Last revised (Transmittal 02-046) March 12, 2019 

Guide to Judiciary Policy

Vol. 2: Ethics and Judicial Conduct

Pt. A: Codes of Conduct

Ch. 2: Code of Conduct for United States Judges

Introduction

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All 

Activities

Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and 

Diligently

Canon 4: A Judge May Engage in Extrajudicial Activities That Are Consistent With the 

Obligations of Judicial Office

Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain From Political Activity

Compliance with the Code of Conduct

Applicable Date of Compliance

Introduction

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges was initially adopted by the Judicial 

Conference on April 5, 1973, and was known as the “Code of Judicial Conduct for 

United States Judges.” See: JCUS-APR 73, pp. 9-11. Since then, the Judicial 

Conference has made the following changes to the Code:

• March 1987: deleted the word “Judicial” from the name of the Code;

• September 1992: adopted substantial revisions to the Code;

• March 1996: revised part C of the Compliance section, immediately

following the Code;

• September 1996: revised Canons 3C(3)(a) and 5C(4);

• September 1999: revised Canon 3C(1)(c);

• September 2000: clarified the Compliance section;

• March 2009: adopted substantial revisions to the Code;

• March 2014: revised part C of the Compliance section, which appears

below, immediately following the Code;
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 2

• March 2019: adopted revisions to Canon 2A Commentary, Canon 3,

Canon 3A(3), Canon 3B(4), Canon 3B(4) Commentary, Canon 3B(6), and

Canon 3B(6) Commentary.

This Code applies to United States circuit judges, district judges, Court of International 

Trade judges, Court of Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate 

judges. Certain provisions of this Code apply to special masters and commissioners as 

indicated in the “Compliance” section. The Tax Court, Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims, and Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces have adopted this Code.

The Judicial Conference has authorized its Committee on Codes of Conduct to render 

advisory opinions about this Code only when requested by a judge to whom this Code 

applies. Requests for opinions and other questions concerning this Code and its 

applicability should be addressed to the Chair of the Committee on Codes of Conduct 

by email or as follows:

Chair, Committee on Codes of Conduct

c/o General Counsel

Administrative Office of the United States Courts

Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building

One Columbus Circle, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20544

202-502-1100

Procedural questions may be addressed to:

Office of the General Counsel

Administrative Office of the United States Courts

Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building

One Columbus Circle, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20544

202-502-1100

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and

Independence of the Judiciary

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. 

A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally 

observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be 

preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that 

objective.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 3

COMMENTARY

Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends on public confidence 

in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges 

depend in turn on their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be 

independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with this Code. 

Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of 

the judiciary. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the 

judiciary and injures our system of government under law.

The Canons are rules of reason. They should be applied consistently with 

constitutional requirements, statutes, other court rules and decisional law, and in the 

context of all relevant circumstances. The Code is to be construed so it does not 

impinge on the essential independence of judges in making judicial decisions.

The Code is designed to provide guidance to judges and nominees for judicial 

office. It may also provide standards of conduct for application in proceedings under the 

Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C.

§§ 332(d)(1), 351-364). Not every violation of the Code should lead to disciplinary 

action. Whether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the degree of discipline, should 

be determined through a reasonable application of the text and should depend on such 

factors as the seriousness of the improper activity, the intent of the judge, whether there 

is a pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the improper activity on others or on 

the judicial system. Many of the restrictions in the Code are necessarily cast in general 

terms, and judges may reasonably differ in their interpretation. Furthermore, the Code 

is not designed or intended as a basis for civil liability or criminal prosecution. Finally, 

the Code is not intended to be used for tactical advantage.

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance 

of Impropriety in All Activities

A. Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and 

should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the 

integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

B. Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, 

financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. 

A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance 

the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to 

convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the 

judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

C. Nondiscriminatory Membership. A judge should not hold membership in 

any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of 

race, sex, religion, or national origin.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 4

COMMENTARY

Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with 

knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would 

conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to 

serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by 

irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other 

inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance 

of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A 

judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and 

willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. 

Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast 

in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not 

specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include 

violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.

Canon 2B. Testimony as a character witness injects the prestige of the judicial 

office into the proceeding in which the judge testifies and may be perceived as an 

official testimonial. A judge should discourage a party from requiring the judge to testify 

as a character witness except in unusual circumstances when the demands of justice 

require. This Canon does not create a privilege against testifying in response to an 

official summons.

A judge should avoid lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the private 

interests of the judge or others. For example, a judge should not use the judge’s judicial 

position or title to gain advantage in litigation involving a friend or a member of the 

judge’s family. In contracts for publication of a judge’s writings, a judge should retain 

control over the advertising to avoid exploitation of the judge’s office.

A judge should be sensitive to possible abuse of the prestige of office. A judge 

should not initiate communications to a sentencing judge or a probation or corrections 

officer but may provide information to such persons in response to a formal request. 

Judges may participate in the process of judicial selection by cooperating with 

appointing authorities and screening committees seeking names for consideration and 

by responding to official inquiries concerning a person being considered for a judgeship.

Canon 2C. Membership of a judge in an organization that practices invidious 

discrimination gives rise to perceptions that the judge’s impartiality is impaired. Canon 

2C refers to the current practices of the organization. Whether an organization 

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

sensitive. The answer cannot be determined from a mere examination of an 

organization’s current membership rolls but rather depends on how the organization 

selects members and other relevant factors, such as that the organization is dedicated 

to the preservation of religious, ethnic or cultural values of legitimate common interest to 

its members, or that it is in fact and effect an intimate, purely private organization whose 

membership limitations could not be constitutionally prohibited. See New York State 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 5

Club Ass’n. Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 108 S. Ct. 2225, 101 L. Ed. 2d 1 

(1988); Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 

537, 107 S. Ct. 1940, 95 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1987); Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 

U.S. 609, 104 S. Ct. 3244, 82 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1984). Other relevant factors include the 

size and nature of the organization and the diversity of persons in the locale who might 

reasonably be considered potential members. Thus the mere absence of diverse 

membership does not by itself demonstrate a violation unless reasonable persons with 

knowledge of all the relevant circumstances would expect that the membership would 

be diverse in the absence of invidious discrimination. Absent such factors, an 

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

membership on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin persons who would 

otherwise be admitted to membership.

Although Canon 2C relates only to membership in organizations that invidiously 

discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin, a judge’s membership 

in an organization that engages in any invidiously discriminatory membership practices 

prohibited by applicable law violates Canons 2 and 2A and gives the appearance of 

impropriety. In addition, it would be a violation of Canons 2 and 2A for a judge to 

arrange a meeting at a club that the judge knows practices invidious discrimination on 

the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin in its membership or other policies, or 

for the judge to use such a club regularly. Moreover, public manifestation by a judge of 

the judge’s knowing approval of invidious discrimination on any basis gives the 

appearance of impropriety under Canon 2 and diminishes public confidence in the 

integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, in violation of Canon 2A.

When a judge determines that an organization to which the judge belongs 

engages in invidious discrimination that would preclude membership under Canon 2C or 

under Canons 2 and 2A, the judge is permitted, in lieu of resigning, to make immediate 

and continuous efforts to have the organization discontinue its invidiously discriminatory 

practices. If the organization fails to discontinue its invidiously discriminatory practices 

as promptly as possible (and in all events within two years of the judge’s first learning of 

the practices), the judge should resign immediately from the organization.

Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, 

Impartially and Diligently

The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. The judge 

should perform those duties with respect for others, and should not engage in behavior 

that is harassing, abusive, prejudiced, or biased. The judge should adhere to the 

following standards:

A. Adjudicative Responsibilities.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 6

(1) A judge should be faithful to, and maintain professional 

competence in, the law and should not be swayed by partisan 

interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.

