Ohio Board Advisory Opinion Op 02-008

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 2002-8
Issued August 9, 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superseded by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, eff. 3/1/2009.]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: Canon 7 of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct regulates judicial campaign
speech. To assist judicial candidates in appropriate campaign speech, guidelines on the
scope of judicial campaign speech are set forth. The guidelines arise from the mandatory
rules set forth in Canon 7 and as such are not optional. Guideline 1: The Ohio Code of
Judicial Conduct does not prohibit a judicial candidate from announcing views on
disputed legal or political issues, but in so doing, the judge must abide by the restraints on
judicial campaign speech within Canon 7. Guideline 2: The canons do not place
absolute limits on comments and debate in judicial campaigns, but the canons ban
statements that are false/misrepresent/deceive/mislead for such statements promote public
misunderstanding regarding campaign issues, judicial candidates, and the judicial branch
of government. Guideline 3: Truthful and specific comments regarding one's self or
regarding an opponent or an opponent’s record are appropriate judicial campaign speech,
as are truthful criticisms of an opponent. Guideline 4: Promising or pledging conduct in
office (other than faithful and impartial performance of judicial duties) is not permitted.
Guideline 5: Statements regarding substantive matters in specific cases pending before
any judge are prohibited, as are, statements that commit the judicial candidate with regard
to cases or controversies that are likely to come before the court on which the judge
serves or will serve. Guideline 6: Statements that manifest bias or prejudice with regard
to an opponent’s race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or
social economic status are not permitted by the judicial candidate or his or her campaign
committee. Guideline 7: It is improper for a judicial candidate to speak on behalf of a
political organization and it is improper to publicly endorse or oppose candidates for
another public office through written or oral public communication. Guideline 8: A
judicial candidate at any time during the campaign is permitted to identify himself or
herself in person as a member of a political party and at any time during the campaign is
permitted in person or in written communication to truthfully state he or she is a nominee
or endorsed by a party; however, in written advertisements a judicial candidate is
permitted to identify himself or herself as a member of a political party only in the
primary period. A judicial candidate is permitted to appear with other candidates for
public office on slate cards, sample ballots, and other publications of a political party that
identify all candidates endorsed by the party in an election. Guideline 9: Personal
solicitation of campaign funds by a judicial candidate is prohibited, as is solicitation or
receipt of campaign fund contributions by public employees subject to the judicial
candidate’s direction or control. Guideline 10: Judicial candidates are responsible for the
contents of their campaign communication and for the compliance of their campaign

Op. 2002-8 2
committee with the restrictions on solicitation and contributions. Guideline 11: Judicial
speech is not only restrained in the context of judicial campaigns—an incumbent judge
has ethical restrictions on judicial speech, regardless of whether he or she is engaged in a
judicial campaign.
Opinions 87-006 (1987), 87-030 (1987), and 89-33 (1989) issued by the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio are
withdrawn.
OPINION: This opinion provides guidance as to the scope of permissible judicial
campaign speech under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct.
On June 27, 2002, the United States Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional
under the First Amendment, the Minnesota Supreme Court’s canon prohibiting judicial
candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal or political issues. Republican
Party of Minnesota v. White, 122 S.Ct. 2528, 2542 (2002). That decision from the
highest court in the United States of America triggered the Supreme Court of Ohio to
request that the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline provide an
advisory opinion to Ohio’s judicial candidates regarding the scope of permissible judicial
speech under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. In response, this opinion by the Board
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline sets forth the restraints on judicial
campaign speech in Ohio’s Code of Judicial Conduct and provides guidance as to the
application of the rules. Throughout this opinion, the use of the term “judicial candidate”
refers to incumbent judges who are candidates for judicial office as well as non-
incumbents seeking judicial office.
Two things bear noting. First, the “announce clause,” found unconstitutional by United
States Supreme Court in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 122 S.Ct. 2528, 2542
(2002), is not currently part of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. Former Canon
7(B)(1)(c) included the prohibition that “[a] candidate, including an incumbent judge, for
a judicial office should not . . . announce his views on disputed legal or political issues.”
The “announce clause” prohibition was eliminated from the Ohio Code of Judicial
Conduct by amendment, effective July 1, 1995.
Second, in striking down Minnesota’s “announce clause,” the United States Supreme
Court did not rule on the constitutionality of other provisions of the Minnesota judicial
campaign canons. The court stated it expressed no view on the “pledges and promises
clause,” a rule prohibiting judicial candidates from making “pledges or promises of
conduct in office other than the faithful and impartial performance of the duties of the
office.” Id. at 2532. Nor did the court agree or disagree with the oral argument of the
Minnesota Lawyers Board and the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards that the scope
of the “announce clause” as limited by the Eighth Circuit and adopted by the Minnesota
Supreme Court was no broader than the scope of ABA 1990 Canon 5(A)(3)(d)(ii) rule
prohibiting “statements that commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect to
cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court.” Id. at 2534, f.n. 5.
“We do not know whether the announce clause (as interpreted by state authorities) and

