Ohio Board Advisory Opinion Op 92-014

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 92-14
Issued August 14, 1992
[Former CJC Opinion-provides advice under the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct which is superseded by the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.]
[Modified by Op. 2005-2 on Feb. 4, 2005]
[Not current-subsequent rule amendments to Canons 1-6, Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, eff. May 1, 1997.]
SYLLABUS: It is improper under Sections 102.03 (D) and (E) of the Ohio Revised Code, for
referees or magistrates, who are members of a statewide association of court referees and
magistrates, to solicit, accept, or use the authority of his or her office to secure financial or other
support, from a law firm or from a business or an individual interested in matters before, regulated
by, or doing or seeking to do business with the courts in which the referees or magistrates serve, in
order to provide low registration fees, hospitality rooms, free meals, and free recreational activities
for the referees, magistrates and spouses attending the annual educational meeting of the
association. Such conduct is also improper under Canon 2B of the Code of Judicial Conduct and
Disciplinary Rule 8-101 (A) (3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Further, any
solicitation of funds by magistrates and referees is improper under Canon 5B (3) of the Code of
Judicial Conduct unless the solicitation is to members of an educational, religious, charitable,
fraternal or civic organization of which the referee or magistrate is a member.
OPINION: This opinion addresses the propriety of referees and magistrates soliciting and
accepting financial and other support for an educational meeting of a statewide association of court
referees and magistrates. The question is stated below.
Is it proper for referees or magistrates, who are members of a statewide association
of court referees and magistrates, to solicit and accept financial and other support
from law firms, businesses, or individuals to provide low registration fees,
hospitality rooms with food and beverages, free meals, and free recreational
activities for referees, magistrates and spouses attending an annual educational
meeting of the association?

Op. 92-14 2
To answer the question raised, the Board must interpret the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and Ohio Ethics Law and related Statutes. This Board has authority
under Section 102.08 and 102.01 (F) (2) of the Ohio Revised Code (Baldwin 1987) to render
advisory opinions with regard to Ohio Ethics Law for judicial officers and employees and
candidates for judicial office. The Board's authority to render advisory opinions with regard to the
Code of Judicial Conduct and the Code of Professional Responsibility is found with Rule V Section
2 (C) [formerly Rule V Section 2(b)] of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of
Ohio.
Code of Judicial Conduct and Code of Professional Responsibility
The Compliance Section of the Code of Judicial Conduct establishes that referees and magistrates
are judges for purposes of the Code. There are several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct
that are pertinent to this opinion. First, there is the Canon 5B (3) restriction on the solicitation of
funds, set forth below.
A judge [referee or magistrate] should not solicit funds for any educational,
religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization, or use or permit the use of the
prestige of his [her] office for that purpose, except he [she] may participate as a
member in solicitations limited to members of an educational, religious, charitable,
fraternal or civic organization of which he [she] is a member, and he [she] may be
listed as an officer, director, or trustee of such an organization. He [she] should not
be a speaker or the guest of honor at an organization's fund raising events, but he
[she] may attend such events.
Second, there is the Canon 2B mandate to avoid appearances of impropriety.
A judge [referee or magistrate] should not allow his [her] family, social, or other
relationships to influence his [her] judicial conduct or judgment. He [she] should
not lend the prestige of his [her] office to advance the private interests of others; nor
should he [she] convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a
special position to influence him [her]. He [she] should not testify voluntarily as a
character witness.

Op. 92-14 3
Third, there is the requirement of Disciplinary Rule 8-101 (A) (3) of the Code of Professional
Responsibility that “[a] lawyer who holds public office shall not: [a]ccept anything of value from
any person when the lawyer knows or it is obvious that the offer is for the purpose of influencing
his [her] action as a public official."
Thus, under Canon 5B (3) of the Code of Judicial Conduct it would be improper for referees and
magistrates to solicit funds for the association's annual conference from non-members of the
association, including law firms, businesses, or individuals who are non-members. Under Canon
2B it would be improper to accept any thing of value that would convey the impression of improper
influence. Under Disciplinary Rule 8-101 (A) (3) it would be improper for a referee or magistrate
to accept things of value obviously offered for the purpose of influencing his or her action as a
public official. The Board views it unnecessary to define with precision a “thing of value” under
the Code, since the questions raised can be more precisely answered under an interpretation of Ohio
Ethics Law.
Ohio Ethics Law
As judicial officers, referees and magistrates are subject to the restrictions of Ohio Ethics Law.
Ohio Ethics Law is codified in Chapter 102 of the Ohio Revised Code (Baldwin 1987 and Supp.
1991) and includes related statutes Sections 2921.42 and 2921.43 of the Ohio Revised Code
(Baldwin 1992). Pertinent to this opinion are Sections 102.03 and 2921.43.
Section 102.03
(D) No public official or employee shall use or authorize the use of the authority or
influence of his [her] office or employment to secure anything of value or the
promise or offer of anything of value that is of such a character as to manifest a
substantial and improper influence upon him [her] with respect to his [her] duties.
(E) No public official or employee shall solicit or accept anything of value that is of
such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence upon him [her]
with respect to his [her] duties.

