| |
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT (CJC)
PREAMBLE
[1] An independent, fair and impartial judiciary is indispensable to our
system of justice. The United States legal system is based upon the
principle that an independent, impartial, and competent judiciary, composed
of men and women of integrity, will interpret and apply the law that
governs our society. Thus, the judiciary plays a central role in preserving
the principles of justice and the rule of law. Inherent in all the Rules
contained in this Code are the precepts that judges, individually and
collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust
and strive to maintain and enhance confidence in the legal system.
[2] Judges should maintain the dignity of judicial office at all times, and
avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their
professional and personal lives. They should aspire at all times to conduct
that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in their independence,
impartiality, integrity, and competence.
[3] The Washington State Code of Judicial Conduct establishes standards for
the ethical conduct of judges and judicial candidates. It is not intended
as an exhaustive guide. The Code is intended, however, to provide guidance
and assist judges in maintaining the highest standards of judicial and
personal conduct, and to provide a basis for regulating their conduct
through the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
[Adopted September 9, 2010; effective January 1, 2011]
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]
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT (CJC)
APPLICATION
The Application section establishes when the various Rules apply to a judge,
court commissioner, judge pro tempore or judicial candidate.
I. APPLICABILITY OF THIS CODE
(A) A judge, within the meaning of this Code, is anyone who is authorized to
perform judicial functions, including an officer such as a magistrate, court
commissioner, special master, referee, part-time judge or judge pro tempore.
(B) The provisions of the Code apply to all judges except as otherwise
noted for part-time judges and judges pro tempore.
(C) All judges who hold a position that is subject to election shall comply
with all provisions of Rules 4.1 (Political and Campaign Activities of
Judges and Judicial Candidates in General), 4.2 (Political and Campaign
Activities of Judicial Candidates in Public Elections), 4.3 (Activities
of Candidates for Appointive Judicial Office), 4.4 (Campaign Committees),
and 4.5 (Activities of Judges Who Become Candidates for Nonjudicial
Office). Rules 4.1 (Political and Campaign Activities of Judges and
Judicial Candidates in General), 4.2 (Political and Campaign Activities
of Judicial Candidates in Public Elections), 4.3 (Activities of
Candidates for Appointive Judicial Office) and 4.4 (Campaign Committees)
apply to judicial candidates.
(D) All judges shall comply with statutory requirements applicable to their
position with respect to reporting and disclosure of financial affairs.
COMMENT
[1] The Rules in this Code have been formulated to address the ethical
obligations of any person who serves a judicial function, and are premised
upon the supposition that a uniform system of ethical principles should
apply to all those authorized to perform judicial functions.
[2] This Code and its Rules do not apply to any person who serves as an
administrative law judge or in a judicial capacity within an administrative agency.
[3] The determination of whether an individual judge is exempt from specific
Rules depends upon the facts of the particular judicial service.
[4] The Legislature has authorized counties to establish and operate drug
courts and mental health courts. Judges presiding in these special courts
are subject to these Rules, including Rule 2.9 (A)(1) on ex parte
communications, and must continue to operate within the usual judicial role
as an independent decision maker on issues of fact and law. But the Rules
should be applied with the recognition that these courts may properly
operate with less formality of demeanor and procedure than is typical of
more traditional courts. Application of the rules should also be attentive
to the terms and waivers in any contract to which the individual whose
conduct is being monitored has agreed in exchange for being allowed to
participate in the special court program.
II. PART-TIME JUDGE
(A) A part-time judge is not required to comply:
(1) with Rule 2.10 (Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending
Cases), except while serving as a judge; or
(2) at any time with Rules 3.4 (Appointments to Governmental
Positions), 3.8 (Appointments to Fiduciary Positions), 3.9 (Service as
Arbitrator or Mediator), 3.10 (Practice of Law), 3.11 (Financial,
Business, or Remunerative Activities), and 3.14 (Reimbursement of
Expenses and Waivers of Fees or Charges).
(B) A part-time judge shall not act as a lawyer in a proceeding in which the
judge has served as a judge or in any other proceeding related thereto.
(C) When a person who has been a part-time judge is no longer a part-time
judge, that person may act as a lawyer in a proceeding in which he or she
served as a judge or in any other proceeding related thereto only with the
express consent of all parties pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
COMMENT
[1] Part-time judges should be alert to the possibility of conflicts of
interest and should liberally disclose on the record to litigants appearing
before them the fact of any extrajudicial employment or other judicial
role, even if there is no apparent reason to withdraw.
[2] In view of Rule 2.1, which provides that the judicial duties of judges
should take precedence over all other activities, part-time judges should
not engage in outside employment which would interfere with their ability
to sit on cases that routinely come before them.
III. JUDGE PRO TEMPORE
A judge pro tempore is not required to comply:
(A) except while serving as a judge, with Rule 1.2 (Promoting Confidence
in the Judiciary), Rule 2.4 (External Influences on Judicial Conduct);
Rule 2.10(Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases);
or Rule 3.1 (Extrajudicial Activities in General); or
(B) at any time with Rules 3.2 (Appearances before Governmental Bodies and
Consultation with Government Officials), 3.3 (Acting as a Character
Witness), or 3.4 (Appointments to Governmental Positions), or with Rules
3.6 (Affiliation with Discriminatory Organizations), 3.7 (Participation in
Educational, Religious, Charitable, Fraternal, or Civic Organizations and
Activities), 3.8 (Appointments to Fiduciary Positions), 3.9 (Service as
Arbitrator or Mediator), 3.10 (Practice of Law), 3.11 (Financial, Business,
or Remunerative Activities), or 3.12 (Compensation for Extrajudicial Activities).
(C) A judge pro tempore shall not act as a lawyer in a proceeding in which the
judge has served as a judge or in any other proceeding related thereto.
(D) When a person who has been a judge pro tempore is no longer a judge pro
tempore, that person may act as a lawyer in a proceeding in which he or she
served as a judge or in any other proceeding related thereto only with the
express consent of all parties pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
VI. TIME FOR COMPLIANCE
A person to whom this Code becomes applicable shall comply immediately with its
provisions, except that those judges to whom Rules 3.8 (Appointments to
Fiduciary Positions) and 3.11 (Financial, Business, or Remunerative Activities)
apply shall comply with those Rules as soon as reasonably possible, but in no
event later than one year after the Code becomes applicable to the judge.
COMMENT
[1] If serving as a fiduciary when selected as judge, a new judge may,
notwithstanding the prohibitions in Rule 3.8, continue to serve as fiduciary,
but only for that period of time necessary to avoid serious adverse
consequences to the beneficiaries of the fiduciary relationship and in no event
longer than one year. Similarly, if engaged at the time of judicial selection
in a business activity, a new judge may, notwithstanding the prohibitions in
Rule 3.11, continue in that activity for a reasonable period but in no event
longer than one year.
[Adopted September 9, 2010; effective January 1, 2011]
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT (CJC)
TERMINOLOGY
The first time any term listed below is used in a Rule in its defined sense, it
is followed by an asterisk (*).
"Aggregate," in relation to contributions for a candidate, means not only
contributions in cash or in-kind made directly to a candidate's campaign
committee, but also all contributions made indirectly with the understanding
that they will be used to support the election of a candidate or to oppose the
election of the candidate's opponent. See Rules 2.11 and 4.4.
"Appropriate authority" means the authority having responsibility for
initiation of disciplinary process in connection with the violation to be
reported. See Rules 2.14 and 2.15.
"Contribution" means both financial and in-kind contributions, such as goods,
professional or volunteer services, advertising, and other types of assistance,
which, if obtained by the recipient otherwise, would require a financial
expenditure. See Rules 2.11, 2.13, 3.7, 4.1, and 4.4.
"De minimis," in the context of interests pertaining to disqualification of a
judge, means an insignificant interest that could not raise a reasonable
question regarding the judge's impartiality. See Rule 2.11.
"Domestic partner" means a person with whom another person maintains a
household and an intimate relationship, other than a person to whom he or she
is legally married. See Rules 2.11, 2.13, 3.13, and 3.14.
"Economic interest" means ownership of more than a de minimis legal or equitable
interest. Except for situations in which the judge participates in the management
of such a legal or equitable interest, or the interest could be substantially
affected by the outcome of a proceeding before a judge, it does not include:
(1) an interest in the individual holdings within a mutual or common investment fund;
(2) an interest in securities held by an educational, religious, charitable,
fraternal, or civic organization in which the judge or the judge's spouse,
domestic partner, parent, or child serves as a director, an officer, an
advisor, or other participant;
(3) a deposit in a financial institution or deposits or proprietary interests
the judge may maintain as a member of a mutual savings association or credit
union, or similar proprietary interests; or
(4) an interest in the issuer of government securities held by the judge.
See Rules 1.3 and 2.11.
"Fiduciary" includes relationships such as executor, administrator, trustee, or
guardian. See Rules 2.11, 3.2, and 3.8.
"Financial Support" shall mean the total of contributions to the judge's
campaign and independent expenditures in support of the judge's campaign or
against the judge's opponent as defined by RCW 42.17.020. See Rule 2.11.
"Impartial," "impartiality," and "impartially" mean absence of bias or
prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as
well as maintenance of an open mind in considering issues that may come before
a judge. See Canons 1, 2, and 4, and Rules 1.2, 2.2, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 3.1,
3.12, 3.13, 4.1, and 4.2.
"Impending matter" is a matter that is imminent or expected to occur in the
near future. See Rules 2.9, 2.10, 3.13, and 4.1.