Op. 2002-8 3
the 1990 ABA canon [statements that commit or appear to commit] are one and the same.
No aspect of our constitutional analysis turns on this question.” Id.
Announcing views on disputed legal and political issues.
By now, judicial candidates in Ohio should be aware (through rule amendment, case law,
and advisory opinions) that the expression of views on disputed legal or political issues is
not banned by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct and as announced in Republican Party
of Minnesota v. White, 122 S.Ct. 2528, 2542 (2002) cannot be constitutionally banned.
As already stated, the prohibitory “announce clause” was amended from the Ohio Code
of Judicial Conduct, effective July 1, 1995.
Further, in a 1996 Ohio case involving judicial campaign speech, the First Amendment
right of judicial candidates to express opinions was acknowledged: “Opinions are
protected under the First Amendment. . . . By the same token, however, First
Amendment protection does not adhere to statements of opinion that imply false
assertions of fact.” In re Complaint Against Harper (1996), 77 Ohio St. 3d 211, 228
(citations omitted). [In that 1996 case, the court stated there was nothing wrong with the
respondent informing the public that her opponent received substantial contributions from
a special interest group, for that could be verified from campaign finance reports;
however, some of the candidate’s statements in the advertisement implied false assertions
of fact and were inappropriate. Id. at 227, 228, 229.]
As early as October 13, 1987, the Board issued Opinion 87-044 advising, “[j]udges may
ethically express their opinion regarding economic and political issues or measures
intended to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.” In
Opinion 87-044, the Board stated, “whether a judge agrees or disagrees with a local
county sales tax or the merit selection plan, he or she may ethically make known his or
her opinion regarding these issues.”
As recently as April 5, 2002, the Board issued Opinion 2002-3 advising that expression
of views by a judge on disputed legal or political issues related to the law, the legal
system, and the administration of justice is permitted under Canon 2(A)(1) of the Ohio
Code of Judicial Conduct, provided that the standards of speech with Canon 7 and Canon
3(B)(9) are not violated. The first two paragraphs of the Syllabus of Opinion 2002-3
state as follows:
It is proper under Canon 2(A)(1) of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct for
a judge to communicate to the public about a proposed state constitutional
amendment regarding drug treatment in lieu of incarceration, to explain
the proposed amendment, to compare it to current law, and to describe its
potential impact on the constitution, the law, and the operation of the
courts. At all times during public communications, a judge must maintain
the dignity appropriate to judicial office and abide by the high standards of
speech in Canon 7. High standards of speech under Canon 7 include,
Canon 7(B)(2)(c) prohibiting a judge from making pledges or promises of

Op. 2002-8 4
conduct in office other than the faithful and impartial performance of the
duties of the office; Canon 7(B)(2)(d) prohibiting a judge from making
statements that commit or appear to commit a judge or judicial candidate
with regard to cases or controversies that are likely to come before the
court; and Canon 7(B)(2)(e) prohibiting a judge from commenting on any
substantive matter relating to a specific pending case on the docket of a
judge. A judge should consider the possibility that legal challenges may
arise with regard to a proposed constitutional amendment. With regard to
the proposed constitutional amendment as well as any other proposed
constitutional amendment, Ohio voters have a right to a fair election.
Under Canon 7(B)(2)(e) and Canon 3(B)(9), if legal action with regard to
the proposed constitutional amendment is pending on the docket of any
court, a judge must not comment on substantive matters relating to the
pending case and must not make comments that might reasonably be
expected to affect its outcome, impair fairness, or substantially interfere
with a fair trial or hearing. In addition, a judge should not make
comments that would cause questions as to a judge’s impartiality and lead
to a judge’s disqualification under Canon 3(E)(1).
It is proper under Canon 2(A)(1) of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct for
a judge to communicate to the public his or her views in support of or
opposition to a proposed state constitutional amendment regarding drug
treatment in lieu of incarceration, basing such support or opposition on the
judge’s understanding of the potential impact on the courts, the law, the
legal system, and the administration of justice. Expression of views by a
judge on disputed legal and political issues related to the law, the legal
system, and the administration of justice is appropriate under Canon
2(A)(1) of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, provided that the standards
of speech within Canon 7 and Canon 3(B)(9) are not violated. Unfettered
expression of personal views by a judge is improper and under Canon
3(E)(1) may lead to a judge’s disqualification from proceedings. A judge
should avoid making comments that would lead to a judge’s
disqualification under Canon 3(E)(1).
In announcing views on disputed legal or political issues, a judicial candidate must be
vigilant to avoid making pledges or promises or committing himself or herself with
regard to cases and controversies that might come before the court. Unfettered
expressions of views may later become disqualification issues when on the bench.
Thus, the first guideline on judicial campaign speech is offered. Guideline 1. The Ohio
Code of Judicial Conduct does not prohibit a judicial candidate from announcing
views on disputed legal or political issues, but in so doing, the judge must abide by
the restraints on judicial campaign speech within Canon 7.
Judicial candidates in Ohio should be aware that there are areas of judicial campaign
speech that remain regulated by the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 7 sets forth