(2) A judge should hear and decide matters assigned, unless 

disqualified, and should maintain order and decorum in all judicial 

proceedings.

(3) A judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to 

litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the 

judge deals in an official capacity. A judge should require similar 

conduct by those subject to the judge’s control, including lawyers to 

the extent consistent with their role in the adversary process.

(4) A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a 

proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard 

according to law. Except as set out below, a judge should not 

initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or consider 

other communications concerning a pending or impending matter 

that are made outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers. 

If a judge receives an unauthorized ex parte communication 

bearing on the substance of a matter, the judge should promptly 

notify the parties of the subject matter of the communication and 

allow the parties an opportunity to respond, if requested. A judge 

may:

(a) initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications as 

authorized by law;

(b) when circumstances require it, permit ex parte 

communication for scheduling, administrative, or emergency 

purposes, but only if the ex parte communication does not 

address substantive matters and the judge reasonably 

believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or 

tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication;

(c) obtain the written advice of a disinterested expert on the law, 

but only after giving advance notice to the parties of the 

person to be consulted and the subject matter of the advice 

and affording the parties reasonable opportunity to object 

and respond to the notice and to the advice received; or

(d) with the consent of the parties, confer separately with the 

parties and their counsel in an effort to mediate or settle 

pending matters.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 7

(5) A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court.

(6) A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter 

pending or impending in any court. A judge should require similar 

restraint by court personnel subject to the judge’s direction and 

control. The prohibition on public comment on the merits does not 

extend to public statements made in the course of the judge’s 

official duties, to explanations of court procedures, or to scholarly 

presentations made for purposes of legal education.

B. Administrative Responsibilities.

(1) A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, 

maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and 

facilitate the performance of the administrative responsibilities of 

other judges and court personnel.

(2) A judge should not direct court personnel to engage in conduct on 

the judge’s behalf or as the judge’s representative when that 

conduct would contravene the Code if undertaken by the judge.

(3) A judge should exercise the power of appointment fairly and only 

on the basis of merit, avoiding unnecessary appointments, 

nepotism, and favoritism. A judge should not approve 

compensation of appointees beyond the fair value of services 

rendered.

(4) A judge should practice civility, by being patient, dignified, 

respectful, and courteous, in dealings with court personnel, 

including chambers staff. A judge should not engage in any form of 

harassment of court personnel. A judge should not retaliate against 

those who report misconduct. A judge should hold court personnel 

under the judge’s direction to similar standards.

(5) A judge with supervisory authority over other judges should take 

reasonable measures to ensure that they perform their duties timely 

and effectively.

(6) A judge should take appropriate action upon receipt of reliable 

information indicating the likelihood that a judge’s conduct 

contravened this Code, that a judicial employee’s conduct 

contravened the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, or that a 

lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 8

C. Disqualification.

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which 

the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including 

but not limited to instances in which:

(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a 

party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts 

concerning the proceeding;

(b) the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or 

a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law 

served during such association as a lawyer concerning the 

matter, or the judge or lawyer has been a material witness;

(c) the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, 

or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s 

household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in 

controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other 

interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome 

of the proceeding;

(d) the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person related to either 

within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such 

a person is:

(i) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or 

trustee of a party;

(ii) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii) known by the judge to have an interest that could be 

substantially affected by the outcome of the 

proceeding; or

(iv) to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material 

witness in the proceeding;

(e) the judge has served in governmental employment and in 

that capacity participated as a judge (in a previous judicial 

position), counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning 

the proceeding or has expressed an opinion concerning the 

merits of the particular case in controversy.