"Impropriety" includes conduct that violates the law, court rules, or
provisions of this Code, and conduct that undermines a judge's independence,
integrity, or impartiality. See Canon 1 and Rule 1.2.
"Independence" means a judge's freedom from influence or controls other than
those established by law. See Canons 1 and 4, and Rules 1.2, 3.1, 3.12, 3.13, and 4.2.
"Integrity" means probity, fairness, honesty, uprightness, and soundness of
character. See Canon 1 and Rule 1.2.
"Invidious discrimination" is a classification which is arbitrary, irrational,
and not reasonably related to a legitimate purpose. Differing treatment of
individuals based upon race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity,
sexual orientation, age, or other classification protected by law, are
situations where invidious discrimination may exist. See Rules 3.1 and 3.6.
"Judicial candidate" means any person, including a sitting judge, who is
seeking selection for or retention in judicial office by election or
appointment. A person becomes a candidate for judicial office as soon as he or
she makes a public announcement of candidacy, declares or files as a candidate
with the election or appointment authority, authorizes or, where permitted,
engages in solicitation or acceptance of contributions or support, or is
nominated for election or appointment to office. See Rules 2.11, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.4.
"Knowingly," "knowledge," "known," and "knows" mean actual knowledge of the
fact in question. A person's knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.
See Rules 2.11, 2.13, 2.15, 2.16, 3.6, and 4.1.
"Law" encompasses court rules as well as statutes, constitutional provisions,
and decisional law. See Rules 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.6, 2.7, 2.9, 3.1, 3.4, 3.9,
3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, and 4.5.
"Member of the candidate's family" means a spouse, domestic partner, child,
grandchild, parent, grandparent, or other relative or person with whom the
candidate maintains a close familial relationship.
"Member of the judge's family" means a spouse, domestic partner, child,
grandchild, parent, grandparent, or other relative or person with whom the
judge maintains a close familial relationship. See Rules 3.7, 3.8, 3.10, and 3.11.
"Member of a judge's family residing in the judge's household" means any
relative of a judge by blood or marriage, or a person treated by a judge as a
member of the judge's family, who resides in the judge's household. See Rules
2.11 and 3.13.
"Nonpublic information" means information that is not available to the public.
Nonpublic information may include, but is not limited to, information that is
sealed by statute or court order or impounded or communicated in camera, and
information offered in grand jury proceedings, presentencing reports,
dependency cases, or psychiatric reports. See Rule 3.5.
"Part-time judge" Part-time judges are judges who serve on a continuing or
periodic basis, but are permitted by law to devote time to some other
profession or occupation and whose compensation for that reason is less than a
full-time judge. A person who serves part-time as a judge on a regular or
periodic basis in excess of eleven cases or eleven dockets annually, counted
cumulatively without regard to each jurisdiction in which that person serves as
a judge, is a part-time judge.
"Pending matter" is a matter that has commenced. A matter continues to be
pending through any appellate process until final disposition. See Rules 2.9,
2.10, 3.13, and 4.1.
"Personally solicit" means a direct request made by a judge or a judicial
candidate for financial support or in-kind services, whether made by letter,
telephone, or any other means of communication. See Rule 4.1.
"Political organization" means a political party or other group sponsored by or
affiliated with a political party or candidate, the principal purpose of which
is to further the election or appointment of candidates for political office.
For purposes of this Code, the term does not include a judicial candidate's
campaign committee created as authorized by Rule 4.4. See Rules 4.1 and 4.2.
"Pro tempore judge" Without regard to statutory or other definitions of a pro
tempore judge, within the meaning of this Code a pro tempore judge is a person
who serves only once or at most sporadically under a separate appointment for a
case or docket. Pro tempore judges are excused from compliance with certain
provisions of this Code because of their infrequent service as judges. A
person who serves or expects to serve part-time as a judge on a regular or
periodic basis in fewer than twelve cases or twelve dockets annually, counted
cumulatively without regard to each jurisdiction in which that person serves as
a judge, is a pro tempore judge.
"Public election" includes primary and general elections, partisan elections,
nonpartisan elections, and retention elections. See Rules 4.2 and 4.4.
"Third degree of relationship" includes the following persons: great-
grandparent, grandparent, parent, uncle, aunt, brother, sister, child,
grandchild, great-grandchild, nephew, and niece. See Rule 2.11.
[Adopted September 9, 2010; effective January 1, 2011]
Washington State Code of Judicial Conduct
Table of Canons
CANON 1
A Judge Shall Uphold and Promote the Independence, Integrity, and
Impartiality of the Judiciary, and Shall Avoid Impropriety and the
Appearance of Impropriety.
RULE 1.1 Compliance with the Law
RULE 1.2 Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
RULE 1.3 Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office
CANON 2
A Judge Should Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially,
Competently, and Diligently.
RULE 2.1 Giving Precedence to the Duties of Judicial Office
RULE 2.2 Impartiality and Fairness
RULE 2.3 Bias, Prejudice and Harassment
RULE 2.4 External Influences on Judicial Conduct
RULE 2.5 Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation
RULE 2.6 Ensuring the Right to Be Heard
RULE 2.7 Responsibility to Decide
RULE 2.8 Decorum, Demeanor, and Communication with Jurors
RULE 2.9 Ex Parte Communications
RULE 2.10 Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases
RULE 2.11 Disqualification
RULE 2.12 Supervisory Duties
RULE 2.13 Administrative Appointments.
RULE 2.14 Disability and Impairment
RULE 2.15 Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct
RULE 2.16 Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities
CANON 3
A Judge Shall Conduct the Judge's Personal and Extrajudicial Activities to
Minimize the Risk of Conflict with the Obligations of Judicial Office.
RULE 3.1 Extrajudicial Activities in General
RULE 3.2 Appearances before Governmental Bodies and Consultation with
Government Officials
RULE 3.3 Testifying as Character Witness
RULE 3.4 Appointments to Governmental Positions
RULE 3.5 Use of Nonpublic Information
RULE 3.6 Affiliation with Discriminatory Organizations
RULE 3.7 Participation in Educational, Religious, Charitable, Fraternal, or
Civic Organizations and Activities
RULE 3.8 Appointments to Fiduciary Positions
RULE 3.9 Service as Arbitrator or Mediator
RULE 3.10 Practice of Law
RULE 3.11 Financial, Business, or Remunerative Activities
RULE 3.12 Compensation for Extrajudicial Activities
RULE 3.13 Acceptance and Reporting of Gifts, Loans, Bequests, Benefits, or
Other Things of Value
RULE 3.14 Reimbursement of Expenses and Waivers of Fees or Charges
RULE 3.15 Reporting Requirements
CANON 4
A Judge or Candidate for Judicial Office Shall not Engage in Political or
Campaign Activity that is Inconsistent with the Independence, Integrity, or
Impartiality of the Judiciary.
RULE 4.1 Political and Campaign Activities of Judges and Judicial Candidates in General
RULE 4.2 Political and Campaign Activities of Judicial Candidates in Public Elections
RULE 4.3 Activities of Candidates for Appointive Judicial Office
RULE 4.4 Campaign Committees
RULE 4.5 Activities of Judges Who Become Candidates for Nonjudicial Office
[Adopted September 9, 2010; effective January 1, 2011]
CANON 1
A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY
OF THE JUDICIARY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
RULE 1.1
Compliance with the Law
A judge shall comply with the law,* including the Code of Judicial Conduct.
COMMENT
See Scope [6].
RULE 1.2
Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in
the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall
avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.*
COMMENT
[1] Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct. This
principle applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge.
[2] A judge should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might
be viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens, and must accept the
restrictions imposed by the Code.
[3] Conduct that compromises the independence, integrity, and impartiality
of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary.
[4] Judges should participate in activities that promote ethical conduct
among judges and lawyers, support professionalism within the judiciary and
the legal profession, and promote access to justice for all.
[5] Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules, or
provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether
the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge
violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on
the judge's honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.
[6] A judge should initiate and participate in community outreach
activities for the purpose of promoting public understanding of and
confidence in the administration of justice. In conducting such activities,
the judge must act in a manner consistent with this Code.
RULE 1.3
Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office
A judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal
or economic interests* of the judge or others, or allow others to do so.
COMMENT
[1] It is improper for a judge to use or attempt to use his or her
position to gain personal advantage or deferential treatment of any kind.
For example, it would be improper for a judge to allude to his or her
judicial status to gain favorable treatment in encounters with traffic
officials. Similarly, a judge must not use judicial letterhead to gain an
advantage in conducting his or her personal business.
[2] A judge may provide a reference or recommendation for an individual
based upon the judge's personal knowledge. The judge may use official
letterhead if the judge indicates that the reference is personal and if
there is no likelihood that the use of the letterhead would reasonably be
perceived as an attempt to exert pressure by reason of the judicial office.
[3] Judges may participate in the process of judicial selection by
cooperating with appointing authorities and screening committees, and by
responding to inquiries from such entities concerning the professional
qualifications of a person being considered for judicial office.
[4] Special considerations arise when judges write or contribute to
publications of for-profit entities, whether related or unrelated to the
law. A judge should not permit anyone associated with the publication of
such materials to exploit the judge's office in a manner that violates this
Rule or other applicable law. In contracts for publication of a judge's
writing, the judge should retain sufficient control over the advertising to
avoid such exploitation.
[Adopted September 9, 2010; effective January 1, 2011]
CANON 2
A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY,
COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY.
RULE 2.1
Giving Precedence to the Duties of Judicial Office
The duties of judicial office, as prescribed by law,* shall take precedence
over all of a judge's personal and extrajudicial activities.
COMMENT
[1] To ensure that judges are available to fulfill their judicial duties,
judges must conduct their personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize
the risk of conflicts that would result in frequent disqualification. See Canon 3.
[2] Although it is not a duty of judicial office unless prescribed by law,
judges are encouraged to participate in activities that promote public
understanding of and confidence in the justice system.
RULE 2.2
Impartiality and Fairness
A judge shall uphold and apply the law,* and shall perform all duties of
judicial office fairly and impartially.*
COMMENT
[1] To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be
objective and open-minded.
[2] Although each judge comes to the bench with a unique background and
personal philosophy, a judge must interpret and apply the law without
regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question.
[3] When applying and interpreting the law, a judge sometimes may make
good-faith errors of fact or law. Errors of this kind do not violate this
Rule.
[4] It is not a violation of this Rule for a judge to make reasonable
accommodations to ensure pro se litigants the opportunity to have their
matters fairly heard.
RULE 2.3
Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment
(A) A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including
administrative duties, without bias or prejudice.
(B) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or
conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, and shall not
permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge's
direction and control to do so.
(C) A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain
from manifesting bias or prejudice, or engaging in harassment, against
parties, witnesses, lawyers, or others.
(D) The restrictions of paragraphs (B) and (C) do not preclude judges or
lawyers from making reference to factors that are relevant to an issue in a proceeding.
COMMENT
[1] A judge who manifests bias or prejudice in a proceeding impairs the
fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute.
[2] Examples of manifestations of bias or prejudice include but are not
limited to epithets; slurs; demeaning nicknames; negative stereotyping;
attempted humor based upon stereotypes; threatening, intimidating, or
hostile acts; suggestions of connections between race, ethnicity, or
nationality and crime; and irrelevant references to personal
characteristics. Even facial expressions and body language can convey to
parties and lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media, and others an
appearance of bias or prejudice. A judge must avoid conduct that may
reasonably be perceived as prejudiced or biased.
[3] Harassment, as referred to in paragraphs (B) and (C), is verbal or
physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward a
person on bases such as race, sex, gender, religion, national origin,
ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status,
socioeconomic status, or political affiliation.
[4] Sexual harassment includes but is not limited to sexual advances,
requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a
sexual nature that is unwelcome.
[5] "Bias or prejudice" does not include references to or distinctions
based upon race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age,
marital status, changes in marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, sexual
orientation, or social or economic status when these factors are
legitimately relevant to the advocacy or decision of the proceeding, or,
with regard to administrative matters, when these factors are legitimately
relevant to the issues involved.
RULE 2.4
External Influences on Judicial Conduct
(A) A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor, or fear of criticism.
(B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other
interests or relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment.
(C) A judge shall not convey or authorize others to convey the impression that
any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.
COMMENT
[1] Judges shall decide cases according to the law and facts, without
regard to whether particular laws or litigants are popular or unpopular
with the public, the media, government officials, or the judge's friends or family.
RULE 2.5
Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation
(A) A judge shall perform judicial and administrative duties, competently and
diligently.
(B) A judge shall cooperate with other judges and court officials in the
administration of court business.
COMMENT
[1] Competence in the performance of judicial duties requires the legal
knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary to
perform a judge's responsibilities of judicial office.
[2] In accordance with GR 29, a judge should seek the necessary docket
time, court staff, expertise, and resources to discharge all adjudicative
and administrative responsibilities.
[3] Prompt disposition of the court's business requires a judge to devote
adequate time to judicial duties, to be punctual in attending court and
expeditious in determining matters under submission, and to take reasonable
measures to ensure that court officials, litigants, and their lawyers
cooperate with the judge to that end.
[4] In disposing of matters promptly and efficiently, a judge must
demonstrate due regard for the rights of parties to be heard and to have
issues resolved without unnecessary cost or delay. A judge should monitor
and supervise cases in ways that reduce or eliminate dilatory practices,
avoidable delays, and unnecessary costs.
RULE 2.6
Ensuring the Right to Be Heard
(A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a
proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.*
(B) Consistent with controlling court rules, a judge may encourage parties to
a proceeding and their lawyers to settle matters in dispute but should not
act in a manner that coerces any party into settlement.
COMMENT
[1] The right to be heard is an essential component of a fair and
impartial system of justice. Substantive rights of litigants can be
protected only if procedures protecting the right to be heard are observed.
[2] The judge plays an important role in overseeing the settlement of
disputes, but should be careful that efforts to further settlement do not
undermine any party's right to be heard according to law. The judge should
keep in mind the effect that the judge's participation in settlement
discussions may have, not only on the judge's own views of the case, but
also on the perceptions of the lawyers and the parties if the case remains
with the judge after settlement efforts are unsuccessful. Among the
factors that a judge should consider when deciding upon an appropriate
settlement practice for a case are (1) whether the parties have requested
or voluntarily consented to a certain level of participation by the judge
in settlement discussions, (2) whether the parties and their counsel are
relatively sophisticated in legal matters, (3) whether the case will be
tried by the judge or a jury, (4) whether the parties participate with
their counsel in settlement discussions, (5) whether any parties are
unrepresented by counsel, and (6) whether the matter is civil or criminal.
[3] Judges must be mindful of the effect settlement discussions can have,
not only on their objectivity and impartiality, but also on the appearance
of their objectivity and impartiality. Despite a judge's best efforts,
there may be instances when information obtained during settlement
discussions could influence a judge's decision making during trial, and, in
such instances, the judge should consider whether disqualification or
recusal may be appropriate. See RULE 2.11(A)(1).
RULE 2.7
Responsibility to Decide
A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge, except when
disqualification or recusal is required by RULE 2.11 or other law.*
COMMENT
[1] Judges must be available to decide the matters that come before the
court. Although there are times when disqualification is necessary to
protect the rights of litigants and preserve public confidence in the
independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, judges must be
available to decide matters that come before the courts. Unwarranted
disqualification may bring public disfavor to the court and to the judge
personally. The dignity of the court, the judge's respect for fulfillment
of judicial duties, and a proper concern for the burdens that may be
imposed upon the judge's colleagues require that a judge not use
disqualification or recusal to avoid cases that present difficult,
controversial, or unpopular issues.
RULE 2.8
Decorum, Demeanor, and Communication with Jurors
(A) A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the court.
(B) A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors,
witnesses, lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others with whom the
judge deals in an official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of
lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's
direction and control.
(C) A judge shall not commend or criticize jurors for their verdict other than
in a court order or opinion in a proceeding.
COMMENT
[1] The duty to hear all proceedings with patience and courtesy is not
inconsistent with the duty imposed in RULE 2.5 to dispose promptly of the
business of the court. Judges can be efficient and businesslike while
being patient and deliberate.
[2] Commending or criticizing jurors for their verdict may imply a
judicial expectation in future cases and may impair a juror's ability to be
fair and impartial in a subsequent case.
[3] A judge who is not otherwise prohibited by law from doing so may meet
with jurors who choose to remain after trial but should be careful not to
discuss the merits of the case.
RULE 2.9
Ex Parte Communications
(A) A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications,
or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of
the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending* or impending matter,*
before that judge's court except as follows:
(1) When circumstances require it, ex parte communication for
scheduling, administrative, or emergency purposes, which does not address
substantive matters, or ex parte communication pursuant to a written
policy or rule for a mental health court, drug court, or other
therapeutic court, is permitted, provided:
(a) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural,
substantive, or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication; and
(b) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of the
substance of the ex parte communication, and gives the parties an
opportunity to respond.
(2) A judge may obtain the written advice of a disinterested expert on the
law applicable to a proceeding before the judge, if the judge affords the
parties a reasonable opportunity to object and respond to the advice received.
(3) A judge may consult with court staff and court officials whose
functions are to aid the judge in carrying out the judge's adjudicative
responsibilities, or with other judges, provided the judge makes
reasonable efforts to avoid receiving factual information that is not
part of the record, and does not abrogate the responsibility personally
to decide the matter.
(4) A judge may, with the consent of the parties, confer separately with
the parties and their lawyers in an effort to settle matters pending
before the judge.
(5) A judge may initiate, permit, or consider any ex parte communication
when expressly authorized by law* to do so.
(B) If a judge inadvertently receives an unauthorized ex parte communication
bearing upon the substance of a matter, the judge shall make provision
promptly to notify the parties of the substance of the communication and
provide the parties with an opportunity to respond.
(C) A judge shall not investigate facts in a matter pending or impending
before that judge, and shall consider only the evidence presented and any
facts that may properly be judicially noticed, unless expressly authorized by law.
(D) A judge shall make reasonable efforts, including providing appropriate
supervision, to ensure that this Rule is not violated by court staff, court
officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control.
COMMENT
[1] To the extent reasonably possible, all parties or their lawyers shall
be included in communications with a judge.
[2] Whenever the presence of a party or notice to a party is required by
this Rule, it is the party's lawyer, or if the party is unrepresented, the
party, who is to be present or to whom notice is to be given.
[3] The proscription against communications concerning a proceeding
includes communications with lawyers, law teachers, and other persons who
are not participants in the proceeding, except to the limited extent
permitted by this Rule.
[4] A judge may initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications
expressly authorized by law, such as when serving on therapeutic or problem-
solving courts, mental health courts, or drug courts. In this capacity,
judges may assume a more interactive role with parties, treatment
providers, probation officers, social workers, and others.
[5] A judge may consult with other judges on pending matters, but must
avoid ex parte discussions of a case with judges who have previously been
disqualified from hearing the matter, and with judges who have appellate
jurisdiction over the matter.
[6] The prohibition against a judge investigating the facts in a matter
extends to information available in all mediums, including electronic.
[7] A judge may consult ethics advisory committees, outside counsel, or
legal experts concerning the judge's compliance with this Code. Such
consultations are not subject to the restrictions of paragraph (A)(2).
RULE 2.10
udicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases
(A) A judge shall not make any public statement that would reasonably be
expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending*
or impending* in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that would
reasonably be expected to substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.
(B) A judge shall not, in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that
are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments
that are inconsistent with the impartial* performance of the adjudicative
duties of judicial office.
(C) A judge shall require court staff, court officials, and others subject to
the judge's direction and control to refrain from making statements that
the judge would be prohibited from making by paragraphs (A) and (B).
(D) Notwithstanding the restrictions in paragraph (A), a judge may make public
statements in the course of official duties, may explain court procedures, and
may comment on any proceeding in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity.
(E) Subject to the requirements of paragraph (A), a judge may respond directly
or through a third party to allegations in the media or elsewhere
concerning the judge's conduct in a matter.
COMMENT
[1] This Rule's restrictions on judicial speech are essential to the
maintenance of the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.
[2] This Rule does not prohibit a judge from commenting on proceedings in
which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity. In cases in which the
judge is a litigant in an official capacity, such as a writ of mandamus,
the judge must not comment publicly.
[3] Depending upon the circumstances, the judge should consider whether it
may be preferable for a third party, rather than the judge, to respond or
issue statements in connection with allegations concerning the judge's
conduct in a matter.
[4] A judge should use caution in discussing the rationale for a decision
and limit such discussion to what is already public record or controlling law.
RULE 2.11
Disqualification
(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the
judge's impartiality* might reasonably be questioned, including but not
limited to the following circumstances:
(1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's
lawyer, or personal knowledge* of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.
(2) The judge knows* that the judge, the judge's spouse or domestic
partner,* or a person within the third degree of relationship* to either
of them, or the spouse or domestic partner of such a person is:
(a) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, general partner,
managing member, or trustee of a party;
(b) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(c) a person who has more than a de minimis* interest that could be
substantially affected by the proceeding; or
(d) likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(3) The judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary,* or the
judge's spouse, domestic partner, parent, or child, or any other member
of the judge's family residing in the judge's household,* has an economic
interest* in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding.
(4) [Reserved]
(5) The judge, while a judge or a judicial candidate,* has made a public
statement, other than in a court proceeding, judicial decision, or
opinion, that commits the judge to reach a particular result or rule in a
particular way in the proceeding or controversy.
(6) The judge:
(a) served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or was associated
with a lawyer who participated substantially as a lawyer or a material
witness in the matter during such association;
(b) served in governmental employment, and in such capacity participated
personally and substantially as a public official concerning the proceeding,
or has publicly expressed in such capacity an opinion concerning the merits
of the particular matter in controversy;
(c) was a material witness concerning the matter; or
(d) previously presided as a judge over the matter in another court.
(B) A judge shall keep informed about the judge's personal and fiduciary
economic interests, and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the
personal economic interests of the judge's spouse or domestic partner and
minor children residing in the judge's household.
(C) A judge disqualified by the terms of RULE 2.11(A)(2) or RULE 2.11(A)(3)
may, instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on the record the
basis of the disqualification. If, based on such disclosure, the parties
and lawyers, independently of the judge's participation, all agree in
writing or on the record that the judge's relationship is immaterial or
that the judge's economic interest is de minimis, the judge is no longer
disqualified, and may participate in the proceeding. When a party is not
immediately available, the judge may proceed on the assurance of the lawyer
that the party's consent will be subsequently given.
(D) A judge may disqualify himself or herself if the judge learns by means of
a timely motion by a party that an adverse party has provided financial
support for any of the judge's judicial election campaigns within the last
six years in an amount that causes the judge to conclude that his or her
impartiality might reasonably be questioned. In making this determination
the judge should consider:
(1) the total amount of financial support provided by the party relative
to the total amount of the financial support for the judge's election,
(2) the timing between the financial support and the pendency of the matter, and
(3) any additional circumstances pertaining to disqualification.
COMMENT
[1] Under this Rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge's
impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of
the specific provisions of paragraphs (A)(1) through (5) apply. In many
jurisdictions in Washington, the term "recusal" is used interchangeably
with the term "disqualification."
[2] A judge's obligation not to hear or decide matters in which
disqualification is required applies regardless of whether a motion to
disqualify is filed.
[3] The rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification. For
example, a judge might be required to participate in judicial review of a
judicial salary statute, or might be the only judge available in a matter
requiring immediate judicial action, such as a hearing on probable cause or
a temporary restraining order. In matters that require immediate action,
the judge must disclose on the record the basis for possible
disqualification and make reasonable efforts to transfer the matter to
another judge as soon as practicable.
[4] The fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law firm
with which a relative of the judge is affiliated does not itself disqualify
the judge. If, however, the judge's impartiality might reasonably be
questioned under paragraph (A), or the relative is known by the judge to
have an interest in the law firm that could be substantially affected by
the proceeding under paragraph (A)(2)(c), the judge's disqualification is required.
[5] A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge
believes the parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to
a possible motion for disqualification, even if the judge believes there is
no basis for disqualification.
[6] "Economic interest," as set forth in the Terminology section, means
ownership of more than a de minimis legal or equitable interest. Except
for situations in which a judge participates in the management of such a
legal or equitable interest, or the interest could be substantially
affected by the outcome of a proceeding before a judge, it does not include:
(1) an interest in the individual holdings within a mutual or common
investment fund;
(2) an interest in securities held by an educational, religious,
charitable, fraternal, or civic organization in which the judge or the
judge's spouse, domestic partner, parent, or child serves as a director,
officer, advisor, or other participant;
(3) a deposit in a financial institution or deposits or proprietary
interests the judge may maintain as a member of a mutual savings
association or credit union, or similar proprietary interests; or
(4) an interest in the issuer of government securities held by the judge.
[7] [Reserved]
[8] [Reserved]
RULE 2.12
Supervisory Duties
(A) A judge shall require court staff, court officials, and others subject to
the judge's direction and control to act with fidelity and in a diligent
manner consistent with the judge's obligations under this Code.
(B) A judge with supervisory authority for the performance of other judges
shall take reasonable measures to ensure that those judges properly
discharge their judicial responsibilities, including the prompt disposition
of matters before them.
COMMENT
[1] A judge is responsible for his or her own conduct and for the conduct
of others, such as staff, when those persons are acting at the judge's
direction or control. A judge may not direct court personnel to engage in
conduct on the judge's behalf or as the judge's representative when such
conduct would violate the Code if undertaken by the judge.
[2] Public confidence in the judicial system depends upon timely justice.
To promote the efficient administration of justice, a judge with
supervisory authority must take the steps needed to ensure that judges
under his or her supervision administer their workloads promptly.
RULE 2.13
Administrative Appointments
(A) In making administrative appointments, a judge:
(1) shall exercise the power of appointment impartially* and on the
basis of merit; and
(2) shall avoid nepotism and unnecessary appointments.
(B) A judge shall not appoint a lawyer to a position under circumstances
where it would be reasonably to be interpreted to be quid pro quo for
campaign contributions or other favors, unless:
(1) the position is substantially uncompensated;
(2) the lawyer has been selected in rotation from a list of qualified
and available lawyers compiled without regard to their having made
political contributions; or
(3) the judge or another presiding or administrative judge
affirmatively finds that no other lawyer is willing, competent, and able
to accept the position.
(C) A judge shall not approve compensation of appointees beyond the fair value
of services rendered.
COMMENT
[1] Appointees of a judge include assigned counsel, officials such as
referees, commissioners, special masters, receivers, and guardians, and
personnel such as clerks, secretaries, and bailiffs. Consent by the parties
to an appointment or an award of compensation does not relieve the judge of
the obligation prescribed by paragraph (A).
[2] Unless otherwise defined by law, nepotism is the appointment or hiring
of any relative within the third degree of relationship of either the judge
or the judge's spouse or domestic partner, or the spouse or domestic
partner of such relative.
RULE 2.14
Disability and Impairment
A judge having a reasonable belief that the performance of a lawyer or another
judge is impaired by drugs or alcohol, or by a mental, emotional, or physical
condition, shall take appropriate action, which may include a confidential
referral to a lawyer or judicial assistance program.
COMMENT
[1] "Appropriate action" means action intended and reasonably likely to
help the judge or lawyer in question address the problem and prevent harm to
the justice system. Depending upon the circumstances, appropriate action
may include but is not limited to speaking directly to the impaired person,
notifying an individual with supervisory responsibility over the impaired
person, or making a referral to an assistance program.
[2] Taking or initiating corrective action by way of referral to an
assistance program may satisfy a judge's responsibility under this Rule.
Assistance programs have many approaches for offering help to impaired
judges and lawyers, such as intervention, counseling, or referral to
appropriate health care professionals. Depending upon the gravity of the
conduct that has come to the judge's attention, however, the judge may be
required to take other action, such as reporting the impaired judge or
lawyer to the appropriate authority, agency, or body. See RULE 2.15.
RULE 2.15
Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct
(A) A judge having knowledge* that another judge has committed a violation
of this Code that raises a substantial question regarding the judge's
honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a judge in other respects should
inform the appropriate authority.*
(B) A judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of
the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question
regarding the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in
other respects should inform the appropriate authority.
(C) A judge who receives credible information indicating a substantial
likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of this Code should
take appropriate action.
(D) A judge who receives credible information indicating a substantial
likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of
Professional Conduct should take appropriate action.
COMMENT
[1] Judges are not required to report the misconduct of other judges or
lawyers. Self regulation of the legal and judicial professions, however,
creates an aspiration that judicial officers report misconduct to the
appropriate disciplinary authority when they know of a serious violation of
the Code of Judicial Conduct or the Rules of Professional Conduct. An
apparently isolated violation may indicate a pattern of misconduct that
only a disciplinary violation can uncover. Reporting a violation is
especially important where the victim is unlikely to discover the offense.
[2] While judges are not obliged to report every violation of the Code of
Judicial Conduct or the Rules of Professional Conduct, the failure to
report may undermine the public confidence in legal profession and the
judiciary. A measure of judgment is, therefore, required in deciding
whether to report a violation. The term "substantial" refers to the
seriousness of the possible offense and not the quantum of evidence of
which the judge is aware. A report should be made when a judge or lawyer's
conduct raises a serious question as to the honesty, trustworthiness or
fitness as a judge or lawyer.
[3] Appropriate action under sections (C) and (D) may include
communicating directly with the judge or lawyer who may have violated the
Code of Judicial Conduct or the Rules of Professional Conduct,
communicating with a supervising judge or reporting the suspected violation
to the appropriate authority or other authority or other agency or body.
[4] Information about a judge's or lawyer's conduct may be received by a
judge in the course of that judge's participation in an approved lawyers or
judges assistance program. In that circumstance there is no requirement or
aspiration of reporting (APR 19(b) and DRJ 14(e)).
RULE 2.16
Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities
(A) A judge shall cooperate and be candid and honest with judicial and lawyer
disciplinary agencies.
(B) A judge shall not retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a person
known* or suspected to have assisted or cooperated with an investigation of
a judge or a lawyer.
COMMENT
[1] Cooperation with investigations and proceedings of judicial and lawyer
disciplinary agencies, as required in paragraph (A), instills confidence in
judges' commitment to the integrity of the judicial system and the
protection of the public.
[Adopted September 9, 2010; effective January 1, 2011]
CANON 3
A JUDGE SHALL CONDUCT THE JUDGE'S PERSONAL AND EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO
MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH THE OBLIGATIONS OF JUDICIAL OFFICE.
RULE 3.1
Extrajudicial Activities in General
A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, except as prohibited by law* or
this Code. However, when engaging in extrajudicial activities, a judge shall not:
(A) participate in activities that will interfere with the proper performance
of the judge's judicial duties;
(B) participate in activities that will lead to frequent disqualification of
the judge; except activities expressly allowed under this code. This rule
does not apply to national or state military service;
(C) participate in activities that would undermine the judge's independence,*
integrity,* or impartiality;*
(D) engage in conduct that would be coercive; or
(E) make extrajudicial or personal use of court premises, staff, stationery,
equipment, or other resources, except for incidental use permitted by law.
COMMENT
[1] Participation in both law-related and other extrajudicial activities
helps integrate judges into their communities, and furthers public
understanding of and respect for courts and the judicial system. To the
extent that time permits, and judicial independence and impartiality are
not compromised, judges are encouraged to engage in appropriate
extrajudicial activities. Judges are uniquely qualified to engage in
extrajudicial activities that concern the law, the legal system, and the
administration of justice, such as by speaking, writing, teaching, or
participating in scholarly research projects. In addition, judges are
permitted and encouraged to engage in educational, religious, charitable,
fraternal or civic extrajudicial activities not conducted for profit, even
when the activities do not involve the law. See Rule 3.7.
[2] Discriminatory actions and expressions of bias or prejudice by a
judge, even outside the judge's official or judicial actions, are likely to
appear to a reasonable person to call into question the judge's integrity
and impartiality. Examples include jokes or other remarks that demean
individuals based upon their race, sex, gender, religion, national origin,
ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
For the same reason, a judge's extrajudicial activities must not be
conducted in connection or affiliation with an organization that practices
invidious discrimination.
[3] While engaged in permitted extrajudicial activities, judges must not
coerce others or take action that would reasonably be perceived as
coercive. For example, depending upon the circumstances, a judge's
solicitation of contributions or memberships for an organization, even as
permitted by Rule 3.7(A), might create the risk that the person solicited
would feel obligated to respond favorably, or would do so to curry favor
with the judge.
[4] Before speaking or writing about social or political issues, judges
should consider the impact of their statements under Canon 3.
RULE 3.2
Appearances before Governmental Bodies and Consultation with Government Officials
A judge shall not appear voluntarily at a public hearing before, or otherwise
consult with, an executive or a legislative body or official, except:
(A) in connection with matters concerning the law, the legal system, or the
administration of justice;
(B) in connection with matters about which the judge acquired knowledge or
expertise in the course of the judge's judicial duties; or
(C) when the judge is acting in a matter involving the judge's, the judge's
marital community's, or the judge's domestic partnership's legal or
economic interests, or those of members of the judge's immediate family
residing in the judge's household, or when the judge is acting in a
fiduciary* capacity. In engaging in such activities, however, judges must
exercise caution to avoid abusing the prestige of judicial office.
COMMENT
[1] Judges possess special expertise in matters of law, the legal system,
and the administration of justice, and may properly share that expertise
with governmental bodies and executive or legislative branch officials.
[2] In appearing before governmental bodies or consulting with government
officials, judges must be mindful that they remain subject to other
provisions of this Code, such as Rule 1.3, prohibiting judges from using
the prestige of office to advance their own or others' interests, Rule
2.10, governing public comment on pending and impending matters, and Rule
3.1(C), prohibiting judges from engaging in extrajudicial activities that
would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge's independence,
integrity, or impartiality.
RULE 3.3
Acting as a Character Witness
A judge shall not act as a character witness in a judicial, administrative, or
other adjudicatory proceeding or otherwise vouch for the character of a person
in a legal proceeding, except when duly summoned.
COMMENT
[1] A judge who, without being subpoenaed, acts as a character witness
abuses the prestige of judicial office to advance the interests of another.
See Rule 1.3. Except in unusual circumstances where the demands of justice
require, a judge should discourage a party from requiring the judge to act
as a character witness.
[2] This rule does not prohibit judges from writing letters of recommendation
in non-adjudicative proceedings pursuant to Rule 1.3, comments [2] and [3].
RULE 3.4
Appointments to Governmental Positions
A judge shall not accept appointment to a governmental committee, board,
commission, or other governmental position, unless it is one that concerns the
law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. A judge may represent
his or her country, state, or locality on ceremonial occasions or in connection
with historical, educational, or cultural activities.
COMMENT
[1] Rule 3.4 implicitly acknowledges the value of judges accepting
appointments to entities that concern the law, the legal system, or the
administration of justice. Even in such instances, however, a judge should
assess the appropriateness of accepting an appointment, paying particular
attention to the subject matter of the appointment and the availability and
allocation of judicial resources, including the judge's time commitments,
and giving due regard to the requirements of the independence and
impartiality of the judiciary.
RULE 3.5
Use of Nonpublic Information
A judge shall not intentionally disclose or use nonpublic information* acquired
in a judicial capacity for any purpose unrelated to the judge's judicial duties.
COMMENT
[1] This rule is not intended to affect a judge's ability to act on
information as necessary to protect the health or safety of any individual
if consistent with other provisions of this Code and/or law.
RULE 3.6
Affiliation with Discriminatory Organizations
(A) A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices
invidious discrimination on the bases of race, sex, gender, religion,
national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or other classification
protected by law.
(B) A judge shall not use the benefits or facilities of an organization if the
judge knows* or should know that the organization practices invidious
discrimination on one or more of the bases identified in paragraph (A). A
judge's attendance at an event in a facility of an organization that the
judge is not permitted to join is not a violation of this Rule when the
judge's attendance is an isolated event that could not reasonably be
perceived as an endorsement of the organization's practices.
COMMENT
[1] A judge's public manifestation of approval of invidious discrimination
on any basis gives rise to the appearance of impropriety and diminishes
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. A
judge's membership in an organization that practices invidious
discrimination creates the perception that the judge's impartiality is
impaired.
[2] Whether an organization practices invidious discrimination is a
complex question to which judges should be attentive at all times, given
the prevailing state and federal law. The answer cannot be determined from
a mere examination of an organization's current membership rolls, but
rather, depends on how the organization selects members, as well as other
relevant factors, such as the organization's purposes or activities, and
whether the organization is dedicated to the preservation or religious,
ethnic, or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members.
[3] If a judge learns that an organization to which the judge belongs
engages in invidious discrimination, the judge must resign immediately from
the organization.
[4] A judge's membership in a religious organization as a lawful exercise
of the freedom of religion is not a violation of this Rule.
RULE 3.7
Participation in Educational, Religious, Charitable, Fraternal, or Civic
Organizations and Activities
Subject to the requirements of Rule 3.1, a judge may participate in activities
sponsored by organizations or governmental entities concerned with the law, the
legal system, or the administration of justice, and those sponsored by or on
behalf of educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organizations
not conducted for profit, including but not limited to the following
activities:
(A) assisting such an organization or entity in planning related to
fundraising, and participating in the management and investment of the
organization's or entity's funds, or volunteering services or goods at
fundraising events as long as the situation could not reasonably be deemed
coercive;
(B) soliciting* contributions* for such an organization or entity, but only
from members of the judge's family,* or from judges over whom the judge
does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority;
(C) appearing or speaking at, receiving an award or other recognition at,
being featured on the program of, and permitting his or her title to be
used in connection with an event of such an organization or entity, but if
the event serves a fundraising purpose, the judge may do so only if the
event concerns the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice;
(D) serving as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of such an
organization or entity, unless it is likely that the organization or
entity:
(1) will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the
judge; or
(2) will frequently be engaged in adversary proceedings in the court of
which the judge is a member, or in any court subject to the appellate
jurisdiction of the court of which the judge is a member.
COMMENT
[1] The activities permitted by Rule 3.7 generally include those sponsored
by or undertaken on behalf of public or private not-for-profit educational
institutions, and other not-for-profit organizations, including law-
related, charitable, and other organizations.
[2] Even for law-related organizations, a judge should consider whether
the membership and purposes of the organization, or the nature of the
judge's participation in or association with the organization, would
conflict with the judge's obligation to refrain from activities that
reflect adversely upon a judge's independence, integrity, and impartiality.
[3] Mere attendance at an event, whether or not the event serves a
fundraising purpose, does not constitute a violation of paragraph (C). It
is also generally permissible for a judge to serve as an usher or a food
server or preparer, or to perform similar functions, at fundraising events
sponsored by educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic
organizations. Such activities are not solicitation and do not present an
element of coercion or abuse the prestige of judicial office.
[4] Identification of a judge's position in educational, religious,
charitable, fraternal, or civic organizations on letterhead used for
fundraising or membership solicitation does not violate this Rule. The
letterhead may list the judge's title or judicial office if comparable
designations are used for other persons.
[5] In addition to appointing lawyers to serve as counsel for indigent
parties in individual cases, a judge may promote broader access to justice
by encouraging lawyers to participate in pro bono legal services, if in
doing so the judge does not employ coercion, or abuse the prestige of
judicial office. Such encouragement may take many forms, including
providing lists of available programs, training lawyers to do pro bono
legal work, and participating in events recognizing lawyers who have done
pro bono work.
[6] A judge may not directly solicit funds, except as permitted under Rule
3.7(B), however a judge may assist a member of the judge's family in their
charitable fundraising activities if the procedures employed are not
coercive and the sum is de minimis.
[7] [Reserved.]
[8] A judge may provide leadership in identifying and addressing issues
involving equal access to the justice system; developing public education
programs; engaging in activities to promote the fair administration of
justice; and convening, participating or assisting in advisory committees
and community collaborations devoted to the improvement of the law, the
legal system, the provision of services, or the administration of justice.
[9] A judge may endorse or participate in projects and programs directly
related to the law, the legal system, the administration of justice, and
the provision of services to those coming before the courts, and may
actively support the need for funding of such projects and programs.
RULE 3.8
Appointments to Fiduciary Positions
(A) A judge shall not accept appointment to serve in a fiduciary* position,
such as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, attorney in fact, or
other personal representative, except for the estate, trust, or person of a
member of the judge's family,* and then only if such service will not
interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.
(B) A judge shall not serve in a fiduciary position if the judge as fiduciary
will likely be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the
judge, or if the estate, trust, or ward becomes involved in adversary
proceedings in the court on which the judge serves, or one under its
appellate jurisdiction.
(C) A judge acting in a fiduciary capacity shall be subject to the same
restrictions on engaging in financial activities that apply to a judge
personally.
(D) If a person who is serving in a fiduciary position becomes a judge, he or
she must comply with this Rule as soon as reasonably practicable, but in no
event later than one year after becoming a judge.
COMMENT
[1] A judge should recognize that other restrictions imposed by this Code
may conflict with a judge's obligations as a fiduciary; in such
circumstances, a judge should resign as fiduciary. For example, serving as
a fiduciary might require frequent disqualification of a judge under Rule
2.11 because a judge is deemed to have an economic interest in shares of
stock held by a trust if the amount of stock held is more than de minimis.
RULE 3.9
Service as Arbitrator or Mediator
A judge shall not act as an arbitrator or a mediator or perform other judicial
functions in a private capacity unless authorized by law.*
COMMENT
[1] This Rule does not prohibit a judge from participating in arbitration,
mediation, or settlement conferences performed as part of assigned judicial
duties. Rendering dispute resolution services apart from those duties,
whether or not for economic gain, is prohibited unless it is authorized by
law.
[2] Retired, part-time, or pro tempore judges may be exempt from this
section. (See Application)
RULE 3.10
Practice of Law
(A) A judge shall not practice law. A judge may act pro se or on behalf of
his or her marital community or domestic partnership and may, without
compensation, give legal advice to and draft or review documents for a
member of the judge's family,* but is prohibited from serving as the family
member's lawyer in any adjudicative forum.
(B) This rule does not prevent the practice of law pursuant to national or
state military service.
COMMENT
[1] A judge may act pro se or on behalf of his or her marital community or
domestic partnership in all legal matters, including matters involving
litigation and matters involving appearances before or other dealings with
governmental bodies. A judge must not use the prestige of office to
advance the judge's personal or family interests. See Rule 1.3.
RULE 3.11
Financial, Business, or Remunerative Activities
(A) A judge may hold and manage investments of the judge and members of the
judge's family.*
(B) A judge shall not serve as an officer, director, manager, general partner,
advisor, or employee of any business entity except that a judge may manage
or participate in:
(1) a business closely held by the judge or members of the judge's family; or
(2) a business entity primarily engaged in investment of the financial
resources of the judge or members of the judge's family.
(C) A judge shall not engage in financial activities permitted under
paragraphs (A) and (B) if they will:
(1) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties;
(2) lead to frequent disqualification of the judge;
(3) involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing business
relationships with lawyers or other persons likely to come before the
court on which the judge serves; or
(4) result in violation of other provisions of this Code.
(D) As soon as practicable without serious financial detriment, the judge must
divest himself or herself of investments and other financial interests that
might require frequent disqualification or otherwise violate this Rule.
COMMENT
[1] Judges are generally permitted to engage in financial activities,
subject to the requirements of this Rule and other provisions of this Code.
For example, it would be improper for a judge to spend so much time on
business activities that it interferes with the performance of judicial
duties. See Rule 2.1. Similarly, it would be improper for a judge to use
his or her official title or appear in judicial robes in business
advertising, or to conduct his or her business or financial affairs in such
a way that disqualification is frequently required. See Rules 1.3 and
2.11.
[2] There is a limit of not more than one (1) year allowed to comply with
Rule 3.11(D). (See Application Part IV)
RULE 3.12
Compensation for Extrajudicial Activities
A judge may accept reasonable compensation for extrajudicial activities
permitted by this Code or other law* unless such acceptance would appear to a
reasonable person to undermine the judge's independence,* integrity,* or impartiality.*
COMMENT
[1] A judge is permitted to accept honoraria, stipends, fees, wages,
salaries, royalties, or other compensation for speaking, teaching, writing,
and other extrajudicial activities, provided the compensation is reasonable
and commensurate with the task performed. The judge should be mindful,
however, that judicial duties must take precedence over other activities.
See Rule 2.1.
[2] Compensation derived from extrajudicial activities may be subject to
public reporting. See Rule 3.15.
RULE 3.13
Acceptance and Reporting of Gifts, Loans, Bequests, Benefits, or Other Things of Value
(A) A judge shall not accept any gifts, loans, bequests, benefits, or
other things of value, if acceptance is prohibited by law* or would appear
to a reasonable person to undermine the judge's independence,* integrity,*
or impartiality.*
(B) Unless otherwise prohibited by law, or by paragraph (A), a judge may
accept the following:
(1) items with little intrinsic value, such as plaques, certificates,
trophies, and greeting cards;
(2) gifts, loans, bequests, benefits, or other things of value from
friends, relatives, or other persons, including lawyers, whose appearance
or interest in a proceeding pending* or impending* before the judge would
in any event require disqualification of the judge under Rule 2.11;
(3) ordinary social hospitality;
(4) commercial or financial opportunities and benefits, including
special pricing and discounts, and loans from lending institutions in
their regular course of business, if the same opportunities and benefits
or loans are made available on the same terms to similarly situated
persons who are not judges;
(5) rewards and prizes given to competitors or participants in random
drawings, contests, or other events that are open to persons who are not judges;
(6) scholarships, fellowships, and similar benefits or awards, if they
are available to similarly situated persons who are not judges, based
upon the same terms and criteria;
(7) books, magazines, journals, audiovisual materials, and other
resource materials supplied by publishers on a complimentary basis for
official use; or
(8) gifts, awards, or benefits associated with the business, profession,
or other separate activity of a spouse, a domestic partner,* or other
family member of a judge residing in the judge's household,* but that
incidentally benefit the judge.
(9) gifts incident to a public testimonial;
(10) invitations to the judge and the judge's spouse, domestic partner, or
guest to attend without charge:
(a) an event associated with a bar-related function or other
activity relating to the law, the legal system, or the administration
of justice; or
(b) an event associated with any of the judge's educational,
religious, charitable, fraternal or civic activities permitted by
this Code, if the same invitation is offered to nonjudges who are
engaged in similar ways in the activity as is the judge.
COMMENT
[1] Whenever a judge accepts a gift or other thing of value without paying
fair market value, there is a risk that the benefit might be viewed as
intended to influence the judge's decision in a case. Rule 3.13 imposes
restrictions upon the acceptance of such benefits. Acceptance of any gift
or thing of value may require reporting pursuant to Rule 3.15 and
Washington law.
[2] Gift-giving between friends and relatives is a common occurrence, and
ordinarily does not create an appearance of impropriety or cause reasonable
persons to believe that the judge's independence, integrity, or
impartiality has been compromised. In addition, when the appearance of
friends or relatives in a case would require the judge's disqualification
under Rule 2.11, there would be no opportunity for a gift to influence the
judge's decision making. Paragraph (B)(2) places no restrictions upon the
ability of a judge to accept gifts or other things of value from friends or
relatives under these circumstances.
