CJEO Expedited Opinion No. 2022-047 — Fundraising by Retired Judges Engaged in Private Dispute Resolution Services

1
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINIONS
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
(855) 854-5366
www.JudicialEthicsOpinions.ca.gov
CJEO Expedited Opinion 2022-047 1
[Posted May 11, 2022]
FUNDRAISING BY RETIRED JUDGES ENGAGED IN PRIVATE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION SERVICES
1 The California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) issues
Expedited Opinions, formerly known as Oral Advice Summaries, pursuant to California
Rules of Court, rule 9.80(i)(1) [eff. Jan. 1, 2021]. Expedited Opinions are issued to requesting
judicial officers following a discretionary decision by CJEO to address the ethical issues raised
in an expedited process that does not include posting draft opinions for public comment, as
required for CJEO Formal Opinions. The CJEO Expedited Opinions are published in full,
without identifying information regarding the requesting judicial officer, to provide information
and analysis to the bench and public regarding judicial ethics.

2
I. 	Question
The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO or committee) has been asked to
provide guidance about whether a retired judge who engages in private dispute resolution
services, but does not sit by assignment through court-related programs, may participate in
fundraising activities to support a law school scholarship established in the judge’s name.
II. 	Advice Provided
Retired judges who are privately retained and do not sit by assignment through the
Temporary Assigned Judges Program 2 or work as temporary judges, referees, or court-appointed
arbitrators are not subject to the restrictions on judicial conduct contained in the California Code
of Judicial Ethics, 3 including the restraints on fundraising. Therefore, those retired private
judges are not subject to any code prohibitions related to soliciting funds for educational or
charitable organizations or encouraging others to do so.
III. 	Facts
A retired judge has endowed a scholarship at the judge’s law school alma mater. The
judge is not serving in the Assigned Judges Program or as a temporary judge, referee, or court-
appointed arbitrator, but works as a private judge with a dispute resolution service provider.
The judge would like to participate in events that will be sponsored by the law school to raise
funds for the scholarship, including a panel for a program during which the organizer from the
2 Presiding judges and justices of the trial and appellate courts may make a request to the
Assigned Judges Program to issue temporary judicial assignment orders to active or retired
judges and justices to cover judicial absences caused by, among other things, illness,
disqualification, or calendar congestion in the courts. (Judicial Council of Cal., Fact Sheet:
Temporary Assigned Judges Program (2020) p. 1 <https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/
TAJP_Fact_Sheet.pdf> [as of May 2, 2022].)
3 	All further references to the code, canons, and advisory committee commentary are to the
California Code of Judicial Ethics unless otherwise indicated.

3
law school intends to suggest that attendees donate to the scholarship fund, and has inquired
about whether there are limitations on the ability to do so under the code.
IV. 	Discussion
An officer of the state judicial system who performs judicial functions must comply fully
with the code, but retired judges who do not sit by assignment through the Assigned Judges
Program or serve as temporary judges, referees, or court-appointed arbitrators are not required to
do so. 4 (Canon 6A [compliance with the code of judicial ethics required for officers of the state
judicial system]; Rothman et al., Cal. Judicial Conduct Handbook (4th ed. 2017) § 1:66, pp. 52-
53 [privately retained judges are not within the groups that are bound by the code]; Cal. Judges
Assn., Judicial Ethics Update (Nov. 2012) p. 4 [a retired judge not sitting on assignment is not
governed by the canons].) Therefore, retired judges who conduct private dispute resolution
services are not prohibited by the code from engaging in fundraising activities, including
soliciting donations for educational or charitable organizations and encouraging others to do so. 5
4 	Although private judges are not specifically bound by the code, the Advisory Committee
commentary to canon 6A urges them to be mindful of the code when performing judicial
functions:
For the purposes of this canon, if a retired judge is serving in the Temporary
Assigned Judges Program, the judge is considered to ‘perform judicial
functions.’ Because retired judges who are privately retained may perform
judicial functions, their conduct while performing those functions should be
guided by this code. (Italics added.)
(Advisory Com. com., foll. canon 6A.)
5 	Retired judges may be subject to other ethical constraints, which are not applicable to the
facts of this opinion. For example, a retired judge who is privately retained and appointed
pursuant to the California Constitution, article VI, and the Code of Civil Procedure section 638,
subdivision (a) is bound by the rules set out in canon 6D. In addition, a retired judge engaged in
arbitration may be subject to separate standards that apply to commercial arbitration
proceedings. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1281.85–1281.95; Judicial Council of Cal., Ethics Standards
for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitration (rev. Jan. 1, 2022) <https://
www.courts.ca.gov/26582.htm> [as of May 2, 2022]).

4
(Cal. Judges Assn., Judicial Ethics Update (April 2000) p. 8 [a retired judge not sitting on
assignment may solicit funds and goods for war refugees at church services]; id. [a retired judge
who does not have an assignment or accept appointments may solicit funds for charitable
organizations].)
V. 	Conclusion
A retired judge who engages in private dispute resolution services but does not sit by
assignment or act as a temporary judge, referee, or court-appointed arbitrator is not bound by the
code, and therefore, is not prohibited by the code from engaging in fundraising activities,
including participating in events that are intended to raise funds for a law school scholarship and
suggesting contributions to the scholarship fund.

This expedited opinion is advisory only. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.80(a), (e);
Cal. Supreme Ct. Com. Jud. Ethics Opns. (CJEO), Internal Operating Rules & Proc. 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)(2); CJEO rules 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 expedited 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)).)