Op. 2002-8 5
high standards of campaign conduct including restrictions on campaign speech. The
rules setting forth high standards of campaign speech are addressed in Opinion 2002-3
and are revisited in this opinion.
Statements that are false/misrepresent/deceive/mislead are banned under Canon 7
(B)(2)(F), Canon 7(D)(1) through (11), and Canon 7(E)(1). Statements pledging or
promising conduct in office is regulated under Canon 7(B)(2)(c). Statements regarding
cases and controversies pending before or likely to come before the court and statements
related to a substantive matter in a specific case are regulated under Canon 7(B)(2)(d) and
(e). Statements manifesting bias or prejudice are banned under Canon 7(E)(2).
Statements on behalf of a political organization or another candidate and statements
publicly endorsing or opposing another candidate are restricted by Canon 7(B)(2)(b).
Speaking at political gatherings and statements regarding political affiliation are
restricted by Canon 7(B)(3)(a), (b), (c) and Canon 7(B)(2)(g). Statements soliciting
campaign funds are prohibited under Canon 7(C)(1) and Canon 7(C)(2)(a). Statements
by a judicial campaign committee and accountability by a judicial candidate are
addressed in Canon 7(F). Further, it is noted that the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct
imposes on incumbent judges speech restrictions unrelated to judicial campaigns through
Canons 3(B)(5), 3(B)(6), 3(B)(7), 3(B)(9), 3(B)(10), 3(B)(11), and 4(C)(1). Each is set
forth and addressed below.
Statements that are false/misrepresent/deceive/mislead.
Canon 7 prohibits judicial statements that are false, that misrepresent, that deceive, or that
mislead the public.
Canon 7(B)(2) A judge or judicial candidate shall not do any of the
following:
(f) Knowingly misrepresent his or her identity, qualifications,
present position, or other fact or the identity, qualifications, present
position, or other fact of an opponent.
Canon 7(D) Campaign Standards. During the course of any campaign for
nomination or election to judicial office, a judicial candidate, by means of
campaign materials, including sample ballots, an advertisement on radio
or television or in a newspaper or periodical, a public speech, press
release, or otherwise, shall not knowingly or with reckless disregard do
any of the following:
(1) Use the title of an office not currently held by a judicial
candidate in a manner that implies that the judicial candidate
does currently hold that office;
(2) Use the term "judge" when a judge is a candidate for another
judicial office and does not indicate the court on which the
judge currently serves;

Op. 2002-8 6
(3) Use the term "judge" when the judicial candidate is not a judge
unless that term appears after or below the name of the judicial
candidate and is accompanied by either or both of the
following:
(a) The words "elect" or "vote," in prominent lettering,
before the judicial candidate's name;
(b) The word "for," in prominent lettering, between the
name of the judicial candidate and the term "judge."
(4) Use the term "re-elect" when the judicial candidate has never
been elected at a general or special election to the office for
which he or she is a judicial candidate.
(5) Make a false statement concerning the formal schooling or
training completed or attempted by a judicial candidate; a
degree, diploma, certificate, scholarship, grant, award, prize of
honor received, earned, or held by a judicial candidate; or the
period of time during which a judicial candidate attended any
school, college, community technical school, or institution;
(6) Make a false statement concerning the professional,
occupational, or vocational licenses held by a judicial
candidate, or concerning any position a judicial candidate held
for which he or she received a salary or wages;
(7) Make a false statement that a judicial candidate has been
arrested, indicted, or convicted of a crime;
(8) Make a statement that a judicial candidate has been arrested,
indicted, or convicted of any crime without disclosing the
outcome of all pending or concluded legal proceedings
resulting from the arrest, indictment, or conviction;
(9) Make a false statement that a judicial candidate has a record of
treatment or confinement for mental disorder;
(10)Make a false statement that a judicial candidate has been
subjected to military discipline for criminal misconduct or
dishonorably discharged from the armed services;
(11)Falsely identify the source of a statement, issue statements
under the name of another person without authorization, or
falsely state the endorsement of or opposition to a judicial
candidate by a person, organization, political party, or
publication.
Canon 7(E) Campaign Communications. During the course of any
campaign for nomination or election to judicial office, a judicial candidate,
by means of campaign materials, including sample ballots, an
advertisement on radio or television or in a newspaper or periodical, a
public speech, press release, or otherwise, shall not knowingly or with
reckless disregard do any of the following:

