Supreme Judicial Court Rules  Rule 3.7 Participation in legal, educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organizations and activities

(A)

Subject to the requirements of Rule 3.1, a judge may participate in activities of or sponsored by or on behalf of (i) legal, educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organizations, which are not conducted for profit, or (ii) governmental entities concerned with the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. Permitted participation includes but is not limited to the following:

(1)

A judge may serve as a member of the organization.

(2)

A judge may plan and attend events and activities of the organization.

(3)

A judge may participate in internal discussions related to fundraising. However, a judge shall not otherwise participate in fundraising, and shall not manage or invest funds belonging to or raised by the organization unless the organization is composed entirely or predominantly of judges and exists to further the educational or professional interests of judges.

(4)

A judge shall not solicit contributions or members for the organization, except that a judge may solicit contributions or members from members of the judge’s family or from judges over whom the judge does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority.

(5)

A judge may serve as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of the organization, unless it is likely that the organization:

• (a) will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge; or
• (b) will frequently be engaged in adversary proceedings in the court of which the judge is a member, or in any court subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the court of which the judge is a member.

(6)

A judge may serve as a keynote or featured speaker at, receive an award or other comparable recognition at, be featured on the program of, and permit the judge’s title to be used in connection with the promotion of an organization’s event that is not a fundraising event, but shall not do so at a fundraising event except as permitted in Paragraph (6A).

(6A)

A judge may serve as a keynote or featured speaker at, receive an award or other comparable recognition at, be featured on the program of, and permit the judge’s title to be used in connection with the promotion of a fundraising event only if the event is sponsored by an organization concerned with the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, and that organization promotes the general interests of the judicial branch of government or the legal profession, including enhancing the diversity and professionalism of the bar.

(7)

A judge may make recommendations to public or private fund-granting organizations or agencies for programs and projects, but only on behalf of organizations that are concerned with the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.

(B)

A judge may encourage lawyers to provide pro bono publico legal services.

(C)

A judge may, as a parent or guardian, assist minor children in their fund-raising activities if the procedures employed are not coercive and the sums solicited are modest.

[1]

This Rule governs a judge's participation in a variety of activities sponsored by organizations not conducted for profit, whether public or private, and by governmental entities (collectively referred to as “organizations”). Paragraph (A) identifies the types of organizations covered by this Rule. Examples include bar associations, other not-for-profit private organizations, and court-created commissions. The first clause of Paragraph (A), “subject to the requirements of Rule 3.1,” emphasizes that even with respect to activities that are explicitly permitted by Rule 3.7, a judge must always consider whether participation would violate Rule 3.1.

[1A]

In considering whether participation in any extrajudicial activity would violate Rule 3.1, a judge should consider all relevant factors, including the membership and purposes of the organization, the nature of the judge’s participation in or association with the organization or event, whether the organization or its members typically advocate on one side of issues before or likely to come before the court of which the judge is a member or any court subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the court of which the judge is a member, and the number, diversity, and identity of the financial supporters of the organization or sponsors of a particular event. Although activities permitted under this Rule must be of or sponsored by an organization not conducted for profit, this requirement does not preclude the judge from participating in events of an organization that receives sponsorship or financial support from for-profit entities. A judge must avoid giving the impression that the organization, its members, or an event’s sponsors are in a special position to influence the judge, and, where appropriate, a judge must avoid giving the impression that the judge favors the organization’s mission.

[1B]

The Code explicitly encourages certain activities where the nature of a judge's participation will promote public understanding of and confidence in an independent judiciary, foster collegiality among the bar and communication and cooperation between the judiciary and the bar, enhance the judge’s ability to perform judicial or administrative duties, or otherwise further the goals of the courts. See, e.g., Rule 1.2, Comments [4] and [6]. So, for example, judges are encouraged to speak about the administration of justice to not-for-profit groups, including business and community groups and bar associations. Such speaking engagements ordinarily will not raise an issue under Rule 3.1 even when an event or program is held in space provided by a law firm or is financially supported or sponsored by one or more for-profit entities, such as law firms or legal vendors, that do substantial business in the court on which the judge sits. If, however, fundraising is a chief objective of the event or program, Paragraph (A)(6A) governs whether a judge may be a keynote or featured speaker. Giving a presentation at an educational conference where the judge’s involvement would help to further the goals of the court system is another example of encouraged participation. Such participation would not ordinarily raise an issue under Rule 3.1 even when the conference is financially supported or sponsored by organizations or vendors that do business in the court on which the judge sits.