[3] Businesses and financial institutions frequently make available
special pricing, discounts, and other benefits, either in connection with a
temporary promotion or for preferred customers, based upon longevity of the
relationship, volume of business transacted, and other factors. A judge
may freely accept such benefits if they are available to the general
public, or if the judge qualifies for the special price or discount
according to the same criteria as are applied to persons who are not
judges. As an example, loans provided at generally prevailing interest
rates are not gifts, but a judge could not accept a loan from a financial
institution at below-market interest rates unless the same rate was being
made available to the general public for a certain period of time or only
to borrowers with specified qualifications that the judge also possesses.
[4] Rule 3.13 applies only to acceptance of gifts or other things of value
by a judge. Nonetheless, if a gift or other benefit is given to the judge's
spouse, domestic partner, or member of the judge's family residing in the
judge's household, it may be viewed as an attempt to evade Rule 3.13 and
influence the judge indirectly. Where the gift or benefit is being made
primarily to such other persons, and the judge is merely an incidental
beneficiary, this concern is reduced. A judge should, however, remind
family and household members of the restrictions imposed upon judges, and
urge them to take these restrictions into account when making decisions
about accepting such gifts or benefits.
[5] Rule 3.13 does not apply to contributions to a judge's campaign for
judicial office. Such contributions are governed by other Rules of this
Code, including Rules 4.3 and 4.4.
RULE 3.14
Reimbursement of Expenses and Waivers of Fees or Charges
(A) Unless otherwise prohibited by Rules 3.1 and 3.13(A) or other law,* a
judge may accept reimbursement of necessary and reasonable expenses for
travel, food, lodging, or other incidental expenses, or a waiver or partial
waiver of fees or charges for registration, tuition, and similar items,
from sources other than the judge's employing entity, if the expenses or
charges are associated with the judge's participation in extrajudicial
activities permitted by this Code.
(B) Reimbursement of expenses for necessary travel, food, lodging, or other
incidental expenses shall be limited to the actual costs reasonably
incurred by the judge.
COMMENT
[1] Educational, civic, religious, fraternal, and charitable organizations
often sponsor meetings, seminars, symposia, dinners, awards ceremonies, and
similar events. Judges are encouraged to attend educational programs, as
both teachers and participants, in law-related and academic disciplines, in
furtherance of their duty to remain competent in the law. Participation in
a variety of other extrajudicial activity is also permitted and encouraged
by this Code.
[2] Not infrequently, sponsoring organizations invite certain judges to
attend seminars or other events on a fee-waived or partial-fee-waived
basis, and sometimes include reimbursement for necessary travel, food,
lodging, or other incidental expenses. A judge's decision whether to
accept reimbursement of expenses or a waiver or partial waiver of fees or
charges in connection with these or other extrajudicial activities must be
based upon an assessment of all the circumstances. The judge must
undertake a reasonable inquiry to obtain the information necessary to make
an informed judgment about whether acceptance would be consistent with the
requirements of this Code and Washington law.
[3] A judge must assure himself or herself that acceptance of
reimbursement or fee waivers would not appear to a reasonable person to
undermine the judge's independence, integrity, or impartiality. The
factors that a judge should consider when deciding whether to accept
reimbursement or a fee waiver for attendance at a particular activity include:
(a) whether the sponsor is an accredited educational institution or bar
association rather than a trade association or a for-profit entity;
(b) whether the funding comes largely from numerous contributors rather
than from a single entity and is earmarked for programs with specific content;
(c) whether the content is related or unrelated to the subject matter
of litigation pending or impending before the judge, or to matters that
are likely to come before the judge;
(d) whether the activity is primarily educational rather than
recreational, and whether the costs of the event are reasonable and
comparable to those associated with similar events sponsored by the
judiciary, bar associations, or similar groups;
(e) whether information concerning the activity and its funding
source(s) is available upon inquiry;
(f) whether the sponsor or source of funding is generally associated
with particular parties or interests currently appearing or likely to
appear in the judge's court, thus possibly requiring disqualification of
the judge under Rule 2.11;
(g) whether differing viewpoints are presented; and
(h) whether a broad range of judicial and nonjudicial participants are
invited, whether a large number of participants are invited, and whether
the program is designed specifically for judges.
RULE 3.15
Reporting Requirements
A judge shall make such financial disclosures as required by law.
[Adopted September 9, 2010; effective January 1, 2011]
CANON 4
A JUDGE OR CANDIDATE FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN POLITICAL OR
CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, OR
IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY.
RULE 4.1
Political and Campaign Activities of Judges and Judicial Candidates in General
(A) Except as permitted by law,* or by Rules 4.2 (Political and Campaign
Activities of Judicial Candidates in Public Elections), 4.3 (Activities of
Candidates for Appointive Judicial Office), and 4.4 (Campaign Committees),
a judge or a judicial candidate* shall not:
(1) act as a leader in, or hold an office in, a political organization;*
(2) make speeches on behalf of a political organization or nonjudicial candidate;
(3) publicly endorse or oppose a nonjudicial candidate for any public
office, except for participation in a precinct caucus limited to
selection of delegates to a nominating convention for the office of
President of the United States pursuant to (5) below.
(4) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution* to a
political organization or a nonjudicial candidate for public office;
(5) publicly identify himself or herself as a member or a candidate of a
political organization, except
(a) as required to vote, or
(b) for participation in a precinct caucus limited to selection of delegates
to a nominating convention for the office of President of the United States.
(6) [Reserved]
(7) personally solicit* or accept campaign contributions other than
through a campaign committee authorized by Rule 4.4, except for members
of the judge's family or individuals who have agreed to serve on the
campaign committee authorized by Rule 4.4 and subject to the
requirements for campaign committees in Rule 4.4(B).
(8) use or permit the use of campaign contributions for the private
benefit of the judge, the candidate, or others except as permitted by law;
(9) use court staff, facilities, or other court resources in a campaign
for judicial office except as permitted by law;
(10) knowingly,* or with reckless disregard for the truth, make any
false or misleading statement;
(11) make any statement that would reasonably be expected to affect the
outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending* or impending* in any court; or
(12) in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to
come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent
with the impartial* performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.
(B) A judge or judicial candidate shall take reasonable measures to ensure
that other persons do not undertake, on behalf of the judge or judicial
candidate, any activities prohibited under paragraph (A).
COMMENT
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
[1] Even when subject to public election, a judge plays a role different
from that of a legislator or executive branch official. Rather than making
decisions based upon the expressed views or preferences of the electorate,
a judge makes decisions based upon the law and the facts of every case.
Therefore, in furtherance of this interest, judges and judicial candidates
must, to the greatest extent possible, be free and appear to be free from
political influence and political pressure. This Canon imposes narrowly
tailored restrictions upon the political and campaign activities of all
judges and judicial candidates, taking into account the various methods of
selecting judges.
[2] When a person becomes a judicial candidate, this Canon becomes
applicable to his or her conduct.
PARTICIPATION IN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
[3] Public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the
judiciary is eroded if judges or judicial candidates are perceived to be
subject to political influence. Therefore, they are prohibited by
paragraph (A)(1) from assuming leadership roles in political organizations.
[4] Paragraphs (A)(2) and (A)(3) prohibit judges and judicial candidates from
making speeches on behalf of political organizations or publicly endorsing
or opposing candidates for nonjudicial public office, respectively, to
prevent them from abusing the prestige of judicial office to advance the
interests of others. See Rule 1.3. These Rules do not prohibit candidates
from campaigning on their own behalf, or from endorsing or opposing
candidates for judicial office. See Rule 4.2(B)(2).
[5] Although members of the families of judges and judicial candidates are
free to engage in their own political activity, including running for
public office, there is no "family exception" to the prohibition in
paragraph (A)(3) against a judge or judicial candidate publicly endorsing
nonjudicial candidates for public office. A judge or judicial candidate
must not become involved in, or publicly associated with, a family member's
political activity or campaign for public office. To avoid public
misunderstanding, judges and judicial candidates should take, and should
urge members of their families to take, reasonable steps to avoid any
implication that they are using the prestige of the their judicial office
to endorse any family member's candidacy or other political activity.
[6] Judges and judicial candidates retain the right to participate in the
political process as voters in both primary and general elections. For
purposes of this Canon, participation in a caucus-type election procedure
does not constitute public support for or endorsement of a political
organization or candidate, is not prohibited by paragraphs (A)(2) or (A)(3)
and is allowed by Paragraphs (A)(2) and (A)(5). Because Washington uses a
caucus system for selection of delegates to the nominating conventions of
the major political parties for the office of President of the United
States, precluding judges and judicial candidates from participating in
these caucuses would eliminate their ability to participate in the
selection process for Presidential nominations. Accordingly, Paragraph
(A)(3) and (5) allows judges and judicial candidates to participate in
precinct caucuses, limited to selection of delegates to a nominating
convention for the office of President of the United States. This narrowly
tailored exception from the general rule is provided for because of the
unique system used in Washington for nomination of Presidential candidates.
If a judge or a judicial candidate participates in a precinct caucus, such
person must limit participation to selection of delegates for various candidates.
STATEMENTS AND COMMENTS MADE DURING A CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE
[7] Judicial candidates must be scrupulously fair and accurate in all
statements made by them and by their campaign committees. Paragraph
(A)(10) obligates candidates and their committees to refrain from making
statements that are false or misleading, or that omit facts necessary to
make the communication considered as a whole not materially misleading.