(2) A judge should keep informed about the judge’s personal and 

fiduciary financial interests and make a reasonable effort to keep 

informed about the personal financial interests of the judge’s 

spouse and minor children residing in the judge’s household.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 9

(3) For the purposes of this section:

(a) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil 

law system; the following relatives are within the third degree 

of relationship: parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, great 

grandparent, great grandchild, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, 

niece, and nephew; the listed relatives include whole and 

half blood relatives and most step relatives;

(b) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, 

administrator, trustee, and guardian;

(c) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable 

interest, however small, or a relationship as director, advisor, 

or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except 

that:

(i) ownership in a mutual or common investment fund 

that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such 

securities unless the judge participates in the 

management of the fund;

(ii) an office in an educational, religious, charitable, 

fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial 

interest” in securities held by the organization;

(iii) the proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual 

insurance company, or a depositor in a mutual 

savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, 

is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the 

outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect 

the value of the interest;

(iv) ownership of government securities is a “financial 

interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the 

proceeding could substantially affect the value of the 

securities;

(d) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other 

stages of litigation.

(4) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Canon, if a judge 

would be disqualified because of a financial interest in a party 

(other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the 

outcome), disqualification is not required if the judge (or the judge’s 

spouse or minor child) divests the interest that provides the 

grounds for disqualification.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 10

D. Remittal of Disqualification. Instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, a 

judge disqualified by Canon 3C(1) may, except in the circumstances 

specifically set out in subsections (a) through (e), disclose on the record 

the basis of disqualification. The judge may participate in the proceeding 

if, after that disclosure, the parties and their lawyers have an opportunity 

to confer outside the presence of the judge, all agree in writing or on the 

record that the judge should not be disqualified, and the judge is then 

willing to participate. The agreement should be incorporated in the record 

of the proceeding.

COMMENTARY

Canon 3A(3). The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not 

inconsistent with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Courts can 

be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate.

The duty under Canon 2 to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in 

the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary applies to all the judge’s activities, including 

the discharge of the judge’s adjudicative and administrative responsibilities. The duty to 

be respectful includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that could 

reasonably be interpreted as harassment, prejudice or bias.

Canon 3A(4). The restriction on ex parte communications concerning a 

proceeding includes communications from lawyers, law teachers, and others who are 

not participants in the proceeding. A judge may consult with other judges or with court 

personnel whose function is to aid the judge in carrying out adjudicative responsibilities. 

A judge should make reasonable efforts to ensure that law clerks and other court 

personnel comply with this provision.

A judge may encourage and seek to facilitate settlement but should not act in a 

manner that coerces any party into surrendering the right to have the controversy 

resolved by the courts.

Canon 3A(5). In disposing of matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly, a judge 

must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues 

resolved without unnecessary cost or delay. A judge should monitor and supervise 

cases to reduce or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays, and unnecessary 

costs.

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 

personnel, litigants, and their lawyers cooperate with the judge to that end.

Canon 3A(6). The admonition against public comment about the merits of a 

pending or impending matter continues until the appellate process is complete. If the 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 11

public comment involves a case from the judge’s own court, the judge should take 

particular care so that the comment does not denigrate public confidence in the 

judiciary’s integrity and impartiality, which would violate Canon 2A. A judge may 

comment publicly on proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity, 

but not on mandamus proceedings when the judge is a litigant in an official capacity (but 

the judge may respond in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 21(b)).

Canon 3B(3). A judge’s appointees include assigned counsel, officials such as 

referees, commissioners, special masters, receivers, guardians, and personnel such as 

law clerks, secretaries, and judicial assistants. Consent by the parties to an 

appointment or an award of compensation does not relieve the judge of the obligation 

prescribed by this subsection.

Canon 3B(4). A judge should neither engage in, nor tolerate, workplace conduct 

that is reasonably interpreted as harassment, abusive behavior, or retaliation for 

reporting such conduct. The duty to refrain from retaliation includes retaliation against 

former as well as current judiciary personnel. 