[2]

The restrictions in Paragraph (A)(4) are necessary because, depending on the circumstances, a judge’s solicitation of contributions or members for an organization might create the risk that the person solicited would feel obligated to respond favorably or would do so to curry favor with the judge. However, a judge may be identified by name and title as an organization’s officer, director, trustee, non-legal advisor, or member on websites, emails, letterhead, and any other communication materials created and issued by others within the organization to solicit or accept donations or to enroll members so long as comparable designations are used for other persons.

[3]

As used in Paragraphs (A)(6) and (A)(6A), a fundraising event is one for which the organizers’ chief objectives include raising money to support the organization's activities beyond the event itself. Unless that is the case, an event is not a fundraising event, even if the revenues ultimately exceed the cost. A judge may attend a fundraising event but may not participate in additional activities except as permitted by Paragraph (A)(6A). However, a judge who attends a fundraising event is not in violation of this Rule merely because a laudatory reference to or about the judge, not announced in advance, is made at the event.

[4]

Paragraph (A)(6A) permits a judge to participate in additional activities (e.g., being a featured speaker or receiving an award) at fundraising events of or sponsored by organizations concerned with the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice that serve the general interests of the judicial branch of government and the legal profession, including organizations that enhance the diversity and professionalism of the bar. The nature of such organizations makes it unlikely that a judge’s involvement would reflect adversely upon that judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality. Organizations concerned with the general interests of the judicial branch of government and the legal profession include general purpose and affinity bar associations (e.g., county bar associations, bar associations composed exclusively or primarily of members of an ethnic group, bar associations specializing in particular practice areas but whose members take positions on both sides of disputed issues), organizations dedicated to enhancing the professionalism of the judicial branch (e.g., the National Center for State Courts), and organizations composed entirely or primarily of judges (e.g., the Massachusetts Judges Conference, the Flaschner Judicial Institute), but exclude organizations composed exclusively or primarily of lawyers who typically take one side of contested issues (e.g., plaintiffs’ personal injury bar associations, insurance defense bar associations), organizations dedicated to influencing opinion on contested legal or constitutional issues, or organizations that represent one constituency (e.g., prosecutors, criminal defense counsel).

[5]

In addition to the types of participation expressly contemplated by this Rule, a judge’s permissible extrajudicial activities often involve teaching or writing on law-related subjects and, on occasion, non-law-related subjects. See Rule 1.3 for special considerations that arise when a judge writes or contributes to publications of a for-profit entity. Similar considerations also may arise if a judge teaches for a for-profit entity.

[6]

In addition to appointing lawyers to serve as counsel for indigent parties in individual cases as authorized by law, a judge may promote broader access to justice by encouraging lawyers to provide pro bono publico or reduced fee legal services, if in doing so the judge does not employ coercion or abuse the prestige of judicial office. Such encouragement may take many forms, including providing lists of available programs, training lawyers to do pro bono publico legal work, and participating in events recognizing lawyers who have done pro bono publico work.

[7]

Paragraph (C) is intended to allow a judge to participate in a child’s normal, daily activities. Thus, for example, a judge may accompany the judge's child while the child sells Girl Scout cookies or collects UNICEF donations, or may work at a refreshment stand at a school-sponsored sports event intended to raise money to finance a class trip. On the other hand, this provision does not permit a judge to participate in fundraising activities for the primary or exclusive benefit of the judge’s own child, such as raising funds so that the judge's child may participate in a school-sponsored trip. The word “assist” is intended to convey that a judge should not engage in direct solicitations on behalf of the child other than from members of the judge’s family. A judge may not, for example, sell Girl Scout cookies in the workplace.