IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

AF 08-0203 

_________________ 

IN THE MATTER OF THE MONTANA 

CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT. O R D E R 

_________________ 

On April 23, 2008, this Court issued an Order circulating for comment by the 

members of the Bench and Bar the proposed 2008 Montana Code of Judicial Conduct. In 

the Order, we set a 60-day time limit for comments, which limit would expire on June 23, 

2008. Having now learned that there was some delay before the proposed Code was 

electronically published on the website of the judicial branch and the website of the State 

Bar of Montana, we deem it appropriate to extend the comment period. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the comment period with respect to the proposed 

Montana Code of Judicial Conduct shall be extended through and including Friday, July 

11, 2008. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order be circulated electronically by the 

office of the Clerk of this Court to all district court judges in the state of Montana, and to 

all judges and justices of the courts of limited jurisdiction. The Clerk shall mail a hard 

copy of this Order to those judges or justices of the courts of limited jurisdiction who do 

not have the capability to receive electronic submissions. In addition, a copy of this 

Order shall be electronically published on the website of the judicial branch, 

http://www.courts/mt.gov, and on the website of the State Bar of Montana. 

 1 
DATED this 21st day of May, 2008. 

 /S/ KARLA M. GRAY 

 /S/ PATRICIA COTTER 

 /S/ JAMES C. NELSON 

 /S/ JOHN WARNER 

 /S/ BRIAN MORRIS 

/ S/ JIM RICE 

 2 
i

PROPOSED 2008 MONTANA CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

FEBRUARY 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREAMBLE..............................................................................................................................1

SCOPE.......................................................................................................................................2

TERMINOLOGY .....................................................................................................................3

APPLICATION.........................................................................................................................5

CANON I

A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTERGRITY, 

AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY 

AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.

RULE 1.1 Compliance with the Law...........................................................................................7

RULE 1.2 Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary .......................................................................7

RULE 1.3 Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office ......................................................8

CANON 2 

A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY,

COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY.

RULE 2.1 Giving Precedence to the Duties of Judicial Office .....................................................9

RULE 2.2 Impartiality and Fairness............................................................................................9

RULE 2.3 Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment...............................................................................10

RULE 2.4 External Influences on Judicial Conduct...................................................................11

RULE 2.5 Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation .................................................................11

RULE 2.6 Ensuring the Right to Be Heard................................................................................12

RULE 2.7 Responsibility to Decide...........................................................................................12

RULE 2.8 Decorum, Demeanor, and Communication with Jurors.............................................13

RULE 2.9 Ex Parte Communications ........................................................................................13

RULE 2.10 Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases.............................................15

RULE 2.11 Disqualification......................................................................................................16

RULE 2.12 Supervisory Duties.................................................................................................18

RULE 2.13 Administrative Appointments.................................................................................19

RULE 2.14 Disability and Impairment ......................................................................................19

RULE 2.15 Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct .....................................................20

RULE 2.16 Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities..............................................................21

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. 
ii

RULE 3.1 Extrajudicial Activities in General............................................................................22

RULE 3.2 Appearances before Governmental Bodies and Consultation with Government

Officials....................................................................................................................................23

RULE 3.3 Testifying as a Character Witness.............................................................................24

RULE 3.4 Appointments to Governmental Positions.................................................................24

RULE 3.5 Use of Nonpublic Information..................................................................................24

RULE 3.6 Affiliation with Discriminatory Organizations..........................................................25

RULE 3.7 Participation in Educational, Religious, Charitable, Fraternal, or Civic 

Organizations and Activities .....................................................................................................26

RULE 3.8 Appointments to Fiduciary Positions........................................................................28

RULE 3.9 Service as Arbitrator or Mediator .............................................................................28

RULE 3.10 Practice of Law ......................................................................................................29

RULE 3.11 Financial, Business, or Remunerative Activities .....................................................29

RULE 3.12 Compensation for Extrajudicial Activities ..............................................................30

RULE 3.13 Acceptance and Reporting of Gifts, Loans, Bequests, Benefits, or Other 

Things of Value ........................................................................................................................30

