COMMITTEE ON CODES OF CONDUCT
ADVISORY OPINION NO. 73
Requests for Letters of Recommendation and Similar Endorsements.
Judges are often asked for letters recommending or otherwise endorsing
particular persons in a variety of circumstances. These may include requests
on behalf of applicants for admission to colleges or law schools, persons
seeking election or appointment to governmental offices, persons seeking
appointment or employment by public and private entities, and persons seeking
other forms of favor or consideration.
Because such requests, and the entities to which a recommendation
would be addressed, are so varied, no single rule is universally applicable.
Judges receiving such requests should evaluate them, however, in the light
of certain established ethical considerations.
This opinion does not deal with recommendations for judicial office,
a subject which is covered by Advisory Opinion No. 59.
It is clear that a judge should not recommend persons seeking election
to political office, or otherwise permit himself or herself to become involved
in politics. Canon 7.
With respect to non-political recommendations, the requirement of
Canon 2B that a judge "should not lend the prestige of the judicial office
to advance the private interests of others" comes into play. This means,
at the very least, that a judge should not make a recommendation in support
of a commercial venture, or when a recommendation is, or could reasonably
appear to be, requested primarily because of the prestige of office. And
this is very likely to be the case whenever the relationship between the
judge and the person seeking the recommendation is such that the judge
is in no better position than many others would be to evaluate that person.
It must be recognized, however, that judges are members of society,
and of the community at large, and that not every action of a judge is
intended, or could reasonably be perceived, as an assertion of the prestige
of judicial office. When a judge is personally aware of facts or circumstances
which would facilitate an accurate assessment of the individual under consideration,
a judge may properly communicate that knowledge, and his or her opinions
based thereon, to those responsible for making decisions concerning the
applicant. The judge's awareness may be based, for example, on a longstanding
and intimate knowledge of the person or special knowledge derived from
some relationship, such as that with a law clerk.
In any case, the judge should carefully consider whether the recommendation
or endorsement might reasonably be perceived as exerting pressure by reason
of his or her judicial office, and should avoid any action which could
be so understood.
It should also be recognized that there is usually much less risk
of violating Canon 2B in situations in which the judge merely responds
to an inquiry from the institution, than when the judge initiates the recommendation.
Accordingly, many judges have adopted a policy of responding to requests
for recommendations by declining to act, or by inviting the applicant to
list the judge as a reference, with the understanding that, if requested
to do so by the proposed recipient of the recommendation, the judge may
respond by supplying factual information known to the judge concerning
the applicant.
August 26, 1983
Revised January 16, 1998