Op. 2002-8 7
(1) Post, publish, broadcast, transmit, circulate, or distribute
information concerning a judicial candidate or an opponent,
either knowing the information to be false or with a reckless
disregard of whether or not it was false or, if true, that would
be deceiving or misleading to a reasonable person.
Judicial candidates must carefully abide by Canon 7(B)(2)(f), Canon 7 (D), and Canon
7(E). Statements that are false/misrepresent/deceive/mislead have been the gravamen of
several campaign grievances.
For examples of statements regarding self that are false/misrepresent/deceive/mislead,
review the following cases.
In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Emrich (1996), 78 Ohio Misc. 2d 32,
36 (violating Canon 7(B)(2)(f), Canon 7(D)(1), and Canon 7(E)(1) by campaign
billboard and yard sign stating “Elect Judge Emrich to Probate Court” that did not
specify the particular judgeship (county court judge) that the respondent currently
holds).
In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Roberts, (1996), 81 Ohio Misc. 2d
59, 60-61 (violating Canon 7(D)(8) by circulating campaign literature stating “the
legal Community says Only County Court Judge Bob Roberts is qualified to be
Judge of the 7th District Court of Appeals” when only one bar association had
endorsed his candidacy”).
Disciplinary Counsel v. Evans (2000), 89 Ohio St. 3d 497, 499, 500-501
(violating Canon 7(B)(1) and 7(E)(1) by stating that he was “Endorsed by
Southern Ohio’s Top Prosecutors and Sheriffs” when at the time the
advertisements were created and distributed, only five of the fourteen sheriffs and
three of the fourteen county prosecuting attorneys in the Fourth Appellate District
had endorsed or supported him).
For examples of statements regarding judicial candidates’ opponents that are
false/misrepresent/deceive/mislead, review the following cases.
In re Jud. Campaign Complaint Against Brigner (2000), 89 Ohio St. 3d 1460,
1461 (violating Canon 7(E)(1) by false, deceiving, or misleading statements in
campaign committee fundraising letter that the opponent “has never handled a
divorce case” and is ”a novice who lacks even one day of domestic relations
experience” and an enclosure containing a chart contrasting the experience of the
two candidates and claiming that the opponent had no experience in various types
of domestic relations cases). Opponent had practiced law for more than twenty
two years, had served as a magistrate in the juvenile division of a common pleas
court for ten years, had opened and handled more that seventy domestic relations
actions as a legal aid attorney during a five month period in 1987 and 1988.

Op. 2002-8 8
In re Complaint Against Harper (1996), 77 Ohio St. 3d 211, 212, 229. (violating
Canon 2(A) and 7(B)(1)(a) by approving television advertisement stating, “On the
Ohio Supreme Court, one Justice has a problem. It’s money. Most of Resnick’s
money comes from just one place, the plaintiff lawyers who sue, sue, sue. Over
$300,000.00 just from them. This small group of suing lawyers wants Resnick
with her liberal rulings to make it easier for them to collect millions in fees. It’s
time for a change to Judge Sara Harper. Recommended, endorsed, highly rated,
20 years as a Judge, Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel. Judge Sara Harper.” The
court stated the advertisement undermines public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary. The public could conclude from the advertisements
that lawyers representing plaintiffs’ interest are dishonest and dishonest lawyers
desired opponent’s re-election. Further the advertisement suggested there is
something improper about lawyers contributing to a judicial campaign. Id. at
1460.
In re Jud. Campaign Complaint Against Carr (1996), 76 Ohio St. 3d 320
(violating Canon 7B(2)(f) by references to her opponent as “never [having]
handled a single case in housing court as an attorney”).
In re Jud. Complaint Against Hildebrandt (1997), 82 Ohio Misc. 2d 1, 2-4
(violating Canon 7(B)(1), 7(B)(2)(f), and (E)(1) by running television and radio
advertisements stating “according to the district attorneys, he [Hildebrandt’s
opponent] voted to end the death penalty” which was misleading to the public as
to the opponent’s voting record in Congress with regard to the death penalty; and
by incorrectly stating that his opponent “ran for judge, then dropped out, then ran
for Congress and lost” misleading the public as to his opponent’s service as a
public official when the opponent had in fact won election to Congress in 1992,
before being defeated in 1994).
In re Jud. Campaign Complaint Against Kienzle (1999), 96 Ohio Misc. 2d 31, 32-
33 (violating Canon 7(E)(1) by statements in campaign material characterizing the
opponent incumbent judge’s ruling in a case by stating “[a]s Judge, Robert Brown
imposed $430,000 in taxes on Wayne countians. The Court of Appeals said he
was wrong” which promoted the public’s misunderstanding of the role of the
judiciary in our form of government).
In re Jud. Campaign Complaint Against Morris (1997), 81 Ohio Misc. 2d 64, 68
(violating Canon 7(E)(1) by running television advertisement portraying
opponent’s remarks made as an attorney in a domestic proceeding “[t]he kids a
loser, it’s a shame” out of context to falsely convey to the public that her
opponent made the remark in her capacity as a judge, in a courtroom to a small,
troubled boy).
In re Jud. Campaign Against Burick (1999), 95 Ohio Misc. 2d 1, 5, 8, 9, 14
(violating Canon 7(B)(2)(f) and (E)(1) by advertisements alleging that her
opponent was appointed by political bosses, when in fact the appointment was