RULE 3.14 Reimbursement of Expenses and Waivers of Fees or Charges.................................32

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.......34

RULE 4.2 Political and Campaign Activities of Judicial Candidates in Public Elections............37

RULE 4.3 Activities of Candidates for Appointive Judicial Office ............................................39

RULE 4.4 Campaign Committees .............................................................................................39
1

PROPOSED 2008 MONTANA CODE OF

JUDICIAL CONDUCT

FEBRUARY 2008

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 Model Code of Judicial Conduct establishes standards for the ethical conduct of judges 

and judicial candidates. It is not intended as an exhaustive guide for the conduct of judges and 

judicial candidates, who are governed in their judicial and personal conduct by general ethical 

standards as well as by the Code. 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 disciplinary agencies.
2

SCOPE

[1] The Model 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. 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 to change a judge’s decision, to seek collateral remedies against each 

other, or to obtain tactical advantages in proceedings before a court.

[2] The Canons state overarching principles of judicial ethics that all judges must observe. 

Although a judge may be disciplined only for violating a Rule, the Canons provide important 

guidance in interpreting the Rules. Where a Rule contains a permissive term, such as “may” or 

“should,” the conduct being addressed is committed to the personal and professional discretion 

of the judge or candidate in question, and no disciplinary action should be taken for action or 

inaction within the bounds of such discretion.

[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 Model 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. Whether discipline should be 

imposed should be determined through a reasonable and reasoned application of the Rules, and 

should depend upon factors such as the seriousness of the transgression, the facts and 

circumstances that existed at the time of the transgression, 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. 
3

TERMINOLOGY

The first time any term listed below is used in any given Rule in its defined sense, it is followed 

by an asterisk (*). 

“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 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, 

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. 

“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.
4

“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.

“Independent candidate” means a candidate for a non-judicial public office who is not a 

member or representative of a political organization. 

“Integrity” means probity, fairness, honesty, uprightness, and soundness of character. See 

Canon 1 and Rule 1.2. 

“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, 2.15, 

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, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.4.

“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 includes any information regarding rulings or decisions the court is inclined to or 

intends to make, and any communications shared among judges during the decision-making 

process. It may also include, but is not limited to, information that is sealed by statute or court 
5

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. 

“Partisan candidate” means a candidate for public office who seeks election as a member of or 

representing a political organization.

“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. 

“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. 

APPLICATION

The Application section establishes when the various Rules apply to a judge or judicial 

candidate.

I. APPLICABILITY OF THIS CODE

(A) The provisions of this Code apply to Justices of the Supreme Court, District Court Judges, 

the Chief Water Judge, the Workers Compensation Court Judge, Justices of the Peace, Municipal 

Court Judges, City Court Judges and judges of courts of limited jurisdiction created by the 

Legislature.

(B) The provisions of this Code do not apply to special masters, referees, administrative law 

judges, or persons appointed to perform judicial or quasijudicial functions.

II. FULL-TIME JUDGE

(A) Justices of the Supreme Court, District Court Judges, the Chief Water Judge and the Workers 

Compensation Court Judge are full-time judges. Justices of the Peace, Municipal Court Judges, 
6

City Court Judges and judges of courts of limited jurisdiction created by the Legislature who are 

paid for and normally work 40 hours a week are full-time judges.

(B) A full-time judge shall not practice law or act as an attorney or lawyer in any proceeding 

except as permitted by law or by this Code. A full-time judge must comply with the provisions 

of this Code.

III. PART-TIME JUDGE

(A) A judge who is not a full-time judge or a judge pro tempore is a part-time judge.

(B) A part-time judge must comply with this Code.

IV. JUDGE PRO TEMPORE

(A) A judge pro tempore is a person who, pursuant to the law, is called to serve temporarily as a 

judge. As permitted by law, a judge pro tempore may be a full-time judge, a part-time judge, a 

retired judge or a lawyer or person who is not a lawyer.

(B) A judge pro tempore who is a full-time judge or a part-time judge must comply with this 

Code as set forth in II and III above, respectively.