Op. 92-14 4
(F) No person shall promise or give to a public official or employee anything of
value that is of such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence
upon him [her] with respect to his [her] duties.
(I) A public official or employee may accept travel, meals, and lodging or expenses
or reimbursement of expenses for travel, meals, and lodging in connection with
conferences, seminars, and similar events related to his official duties if the travel,
meals and lodging, expenses, or reimbursement is not of such a character as to
manifest a substantial and improper influence upon him with respect to his duties.
Section 2921.43
(A) No public servant shall knowingly solicit or accept and no person shall
knowingly promise or give to a public servant . . . :
(1) Any compensation, other than as allowed by divisions (G), (H),
and (I) of Section 102.03 of the Revised Code or other provisions of
law, to perform his [her] official duties, to perform any other actor
service in the public servant's public capacity, for the general
performance of the duties of the public servant's public office or
public employment, or as a supplement to the public servant's public
compensation;
To summarize, under Sections 102.03 (D) and (E) a referee or magistrate could not solicit, accept,
or use the authority or influence of his or her office to secure "anything of value" and of "such a
character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence upon him [her] with respect to his
[her] duties." (Note that Section 102.03 (F) places statutory responsibilities upon the person who
improperly gives a thing of value.) Section 102.03 (I) provides a limited exception allowing public
officers and thus judicial officers to accept certain expenses in connection with conferences and
seminars related to official duties but only if not of such a character as to manifest substantial and
improper influence. Finally, Section 2921.43 (A) (1) prohibits, inter alia, a public servant from
knowingly soliciting or accepting outside compensation as a supplement to a public servant's public
compensation, but permits the limited exception within Section 102.03(I).

Op. 92-14 5
In applying these statutory provisions, this Board must determine whether the proposed support is
1) “anything of value," and 2) "of such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper
influence upon him [her] with respect to his [her] official duties." "Anything of value" is defined
by statute to include money, goods, chattels, any interest in realty, a promise of future employment,
and every other thing of value. See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§102.01(G) (Baldwin 1987) and 1.03
(Baldwin 1990). "Of such a character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence” is not
defined by statute, but has been interpreted by the Ohio Ethics Commission. The approach used by
the Ohio Ethics Commission is that the determination of whether a gift is "substantial" depends
upon the nature of the thing of value; the determination of propriety focuses on the source of the
thing of value. See e.g. Ohio Ethics Commission, Op. 89-014 (1989).
According to the Ohio Ethics Commission, items or expenses that are not nominal or de minimus in
value are of "substantial" value. See Ohio Ethics Commission Op. 89-014 (1989). An improper
source of a thing of value is a party that is interested in matters before, regulated by, or doing or
seeking to do business with the public official's or employee's agency. See Ohio Ethics Comm’n
89-013 and 89-014 (1989). Using this analysis the Ohio Ethics Commissions has consistently held
that "Divisions (D) and (E) of Section 102.03 of the Revised Code prohibit a public official or
employee from soliciting, accepting, or using his [her] position to secure future employment,
consulting fees, honoraria, conference registration fees, travel, meal and lodging expenses, or other
things of value from a party that is interested in matters before, regulated by, or doing or seeking to
do business with the public official's or employee's agency." Ohio Ethics Comm’n, Op. 89-014
(1989).
This Board's view is that low registration fees, hospitality rooms with food and beverages, free
meals, and free recreational activities for referees, magistrates and spouses attending the annual
educational seminar are things of value. They are more than nominal or de minimus and thus are
substantial and must not come from an improper source. A law firm would be an improper source
of such support to referees and magistrates since lawyers are interested in matters that come before
judicial officers. An individual or a business, such as a computer services company, would be an
improper source of such support if the business or individual were interested in matters before,
regulated by, or doing or seeking to do business with the courts in which the referees or magistrates
serve. Further, it is conceivable that low registration fees, hospitality rooms with food and
beverages,

Op. 92-14 6
free meals, and free recreational activities for referees, magistrates and their spouses could be
viewed as a supplement to the referees' and magistrates' public compensation as prohibited by
Section 2921.43. However, the Board, at this time, does not express an opinion as to whether the
proposed financial and other support would fall within the ambit of Section 2921.43.
In conclusion, the Board advises that it is improper under Sections 102.03 (D) and (E) of the Ohio
Revised Code, for referees or magistrates, who are members of a statewide association of court
referees and magistrates, to solicit, or accept, or use the authority of his or her office to secure
financial or other support from a law firm or from a business or an individual interested in matters
before, regulated by, or doing or seeking to do business with the courts in which the referees or
magistrates serve, in order to provide low registration fees, hospitality rooms, free meals, and free
recreational activities for the referees, magistrates and spouses attending the annual educational
meeting of the association. The limited exception within Section 102.03 (I) allowing public
officers and thus judicial officers to accept certain expenses in connection with conferences and
seminars related to official duties would not apply since the support is deemed to be of such a
character as to manifest substantial and improper influence. The proposed conduct is also improper
under Canon 2B of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Disciplinary Rule 8-101(A) (3) of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Further, you are advised that any solicitation of funds by magistrates
and referees is improper under Canon 5B (3) of the Code of Judicial Conduct unless the solicitation
is to members of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic organization of which the
referee or magistrate is a member.
Advisory Opinions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline are
informal, nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions regarding
the application of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, the
Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Judiciary, the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Attorney's Oath of Office. Pursuant to
Section 102.08 of the Ohio Revised Code, the requester may reasonably rely on the opinion as
it applies to Ohio Ethics Law and related statutes.