The Judicial Conference's committee on codes of conduct issued a memorandum today advising federal judges not to accept certain kinds of discounted club memberships because of a law passed by Congress last year. The advisory appears to rule out a controversial work-around devised by the University Club in D.C. in response to the law, though the club is not mentioned by name.
The law prohibits judges from accepting honorary club memberships "with a value of more than $50 in any calendar year." The University Club, which has for years boasted the membership (for free) of several Supreme Court and lower court judges, responded by creating a special "public service membership category" for judges and members of Congress. Dues for members in that category were set at $588 a year, considerably less than the $3,400 paid by regular members.
The club has said the lower-priced category comports with the law because the $588 fee is the same amount that non-resident members are charged. The ABA Journal reported in March that legal ethics experts as well as Sen. John Kyl, (R-Ariz.,) who sponsored the bill, doubted whether the arrangement was legal.
Today's directive appears to steer judges away from the kind of dues arrangement devised by the University Club. "A judge should not accept a discounted membership that is offered to a very limited group selected by the club to enhance its reputation," the memo states.
The committee, chaired by Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, did state however that "in some circumstances" judges could accept discounted memberships if they are legitimately included in "broad occupational categories" that receive discounts not specifically aimed at judges or at a narrow category of members.
The advisory also indicates that free honorary memberships are still allowed for judges belonging to professional and bar-related organizations including Inns of Court, as well as service clubs like the Rotary. Overall, the committee said bright-line rules were difficult to draw because of the "wide variance" in club rules and membership practices. It urged judges to seek confidential advisory opinions from the committee for guidance in individual cases.
Comments