(C) While presiding over any stage of a pending case under temporary appointment, a judge pro 

tempore who is not a full-time judge or a part-time judge must comply with this Code except for

Rules 3.4, 3.7, 3.9, and 3.11(B).

V. EFFECTIVE DATE—COMPLIANCE

(A) The provisions of this Code are effective on the date specified by the Supreme Court.

(B) A person to whom this Code becomes applicable shall comply immediately with its 

provisions, unless otherwise provided in this Code.
7

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. 

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 and conduct that creates the 

appearance of impropriety. 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 or appears to compromise the independence, integrity, and 

impartiality of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary. Because it is not 

practicable to list all such conduct, the Rule is necessarily cast in general terms.

[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.
8

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.
9

CANON 2

A JUDGE SHALL 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 

self-represented litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly heard.
10

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, including but not limited to bias, prejudice, or 

harassment based upon race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, 

sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, 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, based upon attributes including 

but not limited to race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, 

sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, against 

parties, witnesses, lawyers, or others.

(D) The restrictions of paragraphs (B) and (C) do not preclude judges or lawyers from 

making legitimate reference to the listed factors, or similar factors, when they 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.
11

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 permit others to convey the impression that any person or 

organization is in a position to influence the judge. 

COMMENT

[1] An independent judiciary requires that judges 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. Confidence in the judiciary is 

eroded if judicial decision making is perceived to be subject to inappropriate outside influences. 

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] 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. In accomplishing these critical goals in the increasing 
12

number of cases involving self-represented litigants, a judge may take appropriate steps to 

facilitate a self-represented litigant’s ability to be heard.

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) A judge may encourage parties to a proceeding and their lawyers to settle matters in 

dispute but shall 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 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 is 

required by Rule 2.11 or other law.*
13

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 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,* except as follows:
14

(1) When circumstances require it, ex parte communication for scheduling, 

administrative, or emergency purposes, which does not address substantive matters, 

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 

content 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 gives advance notice to the 

parties of the person to be consulted and the subject matter of the advice to be 

solicited, and affords the parties a reasonable opportunity to object and respond to 

the notice and 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 initiate, permit, or consider any ex parte communication when 

expressly authorized by law to do so.

(B) If a judge receives an unsolicited ex parte communication having a potentially 

significant bearing upon the substance of a matter, the judge shall make provision 

promptly to notify the parties of the content of the communication and provide the parties 

with an opportunity to respond. If such communication is in writing, a copy of it shall be 

made available to the parties by retention in a court file.

(C) A judge shall not investigate facts in a matter independently, and shall consider only 

the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed.

(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.
15

[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 substituted or 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. The prohibition does not apply to a judge’s effort 

to obtain general information about a specialized area of knowledge that does not include the 

application of such information in a specific case. Nor does the prohibition apply to interstate or 

state-federal communications among judges on the general topic of case management decisions 

in mass torts or other complex cases, such as discovery schedules, standard interrogatories, 

shared discovery depositories, appointment of liaison counsel, committee membership, or 

common fund structures.

[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).

[8] In light of the considerable frequency with which judges receive unsolicited ex parte 

communications, judges should apply their discretion and common sense when called upon to 

determine whether an unsolicited ex parte communication qualifies as one having a potentially 

significant bearing upon the substance of a matter, for purposes of paragraph B.

RULE 2.10

Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases

(A) A judge shall not make any public statement that might 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 might substantially interfere with a fair trial or 

hearing.
16

(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.

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;
17

(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) 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 or

appears to commit the judge to reach a particular result or rule in a particular way 

in the proceeding or controversy.

(5) The judge:

(a) served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or was associated with a 

lawyer who participated substantially as a lawyer in the matter during such 

association;

(b) served in governmental employment, and in such capacity participated 

personally and substantially as a lawyer or 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 subject to disqualification under this Rule, other than for bias or prejudice 

under paragraph (A)(1), may disclose on the record the basis of the judge’s disqualification 

and may ask the parties and their lawyers to consider, outside the presence of the judge 

and court personnel, whether to waive disqualification. If, following the disclosure, the 

parties and lawyers agree, without participation by the judge or court personnel, that the 

judge should not be disqualified, the judge may participate in the proceeding. The 

agreement shall be incorporated into the record of the proceeding.
18

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.

