IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 16–0097

Filed June 17, 2016

IN THE MATTER OF JAMES H. MARTINEK, 

A Magistrate.

On application of the Iowa Commission on Judicial Qualifications.

The Commission on Judicial Qualifications filed an application to 

discipline a magistrate. OPINION ISSUED.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kevin R. Cmelik and 

Grant Dugdale, Assistant Attorneys General, for complainant.

Patrick M. Roby and Nicholas J. Kilburg, Elderkin & Pirnie, P.L.C., 

Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for respondent.
2

MANSFIELD, Justice.

A magistrate maintained a website where he posted information

regarding his availability to perform marriage ceremonies at locations 

other than the courthouse for a fee. The website included some photos 

of the magistrate wearing his robes while performing such ceremonies. 

The magistrate self-reported his conduct to the Iowa Commission on 

Judicial Qualifications after becoming concerned that this website might 

violate our ethics rules for judicial officers. The Commission found that 

the magistrate violated the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct and filed an 

application for the imposition of judicial discipline. The Commission 

recommended the magistrate be publicly reprimanded. 

After the Commission issued its recommendation but before the 

matter was submitted to us, the magistrate resigned. Because of the 

importance of the underlying issues, we will address whether any 

violations of the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct occurred. We conclude

the code does not per se bar a judicial officer from publicizing his 

availability to perform marriage ceremonies, but some aspects of the 

advertising here violated the code. 

I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings.

James Martinek graduated from law school in 1977. He worked 

for a year as a legal aid attorney in Idaho, and then moved back to Iowa 

in 1978. He was admitted to practice law in Iowa that same year. After 

spending approximately one year in the Johnson County attorney’s 

office, Martinek opened a private law practice in Solon. Martinek held a
3

part-time position as a magistrate in Johnson County from August 2005 

until February 2016.1

Magistrate Martinek also taught at Kirkwood Community College. 

At one point, one of his students approached him and suggested that he 

should have a website for his law firm. The student volunteered her 

services in creating the site. The website provided basic biographical 

information, as well as information about his legal practice for 

prospective and current clients. The website was occasionally updated 

or altered as needed—Magistrate Martinek would call his former student 

and communicate his requested changes. 

The main page of the website had in large type, “James H. 

Martinek, Attorney at Law.” Thereunder the website indicated that 

Martinek had a “General Practice, including but not limited to” five 

categories. The first four were specific areas of legal practice. The fifth 

was “Marriage ceremonies, including same-sex weddings,” with links to 

“Forms” and “Cost.” Below this, the website added on the main page,

“James H. Martinek was appointed as a Judicial Magistrate for the 6th 

Judicial District in 2005. He holds Court in Johnson County.”

Additionally, the website had a marriage information section 

detailing Magistrate Martinek’s willingness to perform marriage

ceremonies. The section informed visitors to the site how to apply for a 

marriage license and provided a link to a letter that stated Magistrate 

Martinek “enjoy[ed] performing marriage ceremonies” and would “make 

every effort to schedule them” when possible. The letter advised that 

interested couples would need a marriage license from the Johnson 

1Because this case relates to Martinek’s conduct while he was a magistrate, we 

shall refer to him as Magistrate Martinek.

 
4

County recorder’s office, that witnesses were required, and that 

Magistrate Martinek’s fee for the ceremony would be $200. Additional 

links on the information tab were provided to Iowa’s instructions for 

filling out an application for marriage, an application for a marriage 

license, an application for a waiver of the three-day waiting period, 

sample vows for traditional and same-sex marriages, and an application 

for a social security card. This section of the website featured photos of 

Magistrate Martinek performing weddings, including same-sex weddings, 

as well as photographs of possible venues for weddings. 

Two photos showed Magistrate Martinek wearing his judicial 

robes—one where he was just sitting on the bench and one where he was 

performing a same-sex marriage ceremony. The website did not advise

that Magistrate Martinek also performed marriage ceremonies for free 

during official duty hours at the courthouse.

