Title: In Re: Amendments to Canons 4 and 5 of The Florida Code of Judicial Conduct
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC19-1625
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: May 28, 2020

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC19-1625 
____________ 
 
 
IN RE:  AMENDMENTS TO CANONS 4 AND 5 OF THE FLORIDA CODE 
OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT. 
 
May 28, 2020 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
Before the Court is the petition of the Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory 
Committee (JEAC) proposing amendments to Canons 4 and 5 of the Florida Code 
of Judicial Conduct (Code).  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. 
In 2018, the JEAC issued an advisory opinion with respect to the following 
question:  
May the Florida Conference of Circuit Judges and the Conference of 
County Court Judges of Florida (collectively “Conferences”) or 
individual judges seek donations from the Conferences’ members so 
that the Conferences can directly provide monetary assistance, to 
fellow judges, judicial assistants, and court staff impacted by 
Hurricane Michael? 
 
Fla. JEAC Op. 2018-27 at 1.   
The JEAC limited its analysis of the question to the activities of individual 
judges, i.e., judge-to-judge solicitation of funds, as it does not provide ethics 
 
- 2 - 
advice to the Conferences.  Id. at 2.  The JEAC determined that Canon 4 (A Judge 
Is Encouraged to Engage in Activities to Improve the Law, the Legal System, and 
the Administration of Justice) was controlling, as the Conferences do not constitute 
civic or charitable organizations under Canon 5 (A Judge Shall Regulate 
Extrajudicial Activities to Minimize the Risk of Conflict with Judicial Duties).  Id. 
at 2-5.  But the JEAC split evenly on the ultimate question of whether the canon 
permitted the type of judge-to-judge fundraising activities at issue; six members 
believed that Canon 4D(2)(a) permitted such activities only if the funds are used 
for a law-related purpose, while the other six observed that no such limitation on 
the use of solicited funds is expressly contained in the canon and that a judge need 
only avoid the appearance of coercion.  Id.  
Believing the opinion addressed an important ethical issue that should be 
resolved, the Court asked the JEAC to further consider the type of fundraising 
activities at issue in its advisory opinion and provide a recommendation as to 
whether such activities should be allowed or prohibited.  In response to the Court’s 
request, the JEAC submitted a report, along with proposed amendments supported 
by a minority of the JEAC to Canons 4 and 5.  The JEAC unanimously 
recommends in the report that the judge-to-judge solicitation described in advisory 
opinion 2018-27 be prohibited.  The JEAC notes, however, that a judge may 
undertake comparable fundraising activities under Canon 5C(3)(b) on behalf of an 
 
- 3 - 
“educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, sororal or civic organization not 
conducted for profit,” if he or she solicits monetary donations from only judges he 
or she does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority over.  According to the 
JEAC, limiting the judge-to-judge fundraising described in advisory opinion 2018-
27 to the circumstances set out in Canon 5C(3)(b) ensures that solicited funds are 
used for “well-defined purposes” and are accounted for and distributed 
appropriately. 
A minority of the JEAC, five members, believe amendments to Canons 4 
and 5 are needed to clarify when judge-to-judge solicitation is appropriate.  
Specifically, the JEAC minority propose amending Canon 4D(2)(a) to include the 
phrases “only on behalf of such an organization,” and “to be used only for a law 
related purpose,” to clarify that judge-to-judge solicitation may be performed on 
behalf of a law-related organization or entity only in situations where the solicited 
funds will be used for a law-related purpose.  The JEAC minority also propose 
amending Canon 5C(3)(b)(i) to include the phrase “only on behalf of such an 
organization,” to clarify that judge-to-judge solicitation may be performed only on 
behalf of the types of civic and charitable organizations identified in Canon 5C(3).  
A majority of the JEAC do not believe such amendments are needed and that 
Canons 4 and 5 already make clear when judge-to-judge solicitation is appropriate.   
 
- 4 - 
The Court treated the JEAC’s report as a petition to amend the Code and 
published the minority’s proposed amendments for comment.  No comments were 
received. 
Having considered the petition and proposed amendments, the Court has 
determined that the existing rule provisions prohibit the judge-to-judge solicitation 
addressed in advisory opinion 2018-27 and that the scope of those provisions is not 
ambiguous.  The Conferences are not civic or charitable organizations.  See Fla. R. 
Jud. Admin. 2.220(a)(2), (b)(2).  Rather, as organizations tasked with judicial 
education, improving the administration of justice, and the overall betterment of 
the judicial system in Florida, they are law-related organizations under Canon 4D.  
See id.  Although Canon 4D(2)(a) permits certain judge-to-judge fundraising on 
behalf of the Conferences, the use of such funds is necessarily limited to law-
related purposes consistent with the Conferences’ mission.  See Fla. Code of Jud. 
Conduct, Canon 4D(2)(a).  The desire to provide financial aid to fellow judges and 
court staff adversely affected by Hurricane Michael is laudable, but such assistance 
may only be provided through a civic or charitable organization in accordance with 
Canon 5C(3), not through the Conferences. 
Since we agree with the JEAC majority that Canons 4 and 5 already make 
clear when judge-to-judge solicitation of funds is permitted, we decline to adopt 
 
- 5 - 
the amendments proposed by the JEAC minority to Canons 4D(2)(a) and 
5C(3)(b)(i).  
It is so ordered. 
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, and MUÑIZ, JJ., 
concur. 
 
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE 
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS. 
 
Original Proceeding – The Code of Judicial Conduct 
Hon. W. Joel Boles, Chair, Pensacola, Florida, Hon. James A. Edwards, Past 
Chair, Daytona Beach, Florida, and Melissa E. Hamilton, Senior Attorney, Judicial 
Ethics Advisory Committee, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner