Rule 3.13 Acceptance of Gifts, Loans, Bequests, Favors, Benefits, or Other Things of Value

[1] Whenever a judge accepts a gift or other thing of value without paying fair market value, there is a risk that the benefit might be viewed as intended to influence the judge’s decision in a case. Rule 3.13 prohibits the acceptance of benefits except in circumstances where the risk of improper influence is low.

[2] Gift giving between friends and relatives is a common occurrence and ordinarily does not create an appearance of impropriety or cause reasonable persons to believe that the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality has been compromised. In addition, when the appearance of friends or relatives in a case would require the judge’s disqualification under Rule 2.11, there would be no opportunity for a gift to influence the judge’s decisionmaking. Paragraph (2) places no restrictions upon the ability of a judge to accept gifts or other things of value from friends or relatives under these circumstances.

[3] Businesses and financial institutions frequently make available special pricing, discounts, and other benefits, either in connection with a temporary promotion or for preferred customers based upon longevity of the relationship, volume of business transacted, and other factors. A judge may freely accept such benefits if they are available to the general public or if the judge qualifies for the special price or discount according to the same criteria as are applied to persons who are not judges. As an example, loans provided at generally prevailing interest rates are not gifts, but a judge could not accept a loan from a financial institution at below- market interest rates unless the same rate was being made available to the general public for a certain period of time or only to borrowers with specified qualifications that the judge also possesses.

[4] Rule 3.13 applies only to acceptance of gifts or other things of value by a judge. Nonetheless, if a gift or other benefit is given to the judge’s spouse, domestic partner, or member of the judge’s family residing in the judge’s household, it may be viewed as an attempt to evade Rule 3.13 and influence the judge indirectly. Where the gift or benefit is being made primarily to such other persons and the judge is merely an incidental beneficiary, this concern is reduced. A judge should consider informing family and household members of the restrictions imposed upon judges by this Rule.

[5] Contributions to a judge’s campaign for judicial office are governed by Rules 4.3 and 4.4 of this Code.

[6] “Ordinary social hospitality” includes the “routine amenities, favors, and courtesies which are normally exchanged between friends and acquaintances, and which would not create an appearance of impropriety to a reasonable, objective observer.” In re Corboy, 124 Ill. 2d 29, 42 (1988). The touchstone of this objective test “is a careful consideration of social custom.” Id. Factors relevant to this inquiry include (1) the monetary value of the gift, loan, bequest, or other item transferred from the donor or lender to the judge; (2) the relationship between the judge and the donor or lender; (3) the social practices and customs associated with transfers of the type made between the judge and donor or lender; and (4) the circumstances surrounding the transaction. See id. at 42-43.

[7] Disclosure of economic interests including gifts is governed by Rule 3.15.