events to promote diversity in the legal profession. When deciding
whether to attend such events, judicial officers are advised to consider whether the event
appears to promote a particular law firm or whether it is geared to improvement of the
law and legal system in general.
3 Judicial officers may also be permitted to attend celebrations of law firms from
which they are temporarily disqualified within the period of disqualification, provided the
judicial officer’s attendance is otherwise consistent with the canons. (Advisory Com.
commentary foll. canon 4D(6)(a) [within a reasonable timeframe after appointment or

11
ensure that the law firm does not use the judicial officer’s position to improperly lend
prestige to the law firm, for example, by introducing the judicial officer by title as a
special guest in the presence of clients.
This is consistent with the committee’s previous advice that a judicial officer may
attend certain private functions hosted by attorneys having a preexisting relationship with
the judicial officer warranting disqualification. (CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2019-030
(2019), Acceptance of a Private Testimonial Dinner and Honors, Supreme Ct. Com. Jud.
Ethics Opns., p. 3 [judicial officer may accept a retirement dinner from attorney members
of the Inn of Court with whom the judicial officer has a close relationship warranting
disqualification]; Rothman, supra, §9:53, pp. 642-643 [judge may attend a dinner at an
attorney’s home when there is a preexisting friendship warranting disqualification or at
least disclosure].) While a preexisting relationship requiring disqualification may give
rise to certain exceptions to the gift prohibition, a judicial officer may not avoid the
prohibition by attending a law firm celebration and then subsequently deciding to
disqualify. (Canon 3B(1) [a judge has a duty to hear all cases from which the judge is not
disqualified]; canon 4(A)(4) [a judge must conduct extrajudicial activities so that they do
not lead to frequent disqualification]; CJA Opinion No. 43, supra, at p. 1 [a judge may
not accept invitations to socialize with lawyers without regard to ethical constraints and
then subsequently decide to disqualify].)
The committee understands that there will be other circumstances under which it
may be appropriate for a judge to accept an invitation to a celebratory event hosted by a
law firm — for example, a retirement party or memorial service for a well-known
member of the legal community, given that such an event is not business oriented, and
the judge’s attendance would not necessarily be indicative of impartiality or lending
election, a judge may attend an event honoring the judge’s appointment or election
provided that the judge would otherwise be disqualified from hearing a matter involving
the entity hosting the event and a reasonable person would not conclude that attendance
undermines the judge’s integrity, impartiality, or independence].)

12
prestige to the law firm that hosts. This may be particularly true where many members of
the legal community — judges and non-judges alike — are invited. The committee
simply advises that judges evaluate their ethical obligations in connection with attending
such an event — and consider canons 2, 2A, 2B, 4A, 4D(5) and 4D(6).
V. Conclusion
A judicial officer is advised not to attend a law firm’s 50th anniversary celebration
where complimentary food and beverages will be served. A judicial officer’s presence at
such an event may suggest that the judicial officer has a special relationship with the law
firm, which may undermine the impartiality of the judiciary or convey the impression that
the law firm is in a position to influence the judicial officer’s judicial decisions. In
addition, the judicial officer’s attendance at such an event may improperly lend judicial
prestige to advance the law firm’s interests by suggesting that the law firm is favored or
endorsed by the judiciary. Finally, because law firm celebrations are primarily for the
purpose of business development, the complimentary food and beverages served at such
events are gifts for which no exception to the general prohibition against accepting gifts
applies.

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)).)