Under this Canon, harassment encompasses a range of conduct having no 

legitimate role in the workplace, including harassment that constitutes discrimination on 

impermissible grounds and other abusive, oppressive, or inappropriate conduct directed 

at judicial employees or others. See Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability 

Proceedings, Rule 4(a)(2) (providing that “cognizable misconduct includes: (A) 

engaging in unwanted, offensive, or abusive sexual conduct, including sexual 

harassment or assault; (B) treating litigants, attorneys, judicial employees, or others in a 

demonstrably egregious and hostile manner; or (C) creating a hostile work environment 

for judicial employees”) and Rule 4(a)(3) (providing that “cognizable misconduct 

includes intentional discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, gender, gender 

identity, pregnancy, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, age, or disability”).

Canon 3B(6). Public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary is 

promoted when judges take appropriate action based on reliable information of likely 

misconduct. Appropriate action depends on the circumstances, but the overarching 

goal of such action should be to prevent harm to those affected by the misconduct and 

to prevent recurrence. A judge, in deciding what action is appropriate, may take into 

account any request for confidentiality made by a person complaining of or reporting 

misconduct. See Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, Rule 

4(a)(6) (providing that “cognizable misconduct includes failing to call to the attention of 

the relevant chief district judge or chief circuit judge any reliable information reasonably 

likely to constitute judicial misconduct or disability. A judge who receives such reliable 

information shall respect a request for confidentiality but shall nonetheless disclose the 

information to the chief district judge or chief circuit judge, who shall also treat the 

information as confidential. Certain reliable information may be protected from 

disclosure by statute or rule. A judge’s assurance of confidentiality must yield when 

there is reliable information of misconduct or disability that threatens the safety or 

security of any person or that is serious or egregious such that it threatens the integrity 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 12

and proper functioning of the judiciary. A person reporting information of misconduct or 

disability must be informed at the outset of a judge’s responsibility to disclose such 

information to the relevant chief district judge or chief circuit judge. Reliable information 

reasonably likely to constitute judicial misconduct or disability related to a chief circuit 

judge should be called to the attention of the next most-senior active circuit judge. Such 

information related to a chief district judge should be called to the attention of the chief 

circuit judge.”).

Appropriate action may include direct communication with the judge or lawyer, 

other direct action if available, reporting the conduct to the appropriate authorities, or, 

when the judge believes that a judge’s or lawyer’s conduct is caused by drugs, alcohol, 

or a medical condition, making a confidential referral to an assistance program. 

Appropriate action may also include responding to a subpoena to testify or otherwise 

cooperating with or participating in judicial or lawyer disciplinary proceedings; a judge 

should be candid and honest with disciplinary authorities.

Canon 3C. Recusal considerations applicable to a judge’s spouse should also 

be considered with respect to a person other than a spouse with whom the judge 

maintains both a household and an intimate relationship.

Canon 3C(1)(c). In a criminal proceeding, a victim entitled to restitution is not, 

within the meaning of this Canon, a party to the proceeding or the subject matter in 

controversy. A judge who has a financial interest in the victim of a crime is not required 

by Canon 3C(1)(c) to disqualify from the criminal proceeding, but the judge must do so if 

the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under Canon 3C(1) or if the 

judge has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the 

proceeding under Canon 3C(1)(d)(iii).

Canon 3C(1)(d)(ii). 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 of itself disqualify the judge. 

However, if “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” under Canon 

3C(1), or the relative is known by the judge to have an interest in the law firm that could 

be “substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding” under Canon 3C(1)(d)(iii), 

the judge’s disqualification is required.

Canon 4: A Judge May Engage in Extrajudicial Activities That 

Are Consistent With the Obligations of Judicial Office

A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, including law-related pursuits and 

civic, charitable, educational, religious, social, financial, fiduciary, and governmental 

activities, and may speak, write, lecture, and teach on both law-related and nonlegal 

subjects. However, a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract 

from the dignity of the judge’s office, interfere with the performance of the judge’s official 

duties, reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality, lead to frequent disqualification, or 

violate the limitations set forth below.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 13

A. Law-related Activities.

(1) Speaking, Writing, and Teaching. A judge may speak, write, 

lecture, teach, and participate in other activities concerning the law, 

the legal system, and the administration of justice.

(2) Consultation. A judge may consult with or appear at a public 

hearing before an executive or legislative body or official:

(a) on matters concerning the law, the legal system, or the 

administration of justice;

(b) to the extent that it would generally be perceived that a 

judge’s judicial experience provides special expertise in the 

area; or

(c) when the judge is acting pro se in a matter involving the 

judge or the judge’s interest.

(3) Organizations. A judge may participate in and serve as a member, 

officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of a nonprofit 

organization devoted to the law, the legal system, or the 

administration of justice and may assist such an organization in the 

management and investment of funds. A judge may make 

recommendations to public and private fund-granting agencies 

about projects and programs concerning the law, the legal system, 

and the administration of justice.

(4) Arbitration and Mediation. A judge should not act as an arbitrator 

or mediator or otherwise perform judicial functions apart from the 

judge’s official duties unless expressly authorized by law.

(5) Practice of Law. A judge should not practice law and should not 

serve as a family member’s lawyer in any forum. A judge may, 

however, act pro se and may, without compensation, give legal 

advice to and draft or review documents for a member of the 

judge’s family.

B. Civic and Charitable Activities. A judge may participate in and serve as an 

officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of a nonprofit civic, charitable, 

educational, religious, or social organization, subject to the following 

limitations:

(1) A judge should not serve if it is likely that the organization will either 

be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 14

judge or be regularly engaged in adversary proceedings in any 

court.

(2) A judge should not give investment advice to such an organization 

but may serve on its board of directors or trustees even though it 

has the responsibility for approving investment decisions.

C. Fund Raising. A judge may assist nonprofit law-related, civic, charitable, 

educational, religious, or social organizations in planning fund-raising 

activities and may be listed as an officer, director, or trustee. A judge may 

solicit funds for such an organization from judges over whom the judge 

does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority and from members of 

the judge’s family. Otherwise, a judge should not personally participate in 

fund-raising activities, solicit funds for any organization, or use or permit 

the use of the prestige of judicial office for that purpose. A judge should 

not personally participate in membership solicitation if the solicitation 

might reasonably be perceived as coercive or is essentially a fund-raising 

mechanism.

D. Financial Activities.

(1) A judge may hold and manage investments, including real estate, 

and engage in other remunerative activity, but should refrain from 

financial and business dealings that exploit the judicial position or 

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.

(2) A judge may serve as an officer, director, active partner, manager, 

advisor, or employee of a business only if the business is closely 

held and controlled by members of the judge’s family. For this 

purpose, “members of the judge’s family” means persons related to 

the judge or the judge’s spouse within the third degree of 

relationship as defined in Canon 3C(3)(a), any other relative with 

whom the judge or the judge’s spouse maintains a close familial 

relationship, and the spouse of any of the foregoing.

(3) As soon as the judge can do so without serious financial detriment, 

the judge should divest investments and other financial interests 

that might require frequent disqualification.

(4) A judge should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts 

and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial 

Conference Gift Regulations. A judge should endeavor to prevent 

any member of the judge’s family residing in the household from 

soliciting or accepting a gift except to the extent that a judge would 
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 15

be permitted to do so by the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. 

A “member of the judge’s family” means any relative of a judge by 

blood, adoption, or marriage, or any person treated by a judge as a 

member of the judge’s family.

(5) A judge should not disclose or use nonpublic information acquired 

in a judicial capacity for any purpose unrelated to the judge’s official 

duties.

E. Fiduciary Activities. A judge may serve as the executor, administrator, 

trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary only for the estate, trust, or person of a 

member of the judge’s family as defined in Canon 4D(4). As a family 

fiduciary a judge is subject to the following restrictions:

(1) The judge should not serve if it is likely that as a fiduciary the judge 

would 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.

(2) While acting as a fiduciary, a judge is subject to the same 

restrictions on financial activities that apply to the judge in a 

personal capacity.