Op. 2002-8 9
made by the Governor which was false and misled public as to the process for
filling vacancies in judicial office; violating Canon 7(B)(2)(f), (E)(1) and (F) by
making false and misleading statements regarding a criminal case pending on the
docket of her opponent by referring to a defendant as being a rapist who received
a lenient sentence, when in fact the defendant pled guilty to a charge of sexual
battery and received the maximum sentence; violating Canon 7(E)(1) by stating “I
am proud to have received the Union endorsements” when in fact both candidates
received the labor union endorsements—the information while technically true
was misleading and deceiving for it would lead a reasonable person to conclude
that she had received all of the union endorsement in the contested race; violating
Canon 7(D)(10) by the statement “endorsed by Fraternal Order of Police,” when it
was the endorsement of one lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, thus, while the
information was truthful, her failure to identify the nature of the endorsement,
such as the name of the lodge that issued the endorsement, made the statement
misleading.
In re Jud. Campaign Against Hein (1999), 95 Ohio Misc. 2d 31, 34-35 (violating
Canon 7(B)(2)(f) and Canon 7(E)(1) by statements in printed and oral campaign
communications that misrepresented the position of the opponent by labeling
opponent as “liberal” and “soft on crime”). The court stated “the terms do not
allow for a fair and accurate portrayal of the respondent’s opponent. As such,
they would be deceiving and misleading to a reasonable person.” Id. at 35.
From the canons and the cases, the second and third guidelines are set forth. Guideline
2. The canons do not place absolute limits on comments and debate in judicial
campaigns, but the canons ban statements that are
false/misrepresent/deceive/mislead for such statements promote public
misunderstanding regarding campaign issues, judicial candidates, and the judicial
branch of government.
While we find that the respondent’s statements in this instance [a
statement in reference to the incumbent judge’s ruling in a case] to be
contrary to Canon 7(E)(1), we do not intend to imply the existence of
absolute limits on comments and debate in judicial campaigns. However,
the respondent’s statement not only was inaccurate but promotes the
public’s misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary in our form of
government.
In re Jud. Campaign Complaint Against Kienzle (1999), 96 Ohio Misc. 2d 31, 34.
Guideline 3. Truthful and specific comments regarding one's self or regarding an
opponent or an opponent’s record are appropriate judicial campaign speech, as are
truthful criticisms of an opponent. “[T]he Canons do not prohibit truthful criticism, so
long as the criticism is done fairly, accurately, and upon facts, not false representations. .
. . we also stress that criticism of the judiciary has an important function in our society.”
In re Complaint Against Harper (1996), 77 Ohio St. 3d 211, 225. Inaccurate

Op. 2002-8 10
representations, such as suggesting that there is something improper in lawyers
contributing to a judicial campaign, undermine public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary. In re Complaint Against Harper (1996), 77 Ohio St. 3d 211,
229. Truthful comments on an opponent’s record are not banned, so long as the
comments are not false, do not misrepresent facts or mislead, and do not address the
opponent’s decision in a pending case.
However, inflammatory terms or buzzwords about an opponent are not appropriate
judicial campaign speech.
[T]he use of general, inflammatory terms or “buzzwords,” such as those
employed by the respondent [“liberal” and “soft on crime”] in his printed and oral
campaign communications, are inappropriate in judicial campaigns. Moreover,
the terms do not allow for a fair and accurate portrayal of the record of the
respondent’s opponent. As such, they “would be deceiving or misleading to a
reasonable person.” Canon 7(E)(1).
In finding the respondent’s comments to be in violation of Canon 7(E)(1), we do
not mean to imply that Canon 7 precludes a judicial candidate from commenting
on the record of his or her opponent, or, as the respondent suggests, that a
candidate can only mimic words and phrases used by his or her opponent. . . .
Comments regarding an opponent’s record must be truthful and specific.
Generalizations such as those used by the respondent in this campaign must be
avoided, as they are more prone to be misleading or deceiving than specific
comments and observations.
In re Jud. Campaign Complaint Against Hein (1999), 95 Ohio Misc. 2d 31, 35.
Statements pledging or promising conduct in office.
Canon 7 prohibits judicial candidates from making statements pledging or promising
conduct in office other than the faithful/impartial performance of judicial duties.
Canon 7(B)(2) A judge or judicial candidate shall not do any of the
following:
(c) Make pledges or promises of conduct in office other than the
faithful and impartial performance of the duties of the office.
There is a distinction between announcing a view and making a pledge or promise. “An
affirmative declaration can be . . . a pledge or promise. A philosophical viewpoint, while
perhaps inappropriate under another section of the canon, is unlikely to rise to a pledge or
promise as reasonable persons would define them.” In re Jud. Campaign Complaint
Against Runyan (1999), 95 Ohio Misc. 3d 62, 67 (no violation of Canon 7(B)(2)(c)
because complainant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that his opponent
said that if elected, he would imprison all convicted felons).

