Ohio Board Advisory Opinion Op 90-024

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 90-24
December 14, 1990
[Former CJC Opinion-provides advice under the former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct which is superseded by the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.]
[Not Current- subsequent rule amendments to Canon 7, Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct]
SYLLABUS: There is nothing in Ohio's Code of Judicial Conduct which prohibits a judge from
making a political donation. Thus, referees, who are considered judges for purposes of compliance
with the Code of Judicial Conduct, are permitted to make donations to political parties. Referees
may not directly or indirectly donate to any judge of the same court or for whom they serve. There
are no distinctions between full-time and part-time referees for the purpose of compliance with
Canon 7 (B) (2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
OPINION: We have before us your request for an advisory opinion regarding an interpretation of
the Code of Judicial Conduct referring to the campaign conduct of referees. You request an
advisory opinion on the following questions:
1. Is a referee permitted to make any political donation?
2. Is a referee permitted to make a donation to a political party?
3. Is a referee permitted to make a donation to a candidate for a political office
other than that of his/her judge, including a candidate for another judgeship for
whom the referee does not work?
4. Is there any differentiation between a part-time referee and a full-time referee as
to making political contributions?
In responding to these questions we must examine the Code of Judicial Conduct. Referees are
officers of the judicial system performing judicial functions and therefore are considered judges for
the purposes of compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct. Code of Judicial Conduct,
Compliance Section (1990).
Withdrawn by Adv. Op. 2018-04

Op. 90-24 2
Canon 7(A) (3) provides that an incumbent judge, or a candidate for judicial office, may identify
himself or herself as a member of a political party. He or she may speak to such political
gatherings on his or her own behalf when he or she is a candidate for election or reelection.
The June 1990 Ohio amendments to Canon 7 deleted the requirement that a candidate for judicial
office may not contribute to his or her political party in the year in which he or she is a candidate
for election or re-election. This deletion leaves nothing in Ohio's Code of Judicial Conduct which
precludes a judge or his or her campaign committee from making contributions to his or her
political party.
In response to the third question, we refer to Op. 88-017 in which this Board found that, unlike the
ABA's code, Ohio's Code of Judicial Conduct does not preclude a judge or judicial candidate from
making political contributions to other candidates for public office. The ABA version of Canon 7
specifically states that a judge or a candidate for election to judicial office should not make a
contribution to a political organization or candidate. ABA Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 7 (A)
(1) (c). Since Ohio modeled its code after the ABA's Code, but did not include the restrictions on
judges or judicial candidates making contributions to other candidates, this Board in Op. 88-017
concluded that such contributions are permitted under Ohio's Code of Judicial Conduct. Thus, it is
the opinion of the Board in response to the first two questions that since referees are considered
judges for the purpose of complying with the Code, referees are permitted to make political
donations including a donation to a political party.
In further response to the third question, we need to look at other restrictions. We note that in the
absence of more restrictive provisions contained in a state's version of the Code of Judicial Conduct
or election law, the general rule is that any person or group may donate a reasonable amount of
money, a sum that does not give the appearance of influencing the judge or of impropriety. Ohio
follows this general rule to an extent. In Op. 88-017 this Board concluded that judges in Ohio are
not precluded from making contributions from their personal account or campaign committees to
other candidates. That opinion cautioned judges against publicly endorsing the other candidate and
from the lending of the prestige of his or her office to advance the private interest of others.

Op. 90-24 3
However, the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct contains more restrictive provisions than the general
rule set forth in the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct. The ABA Code of Judicial Conduct simply
states that the committees are not prohibited from soliciting campaign contributions and public
support from lawyers. In contrast the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct limits the persons who are
eligible to contribute to a campaign for judicial office. Canon 7 (B) (2) of the Ohio Code of
Judicial Conduct provides, that an incumbent judge or a candidate for judicial office should not
himself or herself solicit or accept campaign funds, but he or she may establish a committee to
obtain support for his or her candidacy. The committee should not, directly or indirectly solicit or
receive any assessment, subscription, or contribution for any political or personal purpose
whatsoever from any employee, appointee of the court, or anyone who does business with the
court, but may solicit campaign contributions from lawyers. Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 7 (B)
(2) (1990). Under the commentary to Canon 7 (B) (2), appointees of the court include officials
such as referees.
It is clear from the language of Canon 7 (B) (2) in Ohio that a referee may not directly or indirectly
contribute to his/her own judge. Also, 7 (B) (1) (b) provides that an incumbent judge, or a
candidate for judicial office should discourage public officials, appointees, or employees subject to
his or her direction or control from soliciting or accepting campaign fund contributions for him or
her. In applying this to the third inquiry about whether the referee can make a contribution for a
candidate for another judgeship for whom the referee does not work, we broadly interpret the
language to prohibit such a contribution if it is the same or a connected court. The code expressly
states, "appointee of the court." if Ohio had intended for Canon 7 (B) (2) of the Judicial Code to
restrict referee contributions only to the judges they worked for, it is likely the language would
have read, "appointee of the judge." Since the Ohio Judicial Code states "appointees of the court",
we interpret the restriction to extend to all other judges of the same court, including those for whom
a referee does not directly work. This interpretation serves to strengthen the underlying philosophy
that protects court employees from needing to contribute to the judges for whom they work. This
provision of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct does not restrict the referee from contributing to a
judge or candidate of an unconnected court.

Op. 90-24 4
The final question refers to part-time referees. A part-time referee is one who serves on a
continuing or periodic basis, but is permitted by law to devote time to some other profession or
occupation and whose compensation for that reason is less than that of a full-time referee. Code of
Judicial Conduct, Compliance Sec. (1990). The Compliance Section makes no distinction between
full-time and part-time referees or the issue of political contributions. It is therefore concluded that
part-time referees must comply with Canon 7, as if they were full-time referees.
In conclusion, it is our opinion, and you are so advised that:
1. Referees are not precluded under the Code of Judicial Conduct from making any
political contribution or donation to a political party.
2. A referee is permitted to make a donation to a candidate for public office with
the exception that a referee may not make a donation to his or her appointing
judge or any other judge of the same court. This restriction does not extend to
judges or candidates of unconnected courts.
3. There is no differentiation between a part-time and a full-time referee when
determining the ability to donate.
This is an informal, non-binding advisory opinion, based upon the facts as presented and
limited to questions arising under the Code of Judicial Conduct.