JI-160
September 9, 2026
SYLLABUS
A judge serving in or associated with a specialty or problem-solving court may support the court’s mission and participate in activities that improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice. Further, a judge may support court-annexed legal programs. However, the judge may not personally solicit funds or in-kind contributions, may not permit court staff to do so, and may not use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office to advance fundraising efforts.
A judge may participate in limited, non-solicitous activities related to charitable or nonprofit organizations, including those supporting court programs, but may not serve in leadership roles for entities that are closely tied to the court’s own funding or that are likely to be involved in proceedings before the judge.
Courts may accept unsolicited donations and may rely on independent entities to conduct fundraising, provided adequate safeguards prevent coercion, influence, or the appearance of impropriety.
Judges may participate in applying for grants from State or Federal Funding Agencies where the grants are specifically tailored to establish or maintain specialty courts, problem solving courts, and court-annexed programs.
REFERENCES: MCJC 1; MCJC 2; MCJC 3; MCJC 4; MCR 2.003(C). JI-139, ABA Formal Opinion 08-452 October 17, 2008.
OPINION
A judicial officer asks to what extent may judges and court staff involved in specialty courts participate in activities that support those courts.
Specialty or problem-solving courts, including drug treatment courts, sobriety courts, mental health courts, and similar dockets that rely on treatment services, testing, and incentive-based programming, are not always fully funded through governmental appropriations. These courts often depend on nonprofit or charitable entities to provide or fund services integral to court operations. Similarly, court-annexed programs such as Legal Self Help Centers, which are part of the court system, often require outside funding.
The Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct does not specifically address fundraising for specialty courts and court-annexed programs. However, governing principles are found in MCJC 2 and MCJC 4. Related ethics opinions establish the permissibility of judicial involvement in activities improving the legal system and the limitations necessary to preserve judicial integrity.1
MCJC 2 requires that a judge avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety and act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Fundraising activities, particularly those directed at lawyers, litigants, or service providers who may appear before the court, carry an inherent risk that such persons may feel pressured to contribute or may believe that contributions could influence judicial decision-making. Even absent actual influence, the appearance of such influence undermines public confidence.
Judges may appropriately advocate for specialty courts, as MCJC 4 recognizes that a judge may engage in activities designed to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice. A judge may appropriately advocate for the use of specialty courts, speak publicly about their benefits, and participate in efforts to educate the community.2 In advocating for the use of specialty courts, it is important to note however that a judge must stay within the bounds of MCJC 4(D), which prohibits a judge from individually soliciting funds or using the prestige of judicial office for that purpose.
Michigan Ethics Opinion JI-139 addresses the implication of these rules on a judicial officer’s involvement in charitable organizations. The Committee concluded that a judge may participate in charitable activities, including serving on honorary committees and allowing use of the judge’s name in connection with events. However, the opinion emphasizes that the judge may not individually solicit funds. The opinion further explains that a judge may not serve as an officer, director, or trustee of a nonprofit organization if that organization is likely to be engaged in proceedings before the judge or is closely intertwined with the court’s own operations. Most significantly for present purposes, JI-139 determined that a judge may not serve in a leadership role in an organization whose sole purpose is to raise funds for that judge’s own court programs, as such involvement creates an impermissible appearance that the judge has a vested interest in directing litigants to programs funded by that entity.
Accordingly, a judge may not personally request contributions, whether monetary or in-kind, for the benefit of a specialty court.3 This prohibition applies regardless of the identity of the potential donor or the value of the contribution. Direct solicitation creates an unavoidable risk of coercion, particularly when the request is made to attorneys, treatment providers, or others who may appear before the court. The same concerns preclude a judge from allowing court staff, especially those assigned to the judge’s chambers, to engage in fundraising on the judge’s behalf. For ethical purposes, such staff function as an extension of the judicial office, and their involvement in solicitation would carry the same coercive implications.4
Similarly, a judge may not use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office to advance fundraising efforts. This includes allowing the judge’s name or title to be used in a manner that encourages donations or endorses a fundraising campaign. Even indirect participation of that nature risks conveying that contributions are expected or favored by the court.5
Moreover, a judge’s involvement with nonprofit entities connected to a specialty court must be carefully limited. While participation as a member or in a non-leadership capacity may be permissible, a judge may not serve in a governance or advisory role where the organization is likely to appear before the court or where the organization exists primarily to fund that court’s programs. Such a relationship creates a close nexus between judicial authority and financial interests that undermines public confidence.
The MCJC does not prohibit a court from benefiting from private support altogether. The ethical concern lies in solicitation and influence, not in the passive receipt of resources. A court may accept unsolicited donations, provided that the judge has not participated in requesting them and that the circumstances do not create a reasonable question regarding the court’s impartiality.6
Fundraising may be conducted through independent entities, such as nonprofit organizations, so long as those entities operate independently of the judge and do not function as a proxy for judicial solicitation. For example, the court may establish an entity to solicit donations as long as administrative staff who do not serve a judicial function and are not identified with a specific judge engage in the solicitation. However, it must be made “clear that the solicitation is not made on behalf of a judge or group of judges.”7
Finally, where a judge becomes aware that a party, attorney, or service provider appearing before the court has contributed to a program associated with the court, the judge must consider whether disclosure of that fact or disqualification is required under MCR 2.003(C).8 Factors such as the size of the contribution, its timing, and the donor’s relationship to the proceeding may bear on that determination.
Judges may participate in applying for grants from State or Federal Agencies where the grant is created to establish such programs. Applying for grants in this scenario is not solicitation, because the grant application is to determine if the program meets the criteria established under the specific terms of the grant and not to solicit a donation. Moreover, there are no concerns with the appearance of impropriety9 or use of the prestige of office,10 as the only applicants are court programs.
CONCLUSION
A judge may appropriately support and advocate for the mission of specialty courts or court-annexed programs but may not serve as a fundraiser for their operation. A judge may attend events connected with such entities, speak about the mission of the court, and otherwise support the improvement of the legal system, provided that the judge does not personally solicit contributions or appear to be doing so.11 To preserve the integrity, independence, and impartiality of the judiciary, all fundraising associated with specialty courts must be structurally separated from judicial involvement. Courts may accept unsolicited donations and may rely on independent entities to raise funds, provided that appropriate safeguards are in place to eliminate both actual and perceived influence on judicial decision-making.
1. MCJC 4. See also Ethics Opinion J-008, Ethics Opinion JI-139, and Ethics Opinion JI-140.
2. Ethics Opinion JI-87.
3. Nevada Ethics Opinion JE12-009, Ohio Ethics Opinion 2023-01, Utah Ethics Opinion No. 89-8.
4. MCJC 4(D).
5. Ethics Opinion JI-87, Ethics Opinion JI-125, Ethics Opinion JI-139.
6. Florida Ethics Opinion 2021-12.
7. Nevada Ethics Opinion JE12-009.
8. Ethics Opinion JI-140.
9. MCJC 2.
10. MCJC 2(C) and 4(D).
11. Ethics Opinion JI-95.