F OR P UBLICATION



### JUDICIAL CO UNCIL O F T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

I N R E C O M P L

A I N T O F J U D I C I A L M I S C O N D U C T Nos. 16-90034 16-90058

ORDER

F iled J uly 14, 2016

ORDER

THOMAS, Chief J udg e :

C o m p l ainant, an attorney in disbarment proceeding s , f i l e d

a civil suit ag a inst the state’s bar association. She a lleg es that
two district judg es who made ruling s in that case should have recused themselves. T h is alleg ation is merits-r e l a ted a nd

m u s t be dismissed. S

e e 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)( i i ) ; J udic i al-Conduct Rule 11(c)(1)(B ); In re Complaint of Judicial M

isconduct

, 5 79 F .3d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. J ud. C ouncil 2009); Implementation of the Judicial Conduct and D i s a bility Act of 1980: A Report to the Chief Justice 146 (2006). An alleg ation that a judg e presided in a case knowing he is subject to a material confl ict of interest or intending to favor one party on g rounds u nrelated to the merits may present a viable claim of judicial misconduct. See id. B ut to state suc h a c laim, a complainant would have to provide convincing pro o f t h at the judg e was aware of a material conflict or was acting

with a corrupt motive.I

N R E C O M P L

A I N T O F J U D I C I A L M I S C O N D U C T 2

The evidence that complainant presents does not suffice. Complainant claims that the two subject judg es are biased in favor of the bar and h ave a c onflict of inte r e s t b e cause they

are members of the state’s bar association, have served on bar boards or committees, and have taug ht CL E sessions for the bar or sat on a CL E panel with one or more o f the 50-plus defendants named in complainant’s suit. Complainan t fi l ed motions to d isqualify in the underly ing case, raising the same concerns, and those motions were denied.

The Code of Conduct f

o r U nited States J udg es, Canon 4(A), provides that “a judg e may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate i n o t h er activities concerning the law,” a nd “may participate in and serve a s a member, officer, director, trustee, or nonleg al a dviso r o f a nonprofit org aniz ation devoted to the law.” “As a judicia l officer and a person specially learned in the law, a judg e is in a unique position to contribute to the law...[ and] is encourag e d t o d o so, either independently or throug h a bar association, judicial conference, or other org aniz ation dedicated to the law.” Code of Conduct for United States J udg es, Commentary to Canon 4; s e e a lso Comm. on Codes o f Conduct, Advisory Opinion No. 34 (“a judg e may properly serve as an officer or member of a b oard, council o r committee of a b ar association, subject
to the restrictions set forth in Canon 4 ”). I t is not e vidence o f misconduct that the subject judg es are member s o f t h e bar and have served on bar committees or as CL E panelists.

F urther, c omplainant o ffers no evidence to support her alleg ation that the judg es are biased beca u s e they have personal f

riendships with the d efendant s

. See In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct

, 687 F .3d 1188 ( 9t h Cir. J ud. Council 2012) (“adverse ruling s alone do not constitute proof of bias”). According ly

, these a lleg a tions of misconductI

N R E C O M P L

A I N T O F J U D I C I A L M I S C O N D U C T 3

based on bias or c onflicts of interest are dismissed f or failure
to rai s e a n i nference of misconduct. See 28 U .S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(iii); In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct

, 650 F .3d 1370, 1371 (9th Cir. J u d. Council 2011); J udicialConduct Rule 11(c)(1)(D).

DISMISSED.