Op. 2002-8 11
An example of a pledge or promise is the affirmative declaration “I will imprison all
convicted felons.” An example of expressing a philosophical view is the statement “I
believe incarceration is an appropriate sentencing tool in some cases.” An example of a
pledge or promise is “In my court, I will impose the death penalty on criminals at every
opportunity.” An example of expressing a view is the statement “The death penalty
should be reconsidered by the legislature.”
For examples of statements pledging or promising conduct in office see the following
case.
In re Jud. Campaign Against Burick, (1999), 95 Ohio Misc. 2d 1, 5, 7 (violating
Canon 7(B)(2)(c) and (d) by statements regarding her support for and intended
use of the death penalty “Elizabeth Burick will be a tough Judge that supports the
death penalty and isn’t afraid to use it,” and “Burick favors the death penalty for
convicted murderers.” The statements “imply to a reasonable person that she will
use the death penalty in a capital case regardless of the evidence produced during
the mitigation phase of trial and notwithstanding the statutory standards a judge or
jury must consider in determining the appropriateness of the death penalty.”)
Guideline 4. Promising or pledging conduct in office (other than faithful and
impartial performance of judicial duties) is not permitted. Judges must decide each
case on its merits and in accord with the law and judges must sentence in accord with the
law. Pledges and promises about how cases will be decided or how the judge will
sentence each criminal, convey that the judge will not consider each case on its merits.
Statements regarding cases and controversies pending before or likely to come before the
court/Statements related to a substantive matter in a specific case.
Canon 7 prohibits statements that commit a judicial candidate with respect to cases or
controversies that are likely to come before the court or substantive matters on cases
pending on the docket of any judge.
Canon 7(B)(2) A judge or judicial candidate shall not do any of the
following:
(d) Make statements that commit or appear to commit the judge or
judicial candidate with respect to cases or controversies that are
likely to come before the court;
(e) Comment on any substantive matter relating to a specific
pending case on the docket of a judge;
Pending on the docket means not just matters pending on the docket of a judicial
candidate but matters “pending on the docket of any judge at the time the statements were
made.” In re Jud. Campaign Against Burick, (1999), 95 Ohio Misc. 2d 1, 7. The term

Op. 2002-8 12
pending includes “actions which a lower tribunal has finally adjudicated, but from which
an appeal has not yet been taken.” In re Jud. Campaign Against Burick, (1999), 95 Ohio
Misc. 2d 1, 7 (citations omitted).
For examples of statements regarding pending cases see the following cases.
In re Jud. Campaign Against Burick (1999), 95 Ohio Misc. 2d 1(violating Canon
7(B)(2)(e) by making false and misleading statements (referring to a defendant as
being sentenced by the judge as a rapist and receiving a lenient sentence, when in
fact the defendant pled guilty to a charge of sexual battery and received the
maximum sentence) regarding a criminal case pending on the docket of her
opponent during the time from which an appeal could be taken.).
In re Jud. Campaign Against Hein (1999), 95 Ohio Misc. 2d 31, 34 (violating
7(B)(2)(e) by comments in a press release related to the sentence imposed by his
opponent as trial judge in a specific case that was pending before the court of
appeals).
Guideline 5. Statements regarding substantive matters in specific cases pending
before any judge are prohibited, as are, statements regarding cases that commit the
judicial candidate with regard to cases or controversies that are likely to come
before the court on which the judge serves or will serve.
Statements manifesting bias/prejudice.
Canon 7 prohibits judicial statements that manifest bias or prejudice toward an opponent.
Canon 7(E) Campaign Communications. During the course of any
campaign for nomination or election to judicial office, a judicial candidate,
by means of campaign materials, including sample ballots, an
advertisement on radio or television or in a newspaper or periodical, a
public speech, press release, or otherwise, shall not knowingly or with
reckless disregard do any of the following:
(2) Manifest bias or prejudice toward an opponent based on race,
sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or
socioeconomic status or permit members of his or her campaign
committee or others subject to his or her direction or control to do
so.
Guideline 6. Statements that manifest bias or prejudice with regard to an
opponent’s race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or
social economic status are not permitted by the judicial candidate or his or her
campaign committee.

Op. 2002-8 13
Statements on behalf of a political organization or another candidate/Statements publicly
endorsing or opposing another candidate.
Canon 7(B)(2) A judge 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.
The prohibition on public endorsement of other candidates applies not only to oral
communication but also to written communication. See In re Jud Campaign Complaint
Against Keys (1996), 80 Ohio Misc. 2d 1, 2 (violating Canon 7(B)(2)(b) by having names
of two judicial candidates placed on an invitation to another candidate’s fund raiser).
Guideline 7. It is improper for a judicial candidate to speak on behalf of a political
organization and it is improper to publicly endorse or oppose candidates for
another public office through written or oral public communication.
Speaking at political gatherings/Statements regarding political affiliations.
Canon 7(B)(3) A judge or judicial candidate may attend political
gatherings and speak to political gatherings. A judicial candidate may do
any of the following:
(a) State in person or in advertising that he or she is the nominee
of or has been endorsed by a political party;
(b) From the day on which he or she becomes a judicial candidate
through the day of the primary election, identify himself or
herself in person or in advertising as a member of a political
party;
(c) After the day of the primary, identify himself or herself in
person as a member of a political party.
Canon 7(B)(2) A judge or judicial candidate shall not do any of the
following:
(g) Jointly raise funds with a candidate for nonjudicial office.
Judicial candidates may appear together in joint campaign
advertisements and may conduct joint fund raising activities with
other judicial candidates. A judicial candidate may participate
with judicial and nonjudicial candidates in fund raising activities
organized or sponsored by a political party and may appear with
other candidates for public office on slate cards, sample ballots,

