Judicial consent scenes
![judicial consent scenes judicial consent scenes](http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/24500000/Needful-Things-bonnie-bedelia-24541995-764-576.png)
![judicial consent scenes judicial consent scenes](https://dasg7xwmldix6.cloudfront.net/episodes/937853_6FsLwzsC.jpg)
A judge may not write a testimonial/endorsement for a legal practice guide published by a non-profit, bar-related legal organization.California Judges Association Advisory Opinion 65 (2012). A judge may write a review of a book about an historical event for a legal periodical as an academic exercise and not for commercial purposes but may not for marketing purposes write a testimonial regarding the value of a bar publication or write commentary to be included on a book jacket.Other opinions reflect a similar distinction. When a judicial officer has not authored, co-authored, or contributed to the book, the primary purpose of such an endorsement is not to identify a contributor by judicial title or engage in an educational exercise, but rather to use the endorsing judicial officer’s title to promote sales. An endorsement from a well-known judge, for example, might suggest to would-be readers that a law-related book is particularly interesting or useful, leading to increased sales. It explained:Īuthors and publishers typically seek written endorsements from high-profile or prestigious individuals, sometimes called “book blurbs,” for the placement on a book cover to market and promote the book for sale. Moreover, the committee advised that a judicial officer who has not contributed to a book may not provide a written endorsement that includes their title to be used on the book cover because the primary purpose of such an endorsement is to allow the publisher to “leverage” the judicial title to market the publication. The opinion cautioned that the substance of the review “must otherwise comply with the canons for example, the judicial officer must not engage in improper political commentary or undermine the integrity or impartiality of the judiciary.” Although a positive review or discussion may incidentally lead to increased sales, the primary purpose of such discussions is educational rather than promotional. While the committee agrees that judges may not promote others’ written works, review or critique of legal works is an educational exercise and consistent with the canons. To “harmoniz” those provisions, it explained:ĭiscussions regarding legal education books or writings in legal publications, such as legal periodicals or newsletters, have important educational value and contribute to the improvement of the law and legal system.
#JUDICIAL CONSENT SCENES CODE#
The opinion noted that the code “generally permits and encourages judges to engage in educational activities, particularly those concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice” but also prohibits using judicial prestige to advance others’ interests. California Supreme Court Committee Advisory Opinion 2022-48.
![judicial consent scenes judicial consent scenes](http://userjawer.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/3/3/133397682/997353908_orig.jpg)
![judicial consent scenes judicial consent scenes](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lMmTZ7oTDRI/hqdefault.jpg)
Advisory opinions on the issue allow a judge to write a book review but prohibit a judge from allowing excerpts from a positive review to be used to promote the book and from writing a blurb solely for marketing purposes.įor example, the California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions recently advised that, when the primary purpose “is to engage in educational discourse related to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice,” a judicial officer “may review, critique, or comment on legal education books in a legal publication” and include their title in the review.