CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT (CJC)
                                       SCOPE


[1]  The Washington State Code of Judicial Conduct consists of four Canons,
     numbered Rules under each Canon, and Comments that generally follow and
     explain each Rule. Scope and Terminology sections provide additional
     guidance in interpreting and applying the Code. An Application section
     establishes when the various Rules apply to a judge or judicial candidate.

[2]  The Canons state overarching principles of judicial ethics that all
     judges must observe.  They provide important guidance in interpreting the
     Rules.  A judge may be disciplined only for violating a Rule.

[3]  The Comments that accompany the Rules serve two functions. First, they
     provide guidance regarding the purpose, meaning, and proper application of
     the Rules. They contain explanatory material and, in some instances,
     provide examples of permitted or prohibited conduct. Comments neither add
     to nor subtract from the binding obligations set forth in the Rules.
     Therefore, when a Comment contains the term "must," it does not mean that
     the Comment itself is binding or enforceable; it signifies that the Rule in
     question, properly understood, is obligatory as to the conduct at issue.

[4]  Second, the Comments identify aspirational goals for judges. To implement
     fully the principles of this Code as articulated in the Canons, judges
     should strive to exceed the standards of conduct established by the Rules,
     holding themselves to the highest ethical standards and seeking to achieve
     those aspirational goals, thereby enhancing the dignity of the judicial office.

[5]  The Rules of the Washington State Code of Judicial Conduct are rules
     of reason that should be applied consistent with constitutional
     requirements, statutes, other court rules, and decisional law, and with due
     regard for all relevant circumstances. The Rules should not be interpreted
     to impinge upon the essential independence of judges in making judicial decisions.

[6]  Although the black letter of the Rules is binding and enforceable, it is
     not contemplated that every transgression will result in the imposition of
     discipline. It is recognized, for example, that it would be unrealistic to
     sanction judges for minor traffic or civil infractions.  Whether discipline
     should be imposed should be determined through a reasonable and reasoned
     application of the Rules.  The relevant factors for consideration should
     include the seriousness of the transgression, the facts and circumstances
     that existed at the time of the transgression, including the willfulness or
     knowledge of the impropriety of the action, the extent of any pattern of
     improper activity, whether there have been previous violations, and the
     effect of the improper activity upon the judicial system or others.

 [7]  The Code is not designed or intended as a basis for civil or criminal
     liability. Neither is it intended to be the basis for litigants to seek
     collateral remedies against each other or to obtain tactical advantages in
     proceedings before a court.


[Adopted September 9, 2010; effective January 1, 2011]