Stop Calling Him "Judge" Napolitano

By now, everyone knows that Fox News contributor Andrew Napolitano was the source behind the recent White House claim that the British intelligence service, known as GCHQ, colluded with President Obama to conduct surveillance of Donald Trump in the midst of the 2016 campaign.  The British government has rightly branded the assertion “nonsense,” saying it was “utterly ridiculous and should be ignored.” Napolitano’s scoop was also disavowed by the actual news branch of Fox News itself.

But even as the story is repeatedly debunked, some reporters and commentators continue to refer to its originator as “Judge Napolitano,” which only serves to lend some unwarranted credence to his false report. 

It is true that Napolitano once served on the New Jersey Superior Court, but he resigned in 1995 and has not held judicial office since then.  Nonetheless, he insists on being addressed as “Judge” and he is said to have demanded that his set on Fox News be designed to resemble a judge’s chambers.  His website – which he calls JudgeNap.com – refers to him as “Judge Napolitano” in virtually every paragraph, as does his bio on the Fox News site.

The American Bar Association has cautioned against the exploitation of judicial titles by former judges, noting that it is wrong to use “Judge” or “The Honorable” in connection with law practice.  In its Formal Opinion 95-391, the ABA Commission on Ethics and Professional Responsibility noted that continued “use of the title is misleading because it may be misunderstood by the public as suggesting some type of special influence” or “to create an unjustified expectation.” In fact, said the ABA, “there appears to be no reason for such use of the title other than to create such an expectation.” 

Although the ABA opinion addressed only the use of the honorific in law practice, some states have gone further.  The Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, for example, provide that a former judge may only use the title or honorific if it is preceded by the word “retired” (or “former,” if the judge had been defeated for reelection), and the rule does not limit the restriction to law practice.

Sean Spicer, of course, cited “Judge Andrew Napolitano” when he first introduced the phony story at a press briefing.  Fox News, InfoWars, the Daily Caller, and Breitbart, needless to say, always call him by the honorific.  But CNN’s Wolf Blitzer also repeatedly refers to “Judge Napolitano” in his television reports, as do other stories on CNN.com.  Mainstream news sources such as Business Insider, Real Clear Politics, the Huffington Post, the New York Daily News, and even the Washington Post have also referred to “Judge Napolitano,” and not in quotation marks.  In fact, the British GCHQ called him “Judge Napolitano,” even as it called for his ridiculous remarks to be ignored.

Nothing can be done about Napolitano’s insistence on calling himself “judge,” but there is no reason for anyone else to go along with him.  Fox News describes Napolitano as its “senior judicial analyst,” and the use of his former title is obviously for the purpose of enhancing his credibility.

To their credit, The New York Times, Politico, The Hill, and other outlets refer only to Mr. Napolitano or Andrew Napolitano.  Like everyone else, Napolitano is entitled to his opinion, even when trafficking in absurd conspiracy theories, but we do not need to afford him the respect of an office that he no longer holds. 

[Cross posted on Legal Ethics Forum]

Comments

[Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King]

Frankly, I don't blame Fox for this one. I blame our legal profession. We have become a veritable "used car lot" of titles, monikers, and descriptors for what we are: Attorneys. We have Leading Lawyers and Super Lawyers and the slick magazines that go with the title. We have AV rated (whatever the hell that means) and Martindale Hubble Lawyers. Throw in AVVO too. I guess it's not good enough any longer to just be an advocate of the Constitution on behalf of an ordinary citizen.

[Doug Richmond]

This appears to be a fairly common practice among former judges. For example, Alberto Gonzales, who is now Dean of the Belmont University College of Law, is described as "Judge Gonzales" in his Belmont biographical sketch, even though his time on the Texas Supreme Court is long past. As an academic, however, his continued use of the title is unlikely to be misunderstood by anyone or to create unjustified expectations.

[Steve L.]

I do not recall Gonzales calling himself "Judge" while he was AG, so he evidently wasn't using the honorific in the course of law practice. I believe the Griffin Bell, however, was called "Judge" after serving as Carter's AG (he had [previously been on the Fifth Circuit); and Ken Starr was definitely addressed as "Judge" during the Clinton impeachment hearings.

Napolitano is not practicing law, as far as I know, so I am only proposing that reporters and commentators stop calling him Judge Napolitano. He can keep doing whatever he wants.

[William Simpson]

An official Honorific applies to a person throughout their life from that point onward if they opt to use it. Formal Opinion 95-391 is not violated in this case as a - it is an opinion and subject to contest and b - it is highly unlikely anyone will take legal advice from some guy jabbering on TV. The point of 95-391 was to dissuade former judges from swaying potential clients or client decisions because of the judge's legal status. Sure, the honorific is helpful to Napolitano's employment, but seriously, if you are taking legal advice form him or anyone else on cable news, his honorific is the very least of your problems. We should not trust Napolitano because he is frequently wrong and has some very odd opinions on history (FYI, I am neither a Napolitano or Trump fan, in fact, on both, quite the opposite) but not because he uses the term "judge" before his name.

[anymouse]

I agree 100%, let us also stop using the honorific to former Governors, Secretaries, Presidents, et al. No more "Secretary Clinton" because she is no longer the Secretary of State.

[anon]

Anymouse

And the use of the honorific "President" not preceded by "Former" is fairly common.

Who needs a watchdog that only barks at Republicans?

[Bill Turnier]

Maybe the title Citizen can come back into fashion!

[Professor John Baron]

This is a slippery slope. Next thing you know, Steve Lubet will want take away the "Judge" titles from Judge Judy, Judge Wapner, even Judge Dredd and Judge Reinhold, not to even mention Mike Judge.

[Mark32]

Liberal will scream when they refer to ed kennedy as the late Theodore Kennedy.

[Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King]

Professor Baron at 2:27pm,

Like Kerry forgot POLAND, You forgot the Pontiac car.

[dcl]

I imagine that those who go along with Napolitano don't know any better. Many non-lawyers may be used to calling retired high-ranking military officers by their titles or calling retired doctors "Dr." -- as a sign of respect and because of normal social customs. People might assume--either because Napolitano asks to be called "judge" or just because they don't know any better that the same idea applies to former judges. Just my speculation.

[Larry]

To the NYT's credit? LOL the NYT calls EVERYONE "Mr." not just Napolitano. It's not like they are going out of their way to be moral genius's. And they call Presidents "Mr." which is incorrect they are PRESIDENTS, which is the opposite of respect. I have no expectation of increased superiority of Judge Nap, in other words who gives a fuck what he's called.

[Bennie]

I'd call Nap unemployed at this point.