An opinion is requested concerning the propriety of courts accepting and using certain "Official Documents" envelopes provided at no cost to the court by an advertising agency for commercial banks and bearing advertisements naming both the Court and the bank.

In Opinion No. 172 (September 25, 1992), the Commission concluded that no judge should have any interest, financial or otherwise, in any private, for profit, probation service company. In Opinion No. 215 (September 30, 1996) it was held inappropriate for any judicial officer to endorse or otherwise to align publicly himself or herself with any private, for profit, probation service.

Such holdings, together with the language of Canon 2B directing that:

Judges shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others, nor should they convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence them ....(Emphasis added)

requires the same result.

In addition, the continued acceptance and use of such "free" envelopes from institutions which are likely to be frequent litigants could result in a violation of Canon 5C (4) (c) and/or possibly require frequent disqualification pursuant to Canon 3.

Any judicial officer who may have heretofore unknowingly failed to follow the dictates of this opinion is directed to take such action immediately as may be necessary to come into compliance.

This 19th day of December, 1997.
JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION
By: John E. James, Chair