After our July 19, 2013 decision in In re Meldrum, 834 N.W.2d 650 

(Iowa 2013), Magistrate Martinek became concerned because his website 

featured photos of him wearing his judicial robes. He showed the 

website to friends and colleagues who agreed the page might be 

problematic. He contacted the former student who helped with the 

website and asked her to take down the photographs in which he was 

wearing his judicial robes. He then telephoned the executive secretary of 

the Commission on Judicial Qualifications. After this discussion, 

Magistrate Martinek decided to self-report the possible violation.

In his July 22 letter to the Commission, Magistrate Martinek 

stated that he maintained a website connected with his law practice for 

two reasons. The first was to inform potential clients of the legal services 

he regularly provided, including forms for some of those services like 

living wills or medical powers of attorney. The second was “to provide 
5

information to those individuals seeking to be married in Iowa.” 

Magistrate Martinek explained,

[T]he reason I set the website up in the first place was to 

have a place where I could refer people to get a copy of my 

marriage ceremony and general information with regard to 

weddings, witnesses, and costs.

. . . .

I have a number of photos on my website and they 

were selected to give people who would be unfamiliar with 

Johnson County an idea of what the County Administration 

Building looked like, so they could get their marriage license 

and some possible sites for a wedding. I have several sites 

from Kent Park, a site on the University of Iowa campus, and 

a picture of me (without a robe) performing a wedding at a 

Hawkeye game. In addition to these photos, I also had two 

pictures of myself wearing my judicial robe. One was simply 

a picture of me in my robe at the courthouse . . . . The 

second photograph showed me in my robe marrying a same 

sex couple on the University of Iowa campus.

. . . . 

Both of these photographs have been removed. I now 

recognize after reading the Meldrum decision that when this 

wedding information was taken with the balance of my 

website, it could look like I was promoting myself, through 

my judicial appointment, as a more trustworthy or 

competent attorney to p[ro]spective clients. While that 

certainly was not my intention, I recognize that it could be 

the result.

On October 7, the Commission charged Magistrate Martinek with 

violations of Canon 1 of the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct, including 

rule 51:1.2 (failure to promote public confidence in the judiciary) and 

rule 51:1.3 (abuse of the prestige of judicial office). Magistrate Martinek 

responded, denying the alleged rule violations. He stated that the 

marriage information section was included on his website for 

informational purposes only for the benefit of parties interested in having 

him perform a ceremony at a location other than the courthouse. He 

explained, “At no time did Magistrate Martinek seek to mislead the public 
6

on the issue of performing marriages free of charge during regular 

magistrate work hours at the courthouse.”

A hearing took place before the Commission on December 4. At 

the hearing, Magistrate Martinek furnished additional information about 

his reasons for including a marriage section on his law firm website. As 

Magistrate Martinek explained, an interested individual would generally 

call the county recorder’s office and be referred to those judges and 

magistrates willing to perform marriage ceremonies. When he set up this 

section of his website, there were two magistrates and one district 

associate judge available in Johnson County for marriage ceremonies;

however, the district judge was not available after hours. Magistrate 

Martinek introduced into evidence a copy of a past webpage from the 

Johnson County recorder’s office website that stated, “Important: The 

Court house does not perform ‘on the spot’ marriages. Below are the 

names and numbers of local magistrates.” The names of two magistrate 

judges—including Magistrate Martinek—and one district judge appeared

beneath the advisory.

Magistrate Martinek, a former legal aid attorney, always began his 

conversations with parties interested in marriage ceremonies by telling 

them they could be married for free at the courthouse. After our decision 

in Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009), the number of calls 

that Magistrate Martinek received asking about marriage ceremonies 

greatly increased and he “couldn’t keep up.” Calls were coming from 

across the country. Magistrate Martinek put the marriage information 

tab on the website “because [he] couldn’t spend that much time on the 

phone with all the people that were calling.” Although he told every 

caller that marriage ceremonies were free if performed at the courthouse, 

“[t]he vast majority of people did not want that,” but “wanted to have one 
7

of the other venues.” Magistrate Martinek never asked the Johnson 

County clerk’s office to direct anyone to his website.

Magistrate Martinek took responsibility for the information on the 

website, but he admitted to a lack of familiarity with the technology. He 

said he told the former student who set up the website that he did not 

want to advertise. He believed that people would only reach the site after 

being directed there over the phone because he “thought you had to 

register” or “take some action to have a search engine pick you up.” 

