The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct has issued four advisory opinions, including a new opinion that addresses the propriety of a judge attending a training offered by a law enforcement agency and three revised opinions previously issued under the former Code of Professional Responsibility or Code of Judicial Conduct.

Advisory Opinion 2022-08 addresses a judge’s attendance at a law enforcement agency’s training on speed measuring devices open exclusively to prosecutors, judges, and members of law enforcement.  The opinion advises that judges should not attend the course because of the appearance of a close or improper alignment with law enforcement or prosecutorial interests that may erode the public’s confidence in an independent and impartial judiciary.

Advisory Opinion 2022-09 advises fulltime and part-time magistrates that they may not hold or seek election to a public office including local, city, or state school boards, city councils or county board of commissioners.  The Board concludes that the “resign to run” rule in the Code of Judicial Conduct applies equally to running for or holding another public office and promotes public confidence in the independence of the judiciary. This opinion replaces Adv. Op. 2004-3 and Adv. Op. 2009-07.

Advisory Opinion 2022-10 concludes that a magistrate may serve as a trustee of a nonprofit condominium association when the magistrate is a resident condominium owner. The Board reminds magistrates to consider when their disqualification or resignation from the association may be required if the association frequently appears in matters before him or her. The Board also advises magistrates not to engage or serve as a legal advisor for the association or use their judicial title in conjunction with their association duties. This opinion replaces Adv. Op. 2004-3.

Advisory Opinion 2022-11 considers the ethical issues raised by lawyers sharing office space. The Board concludes that such arrangements are permissible if the lawyers act competently to maintain client confidentiality, especially when sharing nonlawyer office staff or computer systems and servers. The Board advises that lawyers may informally consult with one another on matters when client confidences are preserved and share legal fees as co-counsel in matters as permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct. This opinion replaces Adv. Op. 1991-09.