[8] Judicial candidates are sometimes the subject of false, misleading, or
unfair allegations made by opposing candidates, third parties, or the
media. For example, false or misleading statements might be made regarding
the identity, present position, experience, qualifications, or judicial
rulings of a candidate. In other situations, false or misleading
allegations may be made that bear upon a candidate's integrity or fitness
for judicial office. As long as the candidate does not violate paragraphs
(A)(10), (A)(11), or (A)(12), the candidate may make a factually accurate
public response. In addition, when an independent third party has made
unwarranted attacks on a candidate's opponent, the candidate may disavow
the attacks, and request the third party to cease and desist.
[9] Subject to paragraph (A)(11), a judicial candidate is permitted to
respond directly to false, misleading, or unfair allegations made against
him or her during a campaign, although it is preferable for someone else to
respond if the allegations relate to a pending case.
[10] Paragraph (A)(11) prohibits judicial candidates from making comments
that might impair the fairness of pending or impending judicial
proceedings. This provision does not restrict arguments or statements to
the court or jury by a lawyer who is a judicial candidate, or rulings,
statements, or instructions by a judge that may appropriately affect the
outcome of a matter.
PLEDGES, PROMISES, OR COMMITMENTS INCONSISTENT WITH IMPARTIAL PERFORMANCE OF
THE ADJUDICATIVE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE
[11] The role of a judge is different from that of a legislator or
executive branch official, even when the judge is subject to public
election. Campaigns for judicial office must be conducted differently from
campaigns for other offices. The narrowly drafted restrictions upon
political and campaign activities of judicial candidates provided in Canon
4 allow candidates to conduct campaigns that provide voters with sufficient
information to permit them to distinguish between candidates and make
informed electoral choices.
[12] Paragraph (A)(12) makes applicable to both judges and judicial candidates
the prohibition that applies to judges in Rule 2.10(B), relating to
pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial
performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.
[13] The making of a pledge, promise, or commitment is not dependent upon,
or limited to, the use of any specific words or phrases; instead, the
totality of the statement must be examined to determine if a reasonable
person would believe that the candidate for judicial office has
specifically undertaken to reach a particular result. Pledges, promises,
or commitments must be contrasted with statements or announcements of
personal views on legal, political, or other issues, which are not
prohibited. When making such statements, a judge should acknowledge the
overarching judicial obligation to apply and uphold the law, without regard
to his or her personal views.
[14] A judicial candidate may make campaign promises related to judicial
organization, administration, and court management, such as a promise to
dispose of a backlog of cases, start court sessions on time, or avoid
favoritism in appointments and hiring. A candidate may also pledge to take
action outside the courtroom, such as working toward an improved jury
selection system, or advocating for more funds to improve the physical
plant and amenities of the courthouse.
[15] Judicial candidates may receive questionnaires or requests for
interviews from the media and from issue advocacy or other community
organizations that seek to learn their views on disputed or controversial
legal or political issues. Paragraph (A)(12) does not specifically address
judicial responses to such inquiries. Depending upon the wording and
format of such questionnaires, candidates' responses might be viewed as
pledges, promises, or commitments to perform the adjudicative duties of
office other than in an impartial way. To avoid violating paragraph
(A)(12), therefore, candidates who respond to media and other inquiries
should also give assurances that they will keep an open mind and will carry
out their adjudicative duties faithfully and impartially if elected.
Candidates who do respond to questionnaires should post the questionnaire
and their substantive answers so they are accessible to the general public.
Candidates who do not respond may state their reasons for not responding,
such as the danger that answering might be perceived by a reasonable person
as undermining a successful candidate's independence or impartiality, or
that it might lead to frequent disqualification. See Rule 2.11.
PERSONAL SOLICITATION OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS
[16] Judicial candidates should be particularly cautious in regard to
personal solicitation of campaign funds. This can be perceived as being
coercive and an abuse of judicial office. Accordingly, a general
prohibition on personal solicitation is retained with a narrowly tailored
exception contained in Paragraph (A)(7) for members of the judge's family
and those who have agreed to serve on the judge's campaign committee.
These types of individuals generally have a close personal relationship to
the judicial candidate and therefore the concerns of coercion or abuse of
judicial office are greatly diminished. Judicial candidates should not use
this limited exception as a basis for attempting to skirt the general
prohibition against solicitation of campaign contributions.
RULE 4.2
Political and Campaign Activities of Judicial Candidates in Public Elections
(A) A judicial candidate* in a nonpartisan, public election* shall:
(1) Act at all times in a manner consistent with the independence,*
integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary;
(2) comply with all applicable election, election campaign, and election
campaign fund-raising laws and regulations of this jurisdiction;
(3) review and approve the content of all campaign statements and
materials produced by the candidate or his or her campaign committee, as
authorized by Rule 4.4, before their dissemination; and
(4) take reasonable measures to ensure that other persons do not undertake
on behalf of the candidate activities, other than those described in
Rule 4.4, that the candidate is prohibited from doing by Rule 4.1.
(B) A candidate for elective judicial office may:
(1) establish a campaign committee pursuant to the provisions of Rule 4.4;
(2) speak on behalf of his or her candidacy through any medium, including
but not limited to advertisements, websites, or other campaign literature;
(3) seek, accept, or use endorsements from any person or organization.
COMMENT
[1] Paragraphs (B) permits judicial candidates in public elections to engage in
some political and campaign activities otherwise prohibited by Rule 4.1.
[2] Despite paragraph (B), judicial candidates for public election remain
subject to many of the provisions of Rule 4.1. For example, a candidate
continues to be prohibited from soliciting funds for a political
organization, knowingly making false or misleading statements during a
campaign, or making certain promises, pledges, or commitments related to
future adjudicative duties. See Rule 4.1(A), paragraphs (4), (10), and (12).
[3] Judicial candidates are permitted to attend or purchase tickets for
dinners and other events sponsored by political organizations on behalf of
their own candidacy or that of another judicial candidate.
[4] In endorsing or opposing another candidate for judicial office, a
judicial candidate must abide by the same rules governing campaign conduct
and speech as apply to the candidate's own campaign.
[5] Although judicial candidates in nonpartisan public elections are
prohibited from running on a ticket or slate associated with a political
organization, they may group themselves into slates or other alliances to
conduct their campaigns more effectively.
RULE 4.3
Activities of Candidates for Appointive Judicial Office
A candidate for appointment to judicial office may:
(A) communicate with the appointing or confirming authority, including any
selection, screening, or nominating commission or similar agency; and
(B) seek endorsements for the appointment from any person or organization.
COMMENT
[1] When seeking support or endorsement, or when communicating directly
with an appointing or confirming authority, a candidate for appointive
judicial office must not make any pledges, promises, or commitments that
are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties
of the office. See Rule 4.1(A)(12).
RULE 4.4
Campaign Committees
(A) A judicial candidate* subject to public election* may establish a campaign
committee to manage and conduct a campaign for the candidate, subject to
the provisions of this Code. The candidate is responsible for ensuring
that his or her campaign committee complies with applicable provisions of
this Code and other applicable law.*
(B) A judicial candidate subject to public election shall direct his or her
campaign committee:
(1) to solicit and accept only such campaign contributions* as are
reasonable, in any event not to exceed, in the aggregate amount allowed
as provided for by law;
(2) not to solicit contributions for a candidate's current campaign more
than 120 days before the date when filing for that office is first
permitted and may accept contributions after the election only as
permitted by law; and
(3) to comply with all applicable statutory requirements for disclosure
and divestiture of campaign contributions, and to file with the Public
Disclosure Commission all reports as required by law.
COMMENT
[1] Judicial candidates are generally prohibited from personally soliciting
campaign contributions or personally accepting campaign contributions. See
Rule 4.1(A)(7). This Rule recognizes that judicial candidates must raise
campaign funds to support their candidacies, and permits candidates, other
than candidates for appointive judicial office, to establish campaign
committees to solicit and accept reasonable financial contributions or in-
kind contributions.
[2] Campaign committees may solicit and accept campaign contributions, manage
the expenditure of campaign funds, and generally conduct campaigns.
Candidates are responsible for compliance with the requirements of election
law and other applicable law, and for the activities of their campaign committees.
RULE 4.5
Activities of Judges Who Become Candidates for Nonjudicial Office
(A) Upon becoming a candidate for a nonjudicial elective office, a judge shall
resign from judicial office, unless permitted by law* to continue to hold
judicial office.
(B) Upon becoming a candidate for a nonjudicial appointive office, a judge is
not required to resign from judicial office, provided that the judge
complies with the other provisions of this Code.
COMMENT
[1] In campaigns for nonjudicial elective public office, candidates may
make pledges, promises, or commitments related to positions they would take
and ways they would act if elected to office. Although appropriate in
nonjudicial campaigns, this manner of campaigning is inconsistent with the
role of a judge, who must remain fair and impartial to all who come before
him or her. The potential for misuse of the judicial office, and the
political promises that the judge would be compelled to make in the course
of campaigning for nonjudicial elective office, together dictate that a
judge who wishes to run for such an office must resign upon becoming a candidate.
[2] The "resign to run" rule set forth in paragraph (A) ensures that a
judge cannot use the judicial office to promote his or her candidacy, and
prevents post-campaign retaliation from the judge in the event the judge is
defeated in the election. When a judge is seeking appointive nonjudicial
office, however, the dangers are not sufficient to warrant imposing the
"resign to run" rule.
[Adopted September 9, 2010; effective January 1, 2011]
|
|