After Magistrate Martinek self-reported, the photos showing him in 

judicial robes were taken down from the website, but other weddingrelated photos remained.

In response to questioning, Magistrate Martinek also stated that he 

could not be sure how many marriage ceremonies he performed because 

he did not always charge the fee, depending on the situation. He 

probably performed the most weddings right after the Varnum decision. 

He was performing fewer by the time of the Commission hearing because

the recorder’s office website was now identifying seven judges available 

for marriage ceremonies. Magistrate Martinek did not separately track 

his wedding ceremony income (it was accounted for with his law practice 

income), but he thought it amounted to one to two thousand dollars per

year.

More than two years after the December 4, 2013 hearing, the 

Commission concluded that Magistrate Martinek had violated the Iowa

Code of Judicial Conduct and filed an application to discipline a judicial 

officer under Iowa Code section 602.2106 (2013). In its January 15, 

2016 application, the Commission stated,

Judge Martinek’s merger of judicial position with his 

private law practice on the website for his law firm leads to 

the conclusion that he engaged in misconduct in his official 
8

capacity and was exploiting his position both to bolster his 

credentials as a private attorney, and to solicit wedding 

business for which he would be paid a fee.

The Commission determined that Magistrate Martinek had violated

Canon 1 and rules 51:1.2 and 51:1.3 and recommended a public 

reprimand.

II. Standard of Review.

We review recommendations of judicial discipline from the 

Commission on Judicial Qualifications de novo. Meldrum, 834 N.W.2d at 

652. The Commission must establish ethical violations by a convincing 

preponderance of the evidence. In re Block, 816 N.W.2d 362, 364 (Iowa 

2012).

III. Mootness.

We must deal with a threshold issue. Magistrate Martinek 

resigned his position in February 2016, before this case was submitted to 

us and orally argued. There is no indication in the record that 

Magistrate Martinek resigned in order to avoid discipline.

The Iowa Code gives us authority to “[d]iscipline . . . the judicial 

officer” upon application by the Commission and appropriate findings. 

Iowa Code § 602.2106(3)(b). At the time the Commission made 

application to us for discipline on January 15, Martinek was still a 

magistrate. Generally, subject-matter jurisdiction is determined at the 

time of filing. “Courts have long recognized that ‘the jurisdiction of the 

[c]ourt depends upon the state of things at the time of the action 

brought.’ ” Heartland Express v. Gardner, 675 N.W.2d 259, 266 (Iowa 

2003) (alteration in original) (quoting Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 

U.S. 200, 207, 113 S. Ct. 2035, 2040, 124 L. Ed. 2d 118, 127–28 (1993)).

However, in the past, we have declined to discipline judicial officers who 

resigned their positions before the discipline would have become 
9

effective. See In re Inquiry Concerning Holien, 612 N.W.2d 789, 798 (Iowa 

2000).

Under the circumstances, we decline to address the question of 

discipline but simply issue an opinion discussing whether Magistrate 

Martinek’s conduct violated the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct. It is our 

expectation and hope that this decision will provide guidance to judicial 

officers in our state.

IV. Violations.

Canon 1 of the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to

“avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.” Iowa Code of 

Judicial Conduct, Canon 1. Its accompanying rules give the canon scope 

and provide clarity regarding prohibited conduct. See Block, 816 N.W.2d 

at 364. Rule 51:1.2 requires judges to “act at all times in a manner that 

promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and 

impartiality of the judiciary.” Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct R. 51:1.2. 

Rule 51:1.3 states that “[a] judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial 

office to advance [his or her] personal or economic interests.” Id. r. 

51:1.3. In summing up the goals of the canon and rules, we recently 

stated:

[T]he canon not only captures conduct that violates the law, 

but also includes conduct that may not violate the law but 

nevertheless diminishes public confidence in the judiciary. 

It also includes conduct of a judge both on and off the 

bench. Together the canon and its accompanying rules 

emphasize that the independence, integrity, and impartiality 

of the judiciary are preserved when judges avoid impropriety. 

Block, 816 N.W.2d at 364.