F. Governmental Appointments. A judge may accept appointment to a 

governmental committee, commission, or other position only if it is one 

that concerns the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, or 

if appointment of a judge is required by federal statute. A judge should 

not, in any event, accept such an appointment if the judge’s governmental 

duties would tend to undermine the public confidence in the integrity, 

impartiality, or independence of the judiciary. A judge may represent the 

judge’s country, state, or locality on ceremonial occasions or in connection 

with historical, educational, and cultural activities.

G. Chambers, Resources, and Staff. A judge should not to any substantial 

degree use judicial chambers, resources, or staff to engage in extrajudicial 

activities permitted by this Canon.

H. Compensation, Reimbursement, and Financial Reporting. A judge may 

accept compensation and reimbursement of expenses for the law-related 

and extrajudicial activities permitted by this Code if the source of the 

payments does not give the appearance of influencing the judge in the 

judge’s judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety, 

subject to the following restrictions:
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 16

(1) Compensation should not exceed a reasonable amount nor should 

it exceed what a person who is not a judge would receive for the 

same activity.

(2) Expense reimbursement should be limited to the actual costs of 

travel, food, and lodging reasonably incurred by the judge and, 

where appropriate to the occasion, by the judge’s spouse or 

relative. Any additional payment is compensation.

(3) A judge should make required financial disclosures, including 

disclosures of gifts and other things of value, in compliance with 

applicable statutes and Judicial Conference regulations and 

directives.

COMMENTARY

Canon 4. Complete separation of a judge from extrajudicial activities is neither 

possible nor wise; a judge should not become isolated from the society in which the 

judge lives. As a judicial officer and a person specially learned in the law, a judge is in a 

unique position to contribute to the law, the legal system, and the administration of 

justice, including revising substantive and procedural law and improving criminal and 

juvenile justice. To the extent that the judge’s time permits and impartiality is not 

compromised, the judge is encouraged to do so, either independently or through a bar 

association, judicial conference, or other organization dedicated to the law. Subject to 

the same limitations, judges may also engage in a wide range of non-law-related 

activities.

Within the boundaries of applicable law (see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 953) a judge may 

express opposition to the persecution of lawyers and judges anywhere in the world if the 

judge has ascertained, after reasonable inquiry, that the persecution is occasioned by 

conflict between the professional responsibilities of the persecuted judge or lawyer and 

the policies or practices of the relevant government.

A person other than a spouse with whom the judge maintains both a household 

and an intimate relationship should be considered a member of the judge’s family for 

purposes of legal assistance under Canon 4A(5), fund raising under Canon 4C, and 

family business activities under Canon 4D(2).

Canon 4A. Teaching and serving on the board of a law school are permissible, 

but in the case of a for-profit law school, board service is limited to a nongoverning 

advisory board.

Consistent with this Canon, a judge may encourage lawyers to provide pro bono 

legal services.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 17

Canon 4A(4). This Canon generally prohibits a judge from mediating a state 

court matter, except in unusual circumstances (e.g., when a judge is mediating a federal 

matter that cannot be resolved effectively without addressing the related state court 

matter).

Canon 4A(5). A judge may act pro se in all legal matters, including matters 

involving litigation and matters involving appearances before or other dealings with 

governmental bodies. In so doing, a judge must not abuse the prestige of office to 

advance the interests of the judge or the judge’s family.

Canon 4B. The changing nature of some organizations and their exposure to 

litigation make it necessary for a judge regularly to reexamine the activities of each 

organization with which the judge is affiliated to determine if the judge’s continued 

association is appropriate. For example, in many jurisdictions, charitable hospitals are 

in court more often now than in the past.

Canon 4C. A judge may attend fund-raising events of law-related and other 

organizations although the judge may not be a speaker, a guest of honor, or featured on 

the program of such an event. Use of a judge’s name, position in the organization, and 

judicial designation on an organization’s letterhead, including when used for fund raising 

or soliciting members, does not violate Canon 4C if comparable information and 

designations are listed for others.