Op. 2002-8 14
and other publications of a political party that identify all
candidates endorsed by the party in an election.
Guideline 8. A judicial candidate at any time during the campaign is permitted to
identify himself or herself in person as a member of a political party and at any time
during the campaign is permitted in person or in written communication to
truthfully state he or she is a nominee or endorsed by a party; however, in written
advertisements a judicial candidate is permitted to identify himself or herself as a
member of a political party only in the primary period. A judicial candidate is
permitted to appear with other candidates for public office on slate cards, sample
ballots, and other publications of a political party that identify all candidates
endorsed by the party in an election.
Statements soliciting campaign funds.
Canon 7(C)(1) A judicial candidate shall prohibit public employees
subject to his or her direction or control from soliciting or
receiving campaign fund contributions.
Canon 7(C)(2)(a) A judicial candidate personally shall not solicit
or receive campaign funds. A judicial candidate may establish a
committee to secure and manage the expenditure of funds for his
or her campaign and to obtain statements of support for his or her
candidacy. The campaign committee shall not knowingly receive
directly or indirectly for any political or personal purpose any of
the following: [i, ii, iii omitted].
See In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against Carr (1996), 76 Ohio St. 3d 320, 323
(violating Canon 7(C)(2)(a) by signing a fund-raising letter thereby personally soliciting
campaign funds).
Guideline 9. Personal solicitation of campaign funds by a judicial candidate is
prohibited, as is solicitation or receipt of campaign fund contributions by public
employees subject to the judicial candidate's direction or control.
Statements by judicial campaign committee/Accountability by judicial candidate.
Canon 7 (F) Accountability. A judicial candidate shall be responsible for
the content of any statement communicated in any medium by his or her
campaign committee and for compliance by his or her campaign
committee with the limitations on campaign solicitation and contributions
contained in this canon if the candidate knew of the statement, solicitation,
or contribution.
Case law has addressed the accountability of judicial candidates.

Op. 2002-8 15
[A] judicial candidate is not relieved from compliance with Canon 7
simply because a third party authorizes a particular type of campaign
conduct or communication. . . . The Supreme Court and previous five-
judge commissions have made it clear that judicial candidates must
independently measure the propriety of their actions against the standards
contained in Canon 7 and will be held accountable should their conduct
fall short of the required principles. See Canon 7(F) and In re Judicial
Campaign Complaint Against Hildebrandt (1997), 82 Ohio Misc. 2d 1, 4,
675 N.E.2d 889, 891.”
In re Jud. Campaign Complaint Against Burick (1999), 95 Ohio Misc.2d 1, 9.
Guideline 10. Judicial candidates are responsible for the contents of their campaign
communication and for the compliance of their campaign committee with the
restrictions on solicitation and contributions.
Statements by incumbent judges.
It is important to remember that judicial speech is not just restrained in the context of
judicial campaigns. An incumbent judge has restrictions on judicial speech, regardless of
whether he or she is engaged in a judicial campaign. Under Canon 3(B)(5) and (6),
judges must perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice and require lawyers in
proceedings before the judge to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice. Under Canon
3(B)(7), a judge is not permitted (with limited exceptions) to participate in
communications outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending
proceeding. Under Canon 3(B)(9), a judge is restrained from comment regarding a
proceeding pending or impending in any court that might reasonably be expected to
affect its outcome or impair its fairness or make any nonpublic comment that might
substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing. Under Canon 3(B)(10), a judge is
restricted from commending or criticizing jurors for their verdict other than in a court
order or opinion. Under Canon 3(B)(11)(a), a judge is restricted from disclosure of
information regarding probable or actual decisions in a case or legal proceeding before a
court. Under Canon 4(C)(1), a judge’s appearance at a public hearing or consultation
with an executive or legislative body or official is limited to matters concerning the law,
the legal system, or the administration of justice, or to pro se matters involving the judge
or the judge’s interest.
Guideline 11. Judicial speech is not only restrained in the context of judicial
campaigns—an incumbent judge has restrictions on judicial speech, regardless of
whether he or she is engaged in a judicial campaign.
Withdrawal of former board opinions and discussion.
With this opinion, the Board takes the opportunity to withdraw several opinions that
interpreted the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct when it contained the “announce clause”
prohibiting judges from announcing views on disputed legal and political issues.

