A legal note from Marshal Willick about lawyers seeking to improperly alter judicial behavior by throwing lavish parties, giving out “awards” to judges, and otherwise attempting to unethically curry in-court favor and advertise to would-be clients undue judicial influence in their favor by way of out-of-court activities.
I received an invitation to an “Honoring Our Judiciary” Holiday Party to be held at a private law office on December 3. It is by invitation only to “our judiciary, our valued clients, friends, and our commitment to excellence,” and to include “Red Carpet, Valet Parking, Photo Booth, Live Music, Magic Show, Photos with Santa, Heavy Hors D’oeuvres & Great Fun!”
I will not be attending. Neither should anyone else, and the event should be canceled for the blatantly unethical attempt to influence judicial rulings and claim undue influence that it is. This goes far beyond “appearance of impropriety.” Every aspect of the gathering is improper and an invitation to sanctions against those who participate without full disclosure on the record and prompt recusal from any case in which the law firm in question is involved.
I. JUDICIAL ATTENDANCE AT PRIVATE LAWYER PARTIES IS ALMOST ALWAYS UNETHICAL FOR BOTH THE JUDGES AND THE LAWYERS
Half a dozen judicial disciplinary authorities have explicitly stated that judicial participation in such an event is a facial violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics; there are no known conflicting opinions.
The attorney throwing the party in question is fully aware of this, since those opinions were exhibits in a case in which he recently represented a client before a jurist who signed orders two weeks before making the unwise decision to attend his “lavish” event—and then continued to preside over the case without making any disclosure. The Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct state that any lawyer who “[k]nowingly assist[s] a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law” is himself guilty of sanctionable misconduct. NRPC 8.4(f).
Over a decade ago, in 2015, the Connecticut Committee on Judicial Ethics issued an opinion asking: “May a Judicial Official attend a large annual holiday party hosted by a law firm? The law firm invites hundreds of people, including other lawyers that they litigate against, judges, politicians, business people, etc.” and noting that “The party consists of food and entertainment. No one is charged or pays a fee to attend.” Connecticut Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinion 2015-23 (Emergency Staff Opinion Issued December 8, 2015).
After reciting the relevant judicial canons at length, and noting that the host law firm did not appear before the judicial officer in question, the Opinion concluded that judicial attendance was only permitted if six conditions were met, most importantly that “The law firm hosting the party is not actively engaged in litigation or proceedings before the Judicial Official” and “The Judicial Official does not permit the host firm to announce the Judicial Official’s attendance at the holiday party.”
II. EVERY ASPECT OF THE NEVADA PARTY IS WRONG ON ITS FACE
The California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics was even more direct, in a 2023 formal opinion explicitly condemning every aspect of such a “holiday party.” CJEO Formal Opinion 2023-024, posted August 29, 2023. The specific question asked was: “whether a judicial officer may accept an invitation from a for-profit law firm to attend its 50th anniversary celebration, which will take place at the law firm’s offices and include complimentary food and beverages.”
The answer? No, of course not, concluding that attendance at such an event would “violate several canons in the Code of Judicial Ethics,” including the prohibitions against suggesting bias or that anyone has a special position of influence over the judicial officer, the prohibition against lending judicial prestige to advance a person’s pecuniary or personal interests, and the prohibition against accepting gifts absent certain very limited exceptions.
The 12-page opinion is detailed and damning, identifying both the wrongfulness of judicial participation in such an event, and the obvious corrupt immorality of the lawyer creating the ethical problem. Citing multiple opinions and cases spanning decades, the Opinion reminds judges that “a judicial officer must consider whether attendance might reasonably suggest that the judicial officer is biased in favor of the law firm or under the influence of the law firm.” It castigates any judicial officer who would give such an appearance of bias, or “lend prestige” to the lawyer or firm involved. Citing a treatise, it plainly calls a spade a spade: “The Rothman treatise explains that a law firm holiday party, for example, ‘may have social purposes, but such an event is undoubtedly centered on the advancement of the business of the firm,’ and is treated as a business expense.”
The Opinion plainly calls out exactly what the Nevada “holiday party” is obviously and overtly intended to do: “A judicial officer’s attendance at a law firm’s anniversary celebration may lend prestige to the law firm by suggesting that the law firm has a favored position with the judiciary or is endorsed by the judicial officer or the court, leading to increased business.”
The Opinion also decries bestowing “food, beverages, or any other tokens or favors that qualify as gifts,” because it obviously is “reasonably . . . perceived as intended to influence the judge in the performance of judicial duties,” noting that the ethical prohibition extends to “items having small or nominal dollar value,” because allowance of judicial acceptance of even nominal gifts excludes those from “a lawyer, law firm, or person likely to appear before the court on which the judge serves.” In other words, it is unethical per se.
The Opinion meticulously steps through how and why a determination of whether an event falls within the “ordinary social hospitality” exception “focuses on a reasonable perception of an intent to gain advantage,” and concluding with the obvious truth that “an observer may reasonably perceive that a law firm has invited a judicial officer to its anniversary celebration to enhance its own reputation or to gain favor or an advantage with the judicial officer or the court.”
The Opinion distinguished such private parties from “attending a bar association or legal education event,” which is not likewise tainted on its face. Nor are these multiple ethics opinions concerned with general open events which a jurist (or anyone else) might choose to stop by.
As detailed in the California ethics opinion and the treatises it cites at length, an event such as the Nevada holiday party is not “ordinary social hospitality”—it is deliberate, calculated corruption intended specifically to alter judicial behavior and provide an advertising mechanism by which the lawyer can convince would-be clients that the fix is in. We have heard for years from prior clients of the lawyer involved reporting of private boasts of having various judges “in his pocket.” The pecuniary motive is transparent: “pay me a lot of money and I have a way of putting a thumb on the scales of justice.” It is a business model, as plain as it is vile.
