California Ethics Opinion Says No to Law-Firm Parties; Judge Byrdsong Is Pictured Attending Them
Article overview: California Formal Opinion 2023-024 says judges should not attend complimentary private law-firm celebrations because they create an appearance of special influence. This post presents photographs described as showing Judge Rupert Byrdsong at such events.
Primary Authority Cited
California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics, Formal Opinion 2023-024 (August 29, 2023)
Central Holdings:
- Judicial officers may not accept invitations from for-profit law firms to attend anniversary celebrations at the firm’s offices with complimentary food and beverages
- The answer to the inquiry question is definitively “No”
Key Reasoning (Page 6): The Committee concluded that attending such events may suggest a judicial officer has a special relationship or close association with the law firm, potentially causing observers to question the judge’s impartiality in cases involving that firm or suspect the firm has special influence over judicial decisions.
The supporting California Supreme Court formal opinion is below for reference.
The pictures are of Judge Rupert Byrdsong at parties of private firms.
So, this post has a picture from this year’s attendance of Judge Rupert Byrdsong attending a private firm party on Facebook, as he attends many private firm party on a regular basis.
Why the ethics rule matters
The formal opinion treats the appearance of special access as the problem. A judge does not need to announce bias before repeated attendance at private law-firm events raises a legitimate concern that a firm enjoys a privileged relationship with the court. The photographs and opinion belong in the same public record.
Review the related Judge Rupert Byrdsong archive.
Related reading: For related context, read Uber’s Pennsylvania RICO Lawsuit Against Plaintiffs’ Attorneys, Venezuela and President Maduro: Political Commentary, Returning to Forensic Toxicology and Legal-Science Writing.
