Professionalism and dignity must be part of a judicial campaign.

What are some of the basic things judicial candidates can do and not do during judicial campaigns?

Samuel C. Stretton.

A judge is entitled to run a vigorous judicial campaign. A judge can now speak out on issues, but cannot say how they would determine or decide cases brought before them. A judge can certainly talk about their philosophies. A judge can talk about how they would run a courtroom.

One of the biggest problems in judicial campaigns and the subject of past complaints to the Judicial Conduct Board are comments about one's opponent made during a judicial campaign. Comments that are false and misleading about one's opponent can potentially cause a problem for a judicial candidate. The Judicial Conduct Board has in the past opened complaints about judicial candidates if they are elected (or the Office of Disciplinary Counsel could if they are not elected) concerning untrue statements about one's opponents or about the system itself.

Another important issue as a candidate is not to handle or receive any funds. Certainly, no cash should ever be received if it's more than $100. Their monies are to go to the campaign committee via the director or the treasurer. The judicial candidate should not receive contributions. But if checks are handed to the judicial candidate, then the checks should immediately be transferred to the committee. No corporate checks can be taken. Checks that are from law firms that are not corporations but partnerships have to be divided according to the partners' shares unless one partner will state that the contribution is from him. A judicial candidate cannot collect company funds ever. Only his committee can.

A judicial candidate cannot endorse other candidates except candidates running for the same office. Therefore, if there are several Common Pleas seats open, a candidate for the Court of Common Pleas could endorse other candidates for Common Pleas. But they can't endorse for Supreme Court or a municipal court or for sheriff or district attorney.

A judicial candidate cannot show pictures of themselves wearing robes in a courtroom or adjudicating court cases in a courtroom. Though it's a better practice never to have pictures shown with a judicial robe on, there appears to be no direct prohibition about wearing a robe as in a campaign photo. The better practice is not to.

Judicial candidates have to be careful when photos are taken with candidates running for different offices. A candidate must make sure that there is no suggestion that the judicial candidate is endorsing the other nonjudicial candidates.

If a judicial candidate is also a sitting judge, they must keep track of the campaign contributions of attorneys or litigants who appear before them. Anything over $250 may trigger issues of recusal or disqualification.

The judicial campaign should be run with dignity and respect for the judicial office. There should be no screaming or yelling matches or foul language during campaign appearances or debates.

Any questions about what a judicial candidate can or cannot do during a judicial campaign can be answered by reading the Code of Judicial Conduct. Campaign ethical rules are found in Rules 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4. Similarly, for district judges, the campaign rules are found at Rules of Conduct of Magistrate Judges, Rules 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4.

Obviously, a person running for judicial office who is holding currently the judicial office cannot use for the campaign, the office copy machine, office telephone or office secretarial help to assist in their judicial campaign. Nothing involving public funds can be used. To do so could risk serious felony charges or major judicial discipline.

Judicial candidates have to be careful of in-kind contributions. For instance, a room can be donated for volunteers, etc. But if the room donated is owned by a corporation, that's not acceptable. All gifts and contributions have to be reported and fair market value of the use must be recorded.

When a judge's committee starts to receive campaign contributions, he may have to make disclosures and may have to recuse themselves.

Under Rule 2.11 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the reasons for disqualification are set forth. Under Rule 2.11(4), if a judge learns there is a contribution made by a lawyer or party, that would raise concern about the judge's fairness and impartiality, the judge may have to disqualify themselves.

No candidate wants to do anything to injure or tarnish the judicial office that they are seeking.

Judicial candidates have been prosecuted when they yell or scream or threaten former supporters who have chosen to support the opposing person in the election. It is not a wise idea because it brings the judicial office potentially into disrepute, particularly if it's done in public where other persons witness this bad conduct.

In conclusion, running for judicial office is time-consuming, but can be easily done correctly as long as the lawyer reads the basic Rules of Judicial Conduct that are applicable. These rules have the importance of protecting the integrity, impartiality and dignity of the bench. Every judicial candidate should do what they can to learn these rules and follow them. Judicial professionalism and dignity must be part of every campaign.

The same rules that prohibit in-person contact also prohibit contact via social media.

I am representing a client in a very contentious divorce case. I want to gain information and I am having my investigator use social media to find out what the person is saying. Is there anything wrong with that?

The answer is yes. Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct forbid contact of a person on the opposing side either directly or indirectly if they are represented by counsel. In this case, apparently there is litigation going on and there is active representation. The lawyer's agent cannot do what the lawyer can't. Having an agent contact someone and waive basic rights would be an affront to the court system. Further, one cannot mislead third persons. Rule 4.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct deals with unrepresented persons. A lawyer cannot give advice to an unrepresented client except to seek legal representation.

There are Pennsylvania Bar Association's legal ethics opinions precluding a lawyer or other agent from using another name and fabricating a purpose in contacting either someone represented by counsel or an unrepresented person, see Informal Opinions 94-48 and Informal Opinion 93-98. There is also a Formal Pennsylvania Bar Association's Opinion 2014-300. These require the lawyer to use their own name and state their purpose before contacting someone who is unrepresented by counsel when there is litigation. 

Further, lawyers have to be very careful using the internet and social media sites. Sometimes lawyers forget that the same rules that prohibit in-person contact also prohibit electronic real-time contact.

The days of Perry Mason having Paul Drake or Della Street go out and contact parties, other agents or someone unrepresented—and then provide false information and false names and false purposes—are no longer allowed.

Law is a profession and these rules are part of the essence of professional conduct and being a professional.

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.