And the favors, personalized toys, and “awards” handed out at the Nevada party? The Opinion labels all of those as obvious elements of corrupt intent: “Even if gifts incident to a law firm’s 50th anniversary celebration did fall within the exception for ordinary social hospitality, a judicial officer may not accept them if they would ‘reasonably be perceived as intended to influence the judge in the performance of judicial duties.’ (Canon 4D(6)). The risk that gifts will be perceived as intended to influence a judicial officer is heightened when the donor is a lawyer or law firm. Gifts from lawyers are ‘inherently wrong’ and have a ‘subtle, corruptive effect, no matter how much a particular judge may feel he is above improper influence.’”
The opinion details a dozen judges disciplined in one way or another when they have accepted such gifts from attorneys, summarizing with the simple rule that “gifts from lawyers or law firms are ‘presumptively improper.’” This does not seem to require further exposition.
The Conclusions reached by the California ethics committee are clear, simply, and directly applicable here:
A judicial officer is advised not to attend a law firm’s 50th anniversary celebration where complimentary food and beverages will be served. A judicial officer’s presence at such an event may suggest that the judicial officer has a special relationship with the law firm, which may undermine the impartiality of the judiciary or convey the impression that the law firm is in a position to influence the judicial officer’s judicial decisions. In addition, the judicial officer’s attendance at such an event may improperly lend judicial prestige to advance the law firm’s interests by suggesting that the law firm is favored or endorsed by the judiciary. Finally, because law firm celebrations are primarily for the purpose of business development, the complimentary food and beverages served at such events are gifts for which no exception to the general prohibition against accepting gifts applies.
III. THE NEVADA LAWYER’S PRACTICE IS EVEN MORE OBVIOUSLY UNETHICAL
The practice of the lawyer in question, of course, is the direct opposite of what the Connecticut and California opinions require—he specifically targets and provides “awards” and “prizes” to judges in front of whom he has current cases in active litigation, and makes a point of broadcasting pictures and announcements of the judges’ attendance on social media and otherwise for the specific purpose of advertising that he has “an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law” in violation of NRPC 8.4(e).
The lawyer does loudly what the California Opinion condemns as overtly unethical: “use the judicial officer’s position to improperly lend prestige to the law firm, for example, by introducing the judicial officer by title as a special guest in the presence of clients.”
And it is not a single event. The lawyer in question relentlessly pursues private meetings and events with judges. At the recent family law conference in Tahoe, the lawyer actively “poached” multiple judges from the public, Bar-sponsored event to attend his private party described by one judicial participant in a Facebook post as “generously hosting a spectacular feast”—precisely what each of the relevant ethical opinions prohibit.
IV. ANY JUDGE ATTENDING SUCH A PARTY IS REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE AND RECUSE
There are many similar opinions from multiple states. For example, New York opinions have stressed that “ordinary social hospitality” does not include a party at an expensive restaurant, a cruise or any similar expensive, lavish affair. New York Advisory Opinion 87-15(a).
As with Connecticut, California made it absolutely mandatory that any judge attending any such event “would . . . be disqualified from hearing any matter involving the person or entity holding or funding the event.” Of course, as noted above, the lawyer involved here does exactly the opposite, fawning over and giving “awards” and “prizes” to judges currently hearing contested cases litigated by that lawyer and his firm.
Any judicial officer unwise enough to attend any such event is required to both make a record of that attendance and then to recuse from any cases involving that attorney and firm. Of course, if Nevada judges actually do as they are ethically required to do, the unethical events will cease, because their only purpose is the corrupt attempt to procure bias, curry favoritism, and advertise undue influence.
V. NEVADA DOES NOT NEED THE CRITICISM EARNED BY TOLERATION OF THIS UNETHICAL CONDUCT
A lot more exists and could be said, but the message should be clear. If Nevada is going to shed the perception in some quarters of being a corrupt ethical backwater, see, e.g., Joe Shoenmann, Perception Of Political Corruption Runs High In Nevada (KNPR, July 23, 2015), judges, lawyers, and both Judicial Discipline and the State Bar of Nevada are going to have to do a lot more to indicate that they care about that perception and reputation, and are willing to do something to improve it.
At last year’s iteration of the “holiday party” at issue here, the lawyer made a public spectacle of giving an “award” to a judge, immediately before arguing a hotly-contested case in that judge’s department. The pattern recurs every year. At least one judicial discipline complaint is now pending.
So yes, throwing a party at which “awards” are given to judges presiding over cases in which the lawyer is appearing is simple bribery, intended corruption, and sanctionable misconduct. NRPC 8.4(d). It should be openly identified as such, and the Bar should intercede and prosecute the ethical violations accordingly.
VI. QUOTES OF THE ISSUE
“The accomplice to the crime of corruption is frequently our own indifference.” Bess Myerson.
“What is it that makes us trust our judges? Their independence in office and manner of appointment.” John Marshall.
“[I]n order to set aside a judgment or order because of fraud upon the court under Rule 60(b) … it is necessary to show an unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision.” England v. Doyle, 281 F.2d 304, 309 (9th Cir. 1960).
“He is a man of splendid abilities, but utterly corrupt. He shines and stinks like rotten mackerel by moonlight.” John Randolph’s description of Edward Livingston, who became Secretary of State under Andrew Jackson.
- Vol. 80 – Unethical Lawyer Parties for Judicial Attendance - December 1, 2025