Page 3
Ethics Committee:
Judge Who Did Not Contribute to Book May Not Write ‘Blurb’ for Cover Using Name, Title
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The California Supreme Court’s Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions yesterday said “no” to a judge who wants to know if it’s permissible to write a blurb to be used on the cover of a legal education book to which that judge had made no contribution and using the jurist’s office title.
The committee explained:
“While a judicial officer may review, critique, or comment on legal education books for educational purposes, a judicial officer who has not contributed to a legal education book may not provide a book cover endorsement referencing the judicial officer’s title because this lends judicial prestige to advance another person’s pecuniary or personal interest in violation of canon 2B(2).”
That canon says:
“A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office or use the judicial title in any manner, including any oral or written communication, to advance the pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or others.”
The committee continued:
“Authors and publishers typically seek written endorsements from high-profile or prestigious individuals, sometimes called ‘book blurbs,’ for the placement on a book cover to market and promote the book for sale. An endorsement from a well-known judge, for example, might suggest to would-be readers that a law-related book is particularly interesting or useful, leading to increased sales. When a judicial officer has not authored, co-authored, or contributed to the book, the primary purpose of such an endorsement is not to identify a contributor by judicial title or engage in an educational exercise, but rather to use the endorsing judicial officer’s title to promote sales. The code prohibits lending judicial prestige or using judicial title for this purpose, regardless of whether a book is educational in nature.”
Court of Appeal Justice Judith Haller of the Fourth District’s Div. One, a member of the committee, commented:
“There is a great tradition of judges commenting on books and articles written by others. Robust academic discussion helps further the law and our profession, which is to be encouraged. The purpose of this opinion is to provide guidance on the line between permissible educational discourse and impermissible marketing.”
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company