[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.

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 in a manner consistent with the judge’s obligations under this 

Code.
19

(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, favoritism, and unnecessary appointments.

(B) 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 
20

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 shall 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 shall inform the appropriate 

authority.

(C) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge 

has committed a violation of this Code shall take appropriate action.

(D) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has 

committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct shall take appropriate action.

COMMENT

[1] Taking action to address known misconduct is a judge’s obligation. Paragraphs (A) and (B) 

impose an obligation on the judge to report to the appropriate disciplinary authority the known 

misconduct of another judge or a lawyer that raises a substantial question regarding the honesty,

trustworthiness, or fitness of that judge or lawyer. Ignoring or denying known misconduct

among one’s judicial colleagues or members of the legal profession undermines a judge’s 

responsibility to participate in efforts to ensure public respect for the justice system. This Rule 
21

limits the reporting obligation to those offenses that an independent judiciary must vigorously 

endeavor to prevent.

[2] A judge who does not have actual knowledge that another judge or a lawyer may have 

committed misconduct, but receives information indicating a substantial likelihood of such 

misconduct, is required to take appropriate action under paragraphs (C) and (D). Appropriate 

action may include, but is not limited to, communicating directly with the judge who may have 

violated this Code, communicating with a supervising judge, or reporting the suspected violation 

to the appropriate authority or other agency or body. Similarly, actions to be taken in response to 

information indicating that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional 

Conduct may include, but are not limited to, communicating directly with the lawyer who may 

have committed the violation, or reporting the suspected violation to the appropriate authority or 

other agency or body.

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 discipline agencies, 

as required in paragraph (A), instills confidence in judges’ commitment to the integrity of the 

judicial system and the protection of the public.
22

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;

(C) participate in activities that would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the 

judge’s independence,* integrity,* or impartiality;*

(D) engage in conduct that would appear to a reasonable person to be coercive; or

(E) make use of court premises, staff, stationery, equipment, or other resources, except for 

incidental use for activities that concern the law, the legal system, or the administration of 

justice, or unless such additional use is permitted by law.

COMMENT

[1] 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] 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.

[3] 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 
23

extrajudicial activities must not be conducted in connection or affiliation with an organization 

that practices invidious discrimination. See Rule 3.6.

[4] 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.

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 self-representing in a matter involving the judge’s legal or economic 

interests, or when the judge is acting in a fiduciary* capacity.

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.

[3] In general, it would be an unnecessary and unfair burden to prohibit judges from appearing 

before governmental bodies or consulting with government officials on matters that are likely to 

affect them as private citizens, such as zoning proposals affecting their real property. In 

engaging in such activities, however, judges must not refer to their judicial positions, and must

otherwise exercise caution to avoid using the prestige of judicial office.
24

RULE 3.3

Testifying as a Character Witness

A judge shall not testify 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, testifies 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 testify as a character witness.

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.

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.

[2] A judge may represent his or her country, state, or locality on ceremonial occasions or in 

connection with historical, educational, or cultural activities. Such representation does not 

constitute acceptance of a government position.

RULE 3.5

Use of Nonpublic Information

A judge shall not intentionally disclose or use nonpublic information* known or acquired 

in a judicial capacity for any purpose in contravention of or unrelated to the judge’s 

judicial duties.

COMMENT

[1] A judge is, by definition, uniquely privy to the inclination of the court to resolve a matter or 

issue pending before it in a particular manner. A judge shall not, under any circumstances, 
25

disclose such information to a third party in advance of the court’s release of its decision. With 

respect to the parties in the case, a judge shall not disclose such information to a party or counsel 

unless the court simultaneously shares such information openly with all parties to the proceeding.

[2] In the course of performing judicial duties, a judge may acquire information of commercial or 

other value that is unavailable to the public. The judge must not reveal or use such information 

for personal gain or for any purpose unrelated to his or her judicial duties.

[3] This rule is not intended, however, to affect a judge’s ability to act on information as 

necessary to protect the health or safety of the judge or a member of a judge’s family, court 

personnel, or other judicial officers if consistent with other provisions of this Code.

RULE 3.6

Affiliation with Discriminatory Organizations

(A) A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious 

discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or 

sexual orientation.

(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.

(C) A judge’s membership in a religious organization as a lawful exercise of the freedom of 

religion is not a violation of this Rule. This Rule does not apply to national or state military 

service.

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] An organization is generally said to discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from 

membership on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual 

orientation persons who would otherwise be eligible for admission. Whether an organization 

practices invidious discrimination is a complex question to which judges should be attentive. 

The answer cannot be determined from a mere examination of an organization’s current

membership rolls, but rather, depends upon how the organization selects members, as well as 

other relevant factors, such as whether the organization is dedicated to the preservation of 

religious, ethnic, or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members, or whether it is 
26

an intimate, purely private organization whose membership limitations could not constitutionally 

be prohibited.

[3] When a judge learns that an organization to which the judge belongs engages in invidious 

discrimination, the judge must resign immediately from the organization.

Rule 3.7

Participation in Educational, Religious, Charitable, Fraternal, or Civic Organizations and 

Activities

(A) 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:

(1) 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;

(2) 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;

(3) 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 a non-fund-raising event of such an organization or entity;

(4) serving as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of such an 

organization or entity, unless it is likely that the organization or entity:

(a) will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before 

the judge; or

(b) 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.

(5) soliciting membership for such an organization or entity, even though the 

membership dues or fees generated may be used to support the objectives of 

the organization or entity, but only if the organization or entity is concerned 

with the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice;

(6) making recommendations to such a public or private fund-granting 

organization or entity in connection with its programs and activities, but only 
27

if the organization or entity is concerned with the law, the legal system, or the 

administration of justice; and

(7) appearing or speaking at, receiving an award or other recognition at, 

being featured on the program of, and permitting her or his title to be used in 

connection with a fund-raising event of an organization which concerns the 

law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.

(B) A judge may encourage lawyers to provide pro bono publico legal services.

COMMENT

[1] The activities permitted by paragraph (A) generally include those sponsored by or 

undertaken on behalf of public or private not-for-profit educational institutions, and other notfor-profit organizations, including law-related, charitable, and other organizations. The activities 

permitted by paragraph (A) do not include those sponsored by or on behalf of organizations 

which have as a primary purpose advocating in political processes for or against change in the 

laws related to limited subject areas. Activities relating to such political advocacy organizations 

are subject to the requirements of Rule 3.1, as well as Canon 4 and the Rules thereunder.

[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 fund-raising purpose, does not 

constitute a violation of paragraph (A). 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 fund-raising 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 fund-raising or membership solicitation does not violate this 

Rule 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 

publico legal services, if in doing so the judge does not employ coercion, or abuse the prestige of 

judicial office.

[6] Subject to the requirements of Rule 3.1 and paragraph (A), a judge may provide leadership 

in improving equal access to the justice system; developing public education programs; engaging 

in outreach activities to promote the fair administration of justice; and convening and 

participating in advisory committees and community collaborations devoted to the improvement 

of the law, the legal system, the provision of legal services and/or the administration of justice.
28

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 

apart from the judge’s official duties unless expressly 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 expressly 

authorized by law.
29

RULE 3.10

Practice of Law

(A) A full-time judge shall not practice law. 

(B) A part-time judge or judge pro tempore may practice law.

(C) A judge may self-represent 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 forum.

COMMENT

[1] A judge may self-represent 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.

[2] A part-time judge or judge pro tempore must scrupulously avoid conduct in the practice of

law which may create a conflict with judicial duties or create the appearance of impropriety. If a 

conflict arises between the judge’s obligations as judge and the private practice of law, the judge 

shall resolve the conflict in such a way that accomplishes the fulfillment of judicial duties. 

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;
30

(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.

COMMENT

[1] Judges are generally permitted to engage in financial activities, including managing real 

estate and other investments for themselves or for members of their families. Participation in 

these activities, like participation in other extrajudicial activities, is subject to the requirements 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] 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.

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.*

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 
31

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;

(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; and

(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. 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.
32

[2] 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.

[3] 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.

[4] 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.

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 and, when 

appropriate to the occasion, by the judge’s spouse, domestic partner,* or guest.

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.
33

[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.

[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 sources 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.
34

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, 4.3, and 4.4, 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 any partisan or 

independent non-judicial office-holder or candidate for public office;

(3) publicly endorse or oppose a partisan or independent candidate for any nonjudicial public office;

(4) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution* to a political 

organization, or to or on behalf of any partisan or independent office-holder or 

candidate for public office;

(5) attend or purchase tickets for dinners or other events sponsored by a partisan or 

independent candidate for non-judicial public office;

(6) publicly identify himself or herself as a candidate of a political organization;

(7) seek, accept, or use endorsements from a political organization, or partisan or 

independent non-judicial office-holder or candidate;

(8) use or permit the use of campaign contributions for the private benefit of the 

judge, the candidate, or others;

(9) use court staff, facilities, or other court resources in a campaign for judicial 

office;

(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
35

(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. If a judicial candidate who is not a judge violates this Canon and is elected, he or she 

may be referred to the Judicial Standards Commission for discipline on assuming office.

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. Judges and judicial 

candidates 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 partisan candidates for 

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 a judicial office, 

because judges are in the unique position to know and share with interested persons the 

qualifications of judicial candidates. See Rule 4.2(B)(2) and (3). However, note that while it is 

acceptable for candidates for judicial office to seek and accept endorsements from another judge, 

and have the supportive judge attend the candidate’s dinners, judges are prohibited from 

soliciting or collecting money on their behalf.

[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 candidate publicly endorsing candidates for 
36

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 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.

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 false attacks on a 

candidate’s opponent, the candidate should 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.
37

[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 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.

RULE 4.2 

Political and Campaign Activities of Judicial Candidates in Public Elections

(A) A judicial candidate* 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;
38

(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 objectively 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, unless prohibited by law:

(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) publicly support or oppose candidates for judicial office;

(4) attend or purchase tickets for dinners or other events sponsored by a political 

organization* or a candidate for judicial office;

(5) seek, accept, or use endorsements from any person or organization other than a 

partisan political organization or partisan or independent office-holder or candidate 

for non-judicial public office; and

(6) contribute to a candidate for judicial office, but not more than the amount 

prescribed by law.

COMMENT

[1] Paragraph (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, or any partisan or independent office-holder or candidate for public 

office, from 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] In judicial elections, paragraph (B)(5) prohibits a candidate from seeking, accepting, or using 

nominations or endorsements from a partisan political organization or a partisan or independent

non-judicial office-holder or candidate for public office.

[4] Judicial candidates are permitted to attend or purchase tickets for dinners and other events 

sponsored by political organizations or judicial candidates, but not by partisan or other 

independent office-holders or candidates for public office.
39

[5] In endorsing or opposing another judicial candidate, the judge or judicial candidate doing so

must abide by the same rules governing campaign conduct and speech as apply to the candidate’s 

own campaign.

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 other than a 

political 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 who establishes a campaign committee shall direct his or her 

campaign committee:

(1) to solicit and accept only such campaign contributions* as are permitted by law;

(2) not to solicit or accept contributions for a candidate’s campaign in an amount or 

in a manner that is prohibited by law; and

(3) to comply with all applicable statutory requirements for disclosure and 

divestiture of campaign contributions, and to file all reports required by law with 

the official or agency prescribed by law.
40

COMMENT

[1] This Rule recognizes that judicial candidates may raise campaign funds in an amount and in a 

manner permitted by law to support their candidacies, and permits candidates, other than 

candidates for appointive judicial office, to solicit financial or in-kind campaign contributions 

personally or to establish campaign committees to solicit and accept such 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.

[3] If a campaign committee is established, the candidate must instruct the campaign committee 

to solicit or accept contributions in conformity with applicable law.