We first consider whether Magistrate Martinek violated the Iowa

Code of Judicial Conduct merely by advertising that he performed 

weddings for a fee, regardless of the circumstances and content of the 
10

advertising. The Judicial Ethics Board of the Colorado Supreme Court

addressed this issue in an advisory ethics opinion wherein the board

concluded that judges may not advertise their availability to perform 

wedding ceremonies. Colo. Judicial Ethics Advisory Bd., Advisory Op.

2007-05, 2007 WL 7603068, at * 1 (2007).

In Colorado, as in Iowa, “judges and magistrates may charge a fee 

for weddings performed outside of normal business hours, but they may 

not receive compensation of any kind for performing this service during 

normal business hours.” Id. A Colorado judge inquired whether “a 

judicial officer may advertise her availability or solicit business as a 

wedding officiant.” Id. In particular, this judge wanted to make her 

availability for ceremonies known by sending fliers or letters to wedding 

planners. Id. Colorado’s ethical canons, like Iowa’s, prohibited judges 

from using their position for financial gain or personal benefit. See id. 

In light of these prohibitions, the board ruled that “a judge may not send 

fliers to wedding planners or otherwise advertise her availability to 

perform weddings, such as through a personal web site or yellow pages 

advertisement.” Id. The board indicated that judges could list their 

names on a court or recorder’s office website to show their willingness to 

perform marriage ceremonies. Id. at *2.

While we have carefully considered the views of the Colorado 

board, we are not persuaded that merely publicizing on a website the fact 

that one performs marriage ceremonies for a fee undermines public 

confidence in the judiciary or amounts to an abuse of the prestige of 

judicial office. Iowa law authorizes judges and magistrates to perform 

marriage ceremonies outside regular business hours for a reasonable fee

subject to a maximum prescribed by this court. Iowa Code § 595.12(1). 

So clearly a magistrate’s performance of a wedding for $200 or less
11

outside regular business hours does not violate the Iowa Code of Judicial 

Conduct.

The question then becomes what a judge or magistrate can do to 

get the word out for those persons who might prefer such a ceremony 

rather than a basic solemnization at the courthouse during regular 

business hours. Colorado would limit publicity to a list on the official

taxpayer-supported website of judicial officers willing to perform 

weddings and official contact information. The persons to be married 

would then have to find the list, and contact the judge or magistrate

directly. These direct contacts might well occur during regular court 

hours, during which the judicial officer could be asked about off-duty 

availability, venues, fees, and the like. In some instances, the judicial 

officers listed on the official website would only be willing and available 

to do ceremonies outside of business hours and away from the 

courtroom, for which they can charge a fee.

While we have no problem with the approach approved in 

Colorado, we have difficulty seeing that it marks the definitive line 

between proper and improper judicial behavior.2 If a judicial officer is 

legally authorized to perform off-hours weddings for a reasonable fee 

because he or she is a judicial officer, how does it amount to an abuse of 

the office for the officer to let the public know that? Why would it 

undermine confidence in the judiciary for a judicial officer, at the officer’s 

own expense, to make known to the public his or her availability to 

perform marriage ceremonies on a website when it does not undermine 

2It is also noteworthy that the Colorado opinion was a judicial ethics board 

advisory opinion. It was not a judicial discipline proceeding sanctioning a judicial 

officer.

 
12

confidence in the judiciary for this service to be provided either at public 

expense or through an informal word-of-mouth process?

Performing marriage ceremonies is, as noted by the Colorado 

ethics board, “an important public service.” Advisory Op. 2007-05, 2007 

WL 7603068, at * 1. People increasingly rely on the Internet rather than 

the telephone for getting information. We believe the public benefits

when people can find out, relatively quickly and easily from the Internet, 

which judicial officers are willing to perform weddings outside regular 

business hours and under what conditions. That is especially true when 

the information can be delivered without using public resources, 

including the time that judicial officers and judicial employees are 

supposed to be devoting to their official duties.

As noted above, the calls coming in to Magistrate Martinek 

increased dramatically after Varnum. Due to the limited number of 

judges willing to perform such ceremonies in his county, he posted the 

information to respond to the demand for his services and save himself 

time on the phone.

The Commission found that Magistrate Martinek’s advertisement 

of his availability to perform weddings was intended to “advance his 

personal and economic interests.” See Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct R. 

