The Ethics Advisory Committee has been asked for its opinion on this a question: Whether the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits a judge from teaching a course for a continuing legal education seminar that is being operated by a private for-profit group composed of attorneys.

It is the committee's opinion that the answer is yes, since teaching would lend the power and prestige of the judicial office to advance the financial interests of the for-profit group sponsoring the seminar.

The subject-matter of the course is not a problem since judges are permitted to teach classes concerning the law. The Code of Judicial Conduct provides.

A judge, subject to the proper performance of his judicial duties, may engage in the following quasi-judicial activities...

(A) A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.

In Advisory Opinion No. 1, the Federal Advisory Committee on Judicial Activities found it was permissible for a judge to participate as a faculty member at a university law school, provided the judge's teaching duties did not in any way interfere with the performance of his or her judicial duties.

This conclusion is repeated in Advisory Opinion No. 7, which states that a judge may participate as a faculty member at the National Judicial College provided there was no interference with his judicial activities.

It is significant that neither the university nor the National Judicial College are private for-profit organizations. In that respect, these opinions are distinguishable from the facts presented by this opinion, since the seminar at issue here is sponsored by a for-profit group.

Continuing legal education programs were addressed in Formal Opinion #298, and participation in them by lawyers and judges was approved, but the programs discussed in that opinion were those sponsored or assisted by bar associations, or affiliated groups, or non-commercial programs produced by television and broadcasting companies for use as public information programs.

Legal seminars are discussed in Informal Opinion No. 840 where it was stated that before an attorney may participate in a legal seminar, the seminar must have as its purpose the imparting of information to the participants. According to the opinion, it is improper for a lawyer to participate in a seminar, the main purpose of which is to publicize, or make money for its sponsor, the lawyer, or others. Arguably judges should be held to an even higher standard, making, participation in this privately sponsored, for-profit, seminar improper.

Canon 2B provides that "a judge should not lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of others. " Here, the goal of the seminar's sponsors. presumably, is for the seminar to be a financial success. By teaching at the seminar, the judge would be using the prestige of his or her office to advance the private interests of others. This activity violates the aforementioned provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Although none of the opinions or Code provisions specifically address the question before the committee, the inference is clear that judges may teach for public and for nonprofit entities, but that they should avoid lending the prestige of their office to private groups sponsoring continuing legal education seminars for profit.

It is the committee's opinion that the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits a judge from teaching a class for a continuing legal education seminar sponsored by a private for-profit group composed of attorneys.