Ohio Board Advisory Opinion Op 02-013

The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 2320, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6104
(614) 644-5800 (888) 664-8345 FAX: (614) 644-5804
www.sconet.state.oh.us
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
OPINION 2002-13
Issued October 4, 2002
[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superseded by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, eff. 3/1/2009.]
SYLLABUS: Magistrates, like judges, must comply with Canon 7 of the Ohio Code of
Judicial Conduct. It is improper under Canon 7(B)(2)(b) for a magistrate to engage in
campaign activities, such as going door to door to talk with people, going door to door to
distribute campaign literature, placing yard signs, or participating in a telephone bank, on
behalf of the appointing judge who is seeking re-election. Also, it is improper under
Canon 7(B)(2)(b) for a magistrate to solicit or receive campaign funds on behalf of the
appointing judge who is seeking re-election. Such activities constitute prohibited public
endorsements under Canon 7(B)(2)(b). Further, it is improper under Canon 7(B)(2)(b)
for a magistrate to publicly endorse or oppose any candidate for public office, this
includes endorsements or opposition of an incumbent judge, a judicial candidate, or any
other candidate for public office. Judicial candidates should be aware that under Canon
7(C)(1) they are not permitted to involve public employees, subject to their direction or
control, in the solicitation and receipt of campaign fund contributions. Magistrates, like
judges, may properly use his or her personal funds to make a campaign contribution to a
candidate for judicial or public office.
OPINION: This opinion addresses campaign activities by magistrates on behalf of
judicial candidates.
Is it proper for a magistrate to engage in campaign activities, such as going
door to door to talk with people, going door to door to distribute campaign
literature, placing yard signs, or participating in a telephone bank, on
behalf of the appointing judge who is seeking re-election?
Magistrates of a probate court would like to assist in the judicial campaign of their
appointing judge who is seeking re-election to the probate court. The magistrates inquire
whether they may engage in campaign activities such as going door to door to talk with
people, going door to door to distribute campaign literature, placing yard signs, and
participating in a telephone bank.
Magistrates, like judges, must abide by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. The
Compliance Section of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct states “[a]nyone, whether or
not a lawyer, who is an officer of a judicial system performing judicial functions,
including an officer such as a referee in bankruptcy, special master, court commissioner,
Withdrawn by Adv. Op. 2018-04

Op. 2002-13 2
or magistrate, is a judge for the purpose of this Code.” There are exceptions listed in the
Compliance Section, but none of the exceptions release magistrates from compliance
with Canon 7 of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct.
Canon 7 of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct governs political activity of judges and
judicial candidates. By operation of the Compliance Section of the Code, Canon 7
governs political activity of magistrates as well. Magistrates, like judges, are prohibited
under Canon 7(B)(2)(b) from publicly endorsing or opposing a candidate for another
public office.
Canon 7(B)(2) A judge [magistrate] or judicial candidate shall not do any
of the following: (b) Make speeches on behalf of a political organization
or another candidate at a political meeting or publicly endorse or oppose a
candidate for another public office.
Canon 7 does not define “publicly endorse.” A dictionary definition of endorse is “to
give approval of or support to: SANCTION <endorse a political candidate>.” Webster’s II
New Riverside University Dictionary 431 (1984).
Ohio judicial campaign grievance case law provides an example of a public endorsement
under Canon 7(B)(2)(b). The placement of judicial candidates’ names on an invitation to
another candidate’s fund raiser constitutes a public endorsement. In re Jud Campaign
Complaint Against Keys (1996), 80 Ohio Misc. 2d 1, 2.
There have been no advisory opinions of the Board addressing what activities constitute a
“public endorsement” of a candidate under Canon 7(B)(2)(b). With this opinion the
Board advises that the following campaign activities by a magistrate or judge constitute
public endorsements under Canon 7(B)(2)(b). Going door to door to distribute campaign
literature on behalf of a candidate constitutes a public endorsement. Going door to door
to talk with people on behalf of a candidate constitutes a public endorsement.
Participating in a telephone bank on behalf of a candidate constitutes a public
endorsement. Placing yard signs for a candidate constitutes a public endorsement.
Soliciting or receiving campaign funds for a candidate constitutes a public endorsement.
These activities show public approval and support and are considered public
endorsements of a candidate. [This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of activities
that constitute public endorsements under Canon 7(B)(2)(b).]
Thus, a magistrate should not engage in the proposed campaign activities of going door
to door to distribute campaign literature, going door to door to talk with people,
participating in a phone bank, or placing yard signs on behalf of the appointing judge
who is seeking re-election. Nor, should a magistrate engage in soliciting or receiving
campaign funds. [With regard to yard signs, a judge or magistrate does not violate Canon
7(B)(2)(b) by his or her spouse placing a yard sign, supporting the spouse’s candidacy, in
real estate jointly owned by them. See Ohio SupCt., Bd of Comm’rs on Griev & Disc,
Op. 2001-1 advising that “[w]hen a judge’s spouse is a candidate for elected public or

Op. 2002-13 3
judicial office, the judge may allow campaign signs promoting the spouse’s candidacy to
be placed on real estate jointly owned by the judge and spouse.”]
The prohibitory language in Canon 7(B)(2)(b) applies not only to public endorsement or
opposition of judicial candidates but public endorsement or opposition of any candidate
for public office. Therefore, a magistrate should not publicly endorse or oppose an
incumbent judge, judicial candidate, or any other candidate for another public office.
Judicial candidates should be aware that under Canon 7(C)(1) they are not permitted to
involve public employees, subject to their direction or control, in the solicitation and
receipt of campaign fund contributions.
Canon 7(C)(1) A judicial candidate shall prohibit public employees
subject to his or her direction or control [such as magistrates] from
soliciting or receiving campaign fund contributions.
Under Canon 7(C)(1), activities that involve a magistrate in soliciting or receiving funds
for his or her appointing judge are improper.
Magistrates, like judges, may properly use his or her personal funds to make a campaign
contribution to a candidate for judicial or public office. Canon 7(C)(7)(b) of the Ohio
Code of Judicial Conduct restricts a judge from contributing or expending campaign
funds in support of or opposition to a candidate for a public office, but contains no
language prohibiting a judge from contributing personal funds in support of or opposition
to a candidate for public office. A campaign contribution from personal funds does not
constitute a public endorsement.
In conclusion, this Board advises the following. Magistrates, like judges, must comply
with Canon 7 of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. It is improper under Canon
7(B)(2)(b) for a magistrate to engage in campaign activities, such as going door to door to
talk with people, going door to door to distribute campaign literature, placing yard signs,
or participating in a telephone bank, on behalf of the appointing judge who is seeking re-
election. Also, it is improper under Canon 7(B)(2)(b) for a magistrate to solicit or receive
campaign funds on behalf of the appointing judge who is seeking re-election. Such
activities constitute prohibited public endorsements under Canon 7(B)(2)(b). Further, it
is improper under Canon 7(B)(2)(b) for a magistrate to publicly endorse or oppose any
candidate for public office, this includes endorsements or opposition of an incumbent
judge, a judicial candidate, or any other candidate for public office. Judicial candidates
should be aware that under Canon 7(C)(1) they are not permitted to involve public
employees, subject to their direction or control, in the solicitation and receipt of
campaign fund contributions. Magistrates, like judges, may properly use his or her
personal funds to make a campaign contribution to a candidate for judicial or public
office.
Advisory Opinions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline are
informal, nonbinding opinions in response to prospective or hypothetical questions

Op. 2002-13 4
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.