51:1.3. That may be true, but a violation of rule 51:1.3 also requires an 

“abuse [of] the prestige of judicial office,” which we cannot find based 

merely on the fact Magistrate Martinek advertised a service that judicial 

officers are authorized to provide. See In re Inquiry Concerning Sevcik, 

877 N.W.2d 707, 713 (Iowa 2016) (noting that a rule 51:1.3 violation 

involves exploitation of the judicial office to obtain “special treatment or 

favoritism”).
13

This then leads us to the second issue—namely, whether 

Magistrate Martinek’s particular form of advertising exceeded the 

boundaries of the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct. Our own recent 

decision in Meldrum, which prompted Magistrate Martinek to seek advice 

concerning his conduct, addressed the advertising of private legal 

services by judicial officers. See 834 N.W.2d at 652. In that case, a 

magistrate promoted his legal services in phone books with a photograph

depicting him wearing his judicial robes. Id. at 651. One of his 

advertisements stated that he was an “Iowa Judicial Magistrate.” Id. 

The Commission charged the magistrate with violating Canon 1 and 

rules 51:1.2 and 51:1.3. Id. Magistrate Meldrum stated at a hearing

that the advertisements were intended to communicate his “availability 

as a private attorney for private legal services, and it was [his] intention 

by using the title of magistrate and the photograph in the robes to 

indicate that [he held] a responsible public position.” Id. at 652. He did 

not intend to imply that he could use his judicial position for the benefit 

of potential clients. Id. We found that Magistrate Meldrum had violated 

Canon 1 and the accompanying rules and publicly reprimanded him. Id. 

at 653–54.

As we noted in Meldrum, the official comment to rule 51:1.3 states 

that judges may not “use or attempt to use his or her position to gain 

personal advantage or deferential treatment of any kind.” Iowa Code of 

Judicial Conduct R. 51:1.3 cmt. [1]; see Meldrum, 834 N.W. 2d at 653.

For example, a judge may “not use judicial letterhead to gain an 

advantage in conducting his or her personal business.” Iowa Code of 

Judicial Conduct R. 51:1.3 cmt. [1].

The key point in Meldrum, though, was that the magistrate was 

conspicuously using his status as a judicial officer as part of his 
14

advertising for private legal business. As we put it, the problem was that 

the magistrate was “attempt[ing] to influence potential clients to use his 

services as an attorney . . . . by drawing attention to his judicial office.” 

834 N.W.2d at 653. Here, by contrast, Magistrate Martinek used his 

judicial robes to promote work he could only perform by virtue of being a 

judicial officer.

Yet there is an overlap between the two cases. Like Magistrate 

Meldrum, Magistrate Martinek featured his status as a judicial officer, 

including his judicial robes, in private law practice advertising. Given 

that Magistrate Martinek wished to advertise his availability as a judicial 

officer to perform weddings as permitted by Iowa law, the better course of 

action would have been to do so separate from his private law practice 

website. We agree with the Commission that “Judge Martinek’s merger 

of his judicial position with his private law practice on the website” was 

inappropriate. Someone interested in hiring Magistrate Martinek to 

perform legal services might have been directed to his advertising relating 

to marriage ceremonies, and vice versa.3 And the use of judicial robes on 

an unofficial website might “boost [a judicial officer’s] message” 

improperly, as compared to the messages of other potential wedding 

officiants. See Jenevein v. Willing, 493 F.3d 551, 560 (5th Cir. 2007). 

“The state has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of the 

courtroom, and judicial use of the robe, which symbolically sets aside the 

judge’s individuality and passions.” Id.

3We are not deciding today that merely disclosing on one’s private practice 

website that one holds a position as a magistrate or on the judicial website that one is 

engaged in private practice violates the Code of Judicial Conduct. We note that 

numerous magistrate biographies on our own official website—www.iowacourts.gov—

mention that the magistrate is also engaged in private practice.