Op. 2002-8 16
The Board withdraws Opinion 87-006 the Syllabus of which states: “Candidates for
judicial office are not specifically prohibited from engaging in a public debate under the
Code of Judicial Conduct. However Canon 7(B)(1)(c) of the Code of Judicial Conduct
only allows candidates to promise faithful and impartial performance of the duties of
office. Moreover, a judicial candidate may not make pledges or promises of conduct in
office, announce his views on disputed legal or political issues or misrepresent his
identity, qualifications, present position, or other fact.”
In withdrawing Opinion 87-006, the Board notes that it agrees with the conclusion of that
opinion that public debates are not prohibited by the Code, but nevertheless, the opinion
is withdrawn because of its reliance on the announce clause as a regulation that applies to
judicial debates.
The Board withdraws Opinion 87-030 the Syllabus of which states: “A candidate for
judicial office may not make pledges or promises of conduct in office other than the
faithful and impartial performance of the duties of the office; announce his or her views
on disputed legal or political issues; or misrepresent his or her identity qualifications,
present position or other fact. In this regard, a judicial candidate may not promise to treat
a certain classification of criminal offenses in a certain way if elected, nor announce a
specific sentencing policy for criminal cases.” In withdrawing Opinion 87-030, the
Board notes that it agrees with the conclusion that “an incumbent candidate running for
judicial office may not promise to continue to handle certain classifications of offenses in
a particular way if re-elected, such as not accepting plea bargaining in D.W.I. cases or
continuing to sentence in a particular manner in D.W.I. cases,” but nevertheless, the
opinion is withdrawn because of its reference to the announce clause.
The Board withdraws Opinion 89-33 the Syllabus of which states: “A candidate for
judicial office may not announce his or her views on disputed legal or political issues.
Therefore, judges and judicial candidates may not announce their personal views on the
issue of abortion or how they would decide abortion issues coming before them.” In
withdrawing Opinion 89-33, the Board notes it agrees that a judicial candidate may not
state how he or she will decide abortion issues for that is a pledge or promise still
prohibited under the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, however, judges are free to express
their views on abortion or other disputed legal or political issues, so long as there is no
pledge or promise or statement that commits the candidate with regard to a case or
controversy.
In conclusion, the Board advises as follows. Canon 7 of the Ohio Code of Judicial
Conduct regulates judicial campaign speech. To assist judicial candidates in appropriate
campaign speech, guidelines on the scope of judicial campaign speech are set forth. The
guidelines arise from the mandatory rules set forth in Canon 7 and as such are not
optional. Guideline 1: The Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct does not prohibit a judicial
candidate from announcing views on disputed legal or political issues, but in so doing,
the judge must abide by the restraints on judicial campaign speech within Canon 7.
Guideline 2: The canons do not place absolute limits on comments and debate in judicial

Op. 2002-8 17
campaigns, but the canons ban statements that are false/misrepresent/deceive/mislead for
such statements promote public misunderstanding regarding campaign issues, judicial
candidates, and the judicial branch of government. Guideline 3: Truthful and specific
comments regarding one's self or regarding an opponent or an opponent’s record are
appropriate judicial campaign speech, as are truthful criticisms of an opponent.
Guideline 4: Promising or pledging conduct in office (other than faithful and impartial
performance of judicial duties) is not permitted. Guideline 5: Statements regarding
substantive matters in specific cases pending before any judge are prohibited, as are,
statements that commit the judicial candidate with regard to cases or controversies that
are likely to come before the court on which the judge serves or will serve. Guideline 6:
Statements that manifest bias or prejudice with regard to an opponent’s race, sex,
religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or social economic status are
not permitted by the judicial candidate or his or her campaign committee. Guideline 7: It
is improper for a judicial candidate to speak on behalf of a political organization and it is
improper to publicly endorse or oppose candidates for another public office through
written or oral public communication. Guideline 8: A judicial candidate at any time
during the campaign is permitted to identify himself or herself in person as a member of a
political party and at any time during the campaign is permitted in person or in written
communication to truthfully state he or she is a nominee or endorsed by a party; however,
in written advertisements a judicial candidate is permitted to identify himself or herself as
a member of a political party only in the primary period. A judicial candidate is
permitted to appear with other candidates for public office on slate cards, sample ballots,
and other publications of a political party that identify all candidates endorsed by the
party in an election. Guideline 9: Personal solicitation of campaign funds by a judicial
candidate is prohibited, as is solicitation or receipt of campaign fund contributions by
public employees subject to the judicial candidate’s direction or control. Guideline 10:
Judicial candidates are responsible for the contents of their campaign communication and
for the compliance of their campaign committee with the restrictions on solicitation and
contributions. Guideline 11: Judicial speech is not only restrained in the context of
judicial campaigns—an incumbent judge has ethical restrictions on judicial speech,
regardless of whether he or she is engaged in a judicial campaign.
Opinions 87-006 (1987), 87-030 (1987), and 89-33 (1989) issued by the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio are
withdrawn.
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.