Yet this is a lesson many high-court members have overlooked. As reporters Sharon Schmickle and Tom Hamburger noted in the Star Tribune this week, federal jurists have been relaxed about accepting favors from a top legal publisher over whose fate they had power. Since 1983, seven high-court justices have traveled at the expense of West Publishing Co., the Minnesota-based firm linked to the courts both as a contractor and a frequent litigant.

The trips brought one or two justices at a time to vacation spots like the Virgin Islands, Hawaii and Palm Springs, Calif., for meetings to choose a judge to receive a $15,000 distinguished-service prize sponsored by West. Often, the destinations were chosen by the jurists and accompanying spouses. The few travelers willing to answer the Star Tribune's inquiries insist there was nothing wrong with letting West pick up the tab for such a worthy effort. But however venerable the venture, there's no doubt it could have been conducted without lavish wining, dining and travel. A few telephone conference calls might have sufficed, or perhaps a long lunch in a Washington, D.C., pasta bar.

All this might be just a minor eyebrow-raiser if not for a question of timing. During a decade of West-sponsored travel, five cases involving West came before the high court. Each suit had been decided in West's favor by a lower court; in each instance, the justices declined to review the previous ruling. And none who vacationed at West's expense saw fit to abstain from deciding whether to hear the cases.

No one can be sure whether West's gifts actually influenced the justices. But that's precisely the point: There shouldn't be any cause for wonder. That's why judicial rules of conduct for federal judges -- which are only "advisory and nonbinding" on the high court -- instruct them to avoid not only impropriety, but also the appearance of impropriety. That's why judges are required to disqualify themselves in any proceeding in which their impartiality "might reasonably be questioned."

The adage about the lack of a free lunch is as true as it is trite. Supplied with enough scenery and seafood, even the most stalwart soul is likely to feel a debt of gratitude -- perhaps even of obligation -- to the giver. Bestowing and receiving such favors may be a time-honored business strategy, but certainly it's one the U.S. Supreme Court should steer clear of. The onus should rest on the court, not on the company. The traveling justices were foolish to accept West's gifts, and some were deceptive not to reveal them. And though the justices were utterly wrong not to step aside in cases involving West, even that move would not be sufficient to remove concerns about the free trips. Since it takes four votes to grant a hearing before the court, a justice who abstains often might as well be voting no.

If the justices really feel fine about flying for free, perhaps they should take a clue from one of their underlings. When named the 1994 winner of West's distinguished-service award, Judge Jack Weinstein of New York District declined the $15,000 check. Said Weinstein: "I don't like to take anything of value from anybody." That's a standard well worth heeding.