 
15

The Commission also faulted Magistrate Martinek for not 

disclosing on the website that he would perform weddings at the 

courthouse for no charge. Magistrate Martinek testified that he 

nonetheless provided this information at the beginning of the 

conversation whenever anyone contacted him. No evidence to the 

contrary was presented. Thus, we have no reason to believe that anyone 

was actually misled by the website. However, we agree the proper course 

of action would have been to include both marriage ceremony 

alternatives on the website. This would have avoided a possible 

undermining of public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. The 

public expects judges to be even-handed and not to steer people toward a

choice that personally benefits them. Any advertising should reflect that 

evenhandedness.

Hence, we conclude Magistrate Martinek committed violations of 

Canon 1 and rules 51:1.2 and 51:1.3 by (1) including advertising about 

performing marriage ceremonies on his private law practice website, 

(2) including photos of himself in his judicial robes on his private law 

practice website, and (3) not disclosing in his advertising that he would 

perform weddings for no charge during his regular office hours at the 

courthouse.

V. Conclusion.

We find Magistrate Martinek violated Canon 1 and rules 51:1.2 

and 51:1.3 of the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct. For the reasons 

previously stated, we do not address the question of discipline for these 

violations.

OPINION ISSUED.

All justices concur except Zager, J., who concurs specially.
16

#16–0097, In re Martinek

ZAGER, Justice (concurring specially).

I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately to voice my 

disagreement with what I see as the majority minimizing the violation of 

our rules. In my opinion, a judge placing a marriage tab on a private law 

practice website is clearly an “abuse [of] the prestige of judicial office to 

advance the personal or economic interests of the judge.” Iowa Code of 

Judicial Conduct R. 51:1.3. The only reason that a private attorney 

would have such a tab on his or her website is because he or she is a 

judicial officer who can perform marriage ceremonies. In other words, 

the ability to perform marriage ceremonies is a prestige of judicial office.

Clearly, all judicial officers are entitled to perform marriage 

ceremonies with certain restrictions. See Iowa Code § 595.12(1). 

However, the advertising on Magistrate Martinek’s website went far 

beyond what I believe should be allowed under our rules. A marriage tab 

on a judicial officer’s private law practice website smacks of the unseemly 

creation of a cottage industry. As acknowledged by Martinek, he created 

the marriage tab on his website both to address the increased demand 

for marriage services after our decision in Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 

862 (Iowa 2009) and to save himself time. While I do not dispute that 

performing marriage ceremonies is an important public service, it is not 

the primary duty of our judicial officers. Further, because an exchange 

of money occurs when a judicial officer performs a wedding outside 

regular business hours, we should expect our judicial officers not to 

exploit their ability to provide such services for their own personal and 

economic interests.

Unlike the majority, I do not accept the idea the ethics violation 

Martinek committed is somehow diminished because Martinek was 
17

responding to increased demand for his services and thought advertising 

in this way would save him time on the phone. The majority does not 

disagree with the Commission’s conclusion that the advertising on 

Martinek’s website was intended to “advance [his] personal and economic 

interests.” See Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct R. 51:1.3. Yet the 

majority somehow concludes Martinek’s advertising the judicial services 

he performed to advance his own interests did not amount to an “abuse 

[of] the prestige of judicial office.” See id. I disagree.

Instead, I would adopt the rule endorsed by the Colorado Judicial 

Ethics Advisory Board, which advised Colorado judicial officers that “a 

judge may not send fliers to wedding planners or otherwise advertise [his 

or] her availability to perform weddings, such as through a personal 

website or yellow pages advertisement.” Colo. Judicial Ethics Advisory 

Bd., Op. 2007-05, 2007 WL 7603068, at *1 (2007). This is a 

commonsense, bright-line rule all judicial officers should be expected to 

follow. Here, as in many jurisdictions today, a judicial officer may have 

his or her name and contact information displayed on a court’s official 

website or posted at the courthouse. See id. at *2. The judicial officers 

are also generally free to make whatever arrangements are convenient for 

them and for members of the public who request their services. See Iowa 

Code § 595.12(1). Unlike the majority, I perceive judicial officers 

advertising services they are able to provide due to the prestige of judicial 

office to be a serious problem—even if the advertising is not associated 

with a private law practice. Do we really want our judicial officers 

advertising for wedding services on the Internet or through the yellow 

pages? I think such advertising amounts to a violation of our canons 

and rules—even when it is not connected to a private law practice. For 

these reasons, I specially concur.