Samuel C. Stretton.

As long as it's made clear that the judge is retired, you can refer to him as judge or The Honorable on campaign literature.

I want to include a retired judge, with his permission, on a fundraising committee for my upcoming political race. Can I refer to the person as judge or can I refer to them as The Honorable?

The question of whether a retired or former judge can use the title “Judge” has been written about several times previously in this column over the last 24 years. There are some basic customs and practices that have developed over the years.

First, a former judge is entitled to use the title “Judge” in retirement. But, if the judge is in a courtroom, then they can never be called by their former title. To use the term “Judge” in a courtroom could suggest that the lawyer (former judge) was trying to improperly influence the panel or fact finder. That would not be allowed. Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.4(e) precludes a lawyer from implying the ability to influence improperly a government agent or official. By using the title “Judge” in a courtroom, one might believe that the lawyer was attempting to curry favor or this could leave observers to believe the former judge had an advantage because of their position.

On the other hand, a former judge who has served well is certainly entitled to keep his title. They can keep it on their letterhead if they wish, but it would be best to put “retired” after their name. Therefore, on the letter it could read “Judge so-and-so (retired).”

A secretary can answer the phone as the office of Judge so-and-so. But nowhere should the former judge suggest to anyone that the former position or title will in any way improperly influence other judges or result in a better resolution.

This custom and practice has always been when the judge can retain the title when retired, as long as they don't suggest they are still an active judge or can influence the other judges. The past custom has always been that if one was a Justice, such as on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court, then once retired their title traditionally would drop to Judge. That was an old practice and custom and appears at least not to be followed currently.  Former Supreme Court justices are still called justice so-and-so. But at one time, this was not the case.

Surprisingly, there is nothing in the Code of Judicial Conduct about what title to maintain. Rule 1.3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct precludes avoiding abuse of the prestige of the judicial office. This seems more directed to an active judge using the judicial position. Rule 1.2 might be violated in terms of the appearance of impropriety if the former judge used the title improperly. This rule requires one to promote confidence in the judiciary.

The best practice for lawyers is to address a retired judicial officer as “Judge” out of respect unless they ask you not to. Even in the courthouse, they should still be called Judge. But in the courtroom, they can't be.

The term “Your Honor” is one that is used when addressing a judicial officer in a courtroom setting.  But the term is not normally used outside the courtroom setting such as seeing a judge on the street or even in the courthouse hallway. Then the title “Judge” should be used. Your Honor is reserved for when the judicial officer is sitting on the bench and performing their judicial duties. That is to impress on the litigants the dignity of the judicial position and the awe of the courtroom setting. The terms aforementioned are to enhance justice and to create respect for the court system.

But outside the courtroom, the title should not be used because the judge is not adjudicating or performing judicial duties. While the term Judge should be used out of respect for a sitting judge, Your Honor or The Honorable should not be.

When a judge is retired, the question is can they still use at times the term Your Honor? That should not be used when a former judge is walking down the street or in social settings or in a courthouse. The term Your Honor or the term The Honorable is usually reserved more for the courtroom setting.

But in letters sent to judicial officers or articles describing or mentioning former judges, there is no harm in addressing the person as The Honorable so-and-so. As long as there is no misleading that the person is an active judge.

Therefore, the question becomes in a campaign literature, when the former judge is working with a particular political campaign, can their name as listed include The Honorable? If it includes the word Judge, it should have retired after it so there would be no misleading. Further, it could hurt the judiciary if a political campaign for a nonjudicial candidate had someone on the committee listed as a judge without explaining that they are retired.

There is nothing wrong with addressing in writing or by identification a former judicial officer or any former highly elected governmental officer, such as a governor or mayor, as Your Honor even though they are no longer serving that position. It is a term of respect for their previous service.

Therefore, to answer the question, in political literature, the term The Honorable to note the retired judicial officer is permissible. The better practice might be not to use it. But there doesn't appear to be anything that would prohibit that practice since a former judge is entitled to the respect due to their years of service. But somewhere the document should state retired.

Although, there are no real rules and it's all matter of custom and practice, perhaps the bottom line is that even a former judge does not want to do anything to degrade or cause disrespect to the judicial office they once served. Using the title Judge in retirement or being listed as The Honorable is a sign of respect. On the other hand, the former judicial officer does not want to be involved in something that would cause disrepute or disrespect to the former position they held. But the former judge now being active in a current political campaign certainly can be addressed on literature as The Honorable as long as it is made clear that they are no longer an active judge.

Judges should not associate socially with convicted felons.

I am a judge and have friends who have criminal records. Is it against the Code of Judicial Conduct to associate with persons with criminal records if one is a judicial officer?

The answer is very straightforward and, to some extent, common sense. Judicial officers always have a duty to protect the dignity of the judicial office they serve. Rule 1.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to promote confidence in the judiciary. It precluded the appearance of impropriety. The Lawyer Ethics Code, the Rules of Professional Responsibility do not have the concept of the appearance of impropriety. But the Judicial Code does. Under Rule 1.2, Comment 3, a judge is to do nothing that would compromise the judicial independence, integrity or impartiality. Arguably, Rule 1.2 could be violated if a judicial officer is seen socializing in public or being friendly with persons with serious felony criminal convictions.

The distinction is social contacts as opposed to associating and doing business with someone with criminal convictions. Normally judges aren't found in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct just because they are seen with or talking to someone with a conviction of even perhaps had a dinner with them. But developing a business association with someone with serious criminal convictions has to be carefully considered.

Certainly, a judicial officer does have privacy rights and First Amendment rights. There is no particular rule of judicial conduct that specifically precludes such contact.

Clearly, if a judge is associating with persons with criminal backgrounds at places where a crime might be expected, that might be another issue. Going to a gambling hall with persons with criminal records would not be a wise decision by a judicial officer.

There is a case in New Jersey titled, In re Blackman, 591 A.2d 1339 (NJ Supreme Court, 1991) in which a judge was found in violation for going to a picnic that was being held by a person who had a felony conviction. To make matters worse, there were a number of people from the newspapers present at the picnic. The New Jersey court found this to be in violation because the judge's presence could be seen as supporting the person who was recently convicted. What's interesting in that case, the court found it was not a defense that the judge and convicted felon had been friends for many, many years. The privilege of being a judge is a major responsibility and at times the judge's conduct is going to be regulated or far stricter than laypersons or lawyers. But that is the price one pays for the privilege of being a judge.

But the bottom line appears to be that a judge can socialize at times with persons with a criminal background, but the question becomes where and under what circumstances. Normally, minor social contact will not violate the rules.

But the normal associations with convicted felons, particularly in questionable areas, should not be allowed by any judicial officer. The judicial officer must at all times protect the judicial office and not allow social associations to affect the dignity of the judicial office.

Chester County lawyer Samuel C. Stretton has practiced in the area of legal and judicial ethics for more than 35 years. He welcomes questions and comments from readers. If you have a question, call Stretton directly at 610-696-4243 or write to him at 301 S. High St. P.O. Box 3231, West Chester, Pennsylvania, 19381.