Ohio Board Advisory Opinion Op. 21-12

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 2021-12
Issued December 10, 2021
Withdraws Adv. Op. 1995-05, 1998-04
Letter of Recommendation Provided by Judge
SYLLABUS: A judge may provide a letter of recommendation for an individual,
provided the letter is based on the judge’s personal knowledge of the individual for
whom the recommendation is written.

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 2021-12
Issued December 10, 2021
Withdraws Adv. Op. 1995-05, 1998-04
Letter of Recommendation Provided by Judge
SYLLABUS: A judge may provide a letter of recommendation for an individual,
provided the letter is based on the judge’s personal knowledge of the individual for
whom the recommendation is written.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED:
1. May a judge provide a recommendation on behalf of an individual seeking
employment;
2. May a judge provide a recommendation on behalf of a law school applicant;
3. May a judge provide a letter of recommendation on behalf of an individual
seeking a nomination for appointment to the federal judiciary;
4. Is it proper for a judge to provide a written recommendation for an applicant
for certification as an attorney specialist when requested to do so by a certifying
agency?
APPLICABLE RULES: Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 1.3, 4.1
OPINION: Given their positions as elected and appointed public officials,
judges are often approached to write letters of recommendation or asked to serve as a
reference by court employees, judges, and others. When considering providing a letter of
recommendation, a judge must avoid abusing the prestige of office to advance the

Op. 2021-12 2
personal or economic interests of others. Jud.Cond.R. 1.3. A key requirement in avoiding
the potential for abuse of the prestige of office is the condition that any letter of
recommendation must be made based upon the judge’s “personal knowledge” of the
requesting individual. Jud.Cond.R. 1.3, cmt.[2]. A judge should carefully consider
whether a recommendation letter is being sought due to the judge’s personal knowledge
of the individual or if the request is an effort to take advantage of the prestige of the
judge’s office. In addition to a potential abuse of the prestige of office, writing a letter
without the requisite personal knowledge may give rise to an appearance of impropriety
because it undermines the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Jud.Cond.R. 1.2.
“Personal knowledge” is defined as “knowledge gained through firsthand
observation or experience, as distinguished from a belief based on what someone else has
said.” Black’s Law Dictionary 11th Ed. (2019). In the context of a recommendation letter, a
judge’s personal knowledge of an individual should be based on more than a just a mere
acquaintance or occasional social interaction. Even when a judge possesses the requisite
personal knowledge, he or she may choose to decline to provide a letter of
recommendation.
Letter of Recommendation for Individuals Seeking Employment.
A judge’s personal knowledge of the skills and qualifications of an individual,
opinions about his or her job performance, and observations of his or her work product
can greatly assist those persons considering the employment of the individual. A judge’s
firsthand knowledge of an individual under these circumstances outweighs concerns
about a potential abuse of the prestige of office. A judge is especially qualified as a past
or current employer of a law clerk or other court employees to gauge the professional
and intellectual capabilities when those individuals seek different employment. A judge
may also provide letters of recommendation for individuals for whom the judge has
gained the requisite personal knowledge through participation in religious, civic,
educational, or fraternal organizations or because of long-term personal relationships.
Additionally, a judge is well suited to provide a letter of recommendation for a lawyer
who practices on a regular basis in his or her courtroom and the judge has had an
opportunity to acquire personal knowledge of the lawyer’s legal acumen and trial skills.

Op. 2021-12 3
When writing a letter of recommendation for a current court employee who is seeking
employment with a law firm or party to a pending case, a judge should screen the
employee from participating in cases involving the prospective employer.
Law School Applicants
Similarly, a judge’s recommendation on behalf of a law school applicant must be
based on firsthand and personal knowledge of the applicant. A judge’s interaction with
an applicant may be limited to interactions outside of a traditional employment setting,
and the opportunities to adequately assess the applicant’s skills and qualifications may
be less frequent. Thus, a judge must avoid writing a letter for a law school applicant
when the judge’s personal knowledge of the applicant is inadequate or nonexistent. To
do otherwise risks an abuse of the prestige of office.
Recommendation Letter for Judge Seeking Appointment to the Federal Judiciary
Judges are in a unique position to comment on the qualifications of a nominee for
federal judicial office because they have either served with the nominee on the same court
or have observed the nominee in other professional settings. Because a lawyer is seeking
a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary and is not subject to a contested election
process, a judge’s letter of recommendation to a screening committee or other body
responsible for vetting potential nominees does not constitute an endorsement of a
candidate for public office as contemplated and prohibited by Jud.Cond.R. 4.1(A)(3).
Consequently, a judge may prepare a letter of recommendation based on a request from
the potential nominee or from a screening committee or other entity. Jud.Cond.R. 1.3,
cmt. [3]. A judge may also permit his or her name to be included in the candidate’s
application as a reference to be contacted at the screening committee’s discretion. The
judge’s letter should be based on the judge’s personal knowledge of the candidate,
pertain only to those factors that are relevant to performance of judicial office, and avoid
any comparison of the lawyer to others seeking the nomination.
Recommendation for Lawyer Seeking Certification as a Specialist
The certification of lawyers as specialists is permitted in Ohio. Gov.Bar R. XIV. In
order to be certified as a specialist, a lawyer must receive certification from an
organization that meets standards adopted by the Supreme Court of Ohio Commission

Op. 2021-12 4
on the Certification of Attorneys as Specialists. A certifying organization must determine
whether a lawyer possesses competence in an area of law as demonstrated by
“recommendation from attorneys or judges who are familiar with the competence of the
attorney.” Gov.Bar R. XIV, Sec. 3(A)(2). In the context of a certification of a specialist, the
judge may be asked to consider his or her personal knowledge of a lawyer’s advocacy
skills, ethical conduct, knowledge of the area of specialization, and oral and written
communication skills. A judge may respond to the certifying organization’s inquiry
based on his or her personal knowledge of the lawyer seeking certification. Jud.Cond.R.
1.3.
Use of Court Letterhead for Letters of Recommendation
In all cases where a judge possesses the requisite degree of personal knowledge a
an individual, a letter of recommendation may be written on official court letterhead.
Jud.Cond.R. 1.3, cmt.[2].