Canon 4D(1), (2), and (3). Canon 3 requires disqualification of a judge in any 

proceeding in which the judge has a financial interest, however small. Canon 4D 

requires a judge to refrain from engaging in business and from financial activities that 

might interfere with the impartial performance of the judge’s judicial duties. Canon 4H 

requires a judge to report compensation received for activities outside the judicial office. 

A judge has the rights of an ordinary citizen with respect to financial affairs, except for 

limitations required to safeguard the proper performance of the judge’s duties. A 

judge’s participation in a closely held family business, while generally permissible, may 

be prohibited if it takes too much time or involves misuse of judicial prestige or if the 

business is likely to come before the court on which the judge serves. Owning and 

receiving income from investments do not as such affect the performance of a judge’s 

duties.

Canon 4D(5). The restriction on using nonpublic information is not intended 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.

Canon 4E. Mere residence in the judge’s household does not by itself make a 

person a member of the judge’s family for purposes of this Canon. The person must be 

treated by the judge as a member of the judge’s family.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 18

The Applicable Date of Compliance provision of this Code addresses continued 

service as a fiduciary.

A judge’s obligation under this Code and the judge’s obligation as a fiduciary may 

come into conflict. For example, a judge should resign as a trustee if it would result in 

detriment to the trust to divest holdings whose retention would require frequent 

disqualification of the judge in violation of Canon 4D(3).

Canon 4F. The appropriateness of accepting extrajudicial assignments must be 

assessed in light of the demands on judicial resources and the need to protect the 

courts from involvement in matters that may prove to be controversial. Judges should 

not accept governmental appointments that could interfere with the effectiveness and 

independence of the judiciary, interfere with the performance of the judge’s judicial 

responsibilities, or tend to undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

Canon 4H. A judge is not required by this Code to disclose income, debts, or 

investments, except as provided in this Canon. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and 

implementing regulations promulgated by the Judicial Conference impose additional 

restrictions on judges’ receipt of compensation. That Act and those regulations should 

be consulted before a judge enters into any arrangement involving the receipt of 

compensation. The restrictions so imposed include but are not limited to: (1) a 

prohibition against receiving “honoraria” (defined as anything of value received for a 

speech, appearance, or article), (2) a prohibition against receiving compensation for 

service as a director, trustee, or officer of a profit or nonprofit organization, (3) a 

requirement that compensated teaching activities receive prior approval, and (4) a 

limitation on the receipt of “outside earned income.”

Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain From Political Activity

A. General Prohibitions. A judge should not:

(1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization;

(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly 

endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; or

(3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a 

political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for 

a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or 

candidate.

B. Resignation upon Candidacy. A judge should resign the judicial office if 

the judge becomes a candidate in a primary or general election for any 

office.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 19

C. Other Political Activity. A judge should not engage in any other political 

activity. This provision does not prevent a judge from engaging in 

activities described in Canon 4.

COMMENTARY

The term “political organization” refers to a political party, a group affiliated with a 

political party or candidate for public office, or an entity whose principal purpose is to 

advocate for or against political candidates or parties in connection with elections for 

public office.

Compliance with the Code of Conduct

Anyone who is an officer of the federal judicial system authorized to perform judicial 

functions is a judge for the purpose of this Code. All judges should comply with this 

Code except as provided below.

A. Part-time Judge

A part-time judge is a judge who serves part-time, whether continuously or 

periodically, but is permitted by law to devote time to some other 

profession or occupation and whose compensation for that reason is less 

than that of a full-time judge. A part-time judge:

(1) is not required to comply with Canons 4A(4), 4A(5), 4D(2), 4E, 4F, 

or 4H(3);

(2) except as provided in the Conflict-of-Interest Rules for Part-time 

Magistrate Judges, should not practice law in the court on which 

the judge serves or in any court subject to that court’s appellate 

jurisdiction, or act as a lawyer in a proceeding in which the judge 

has served as a judge or in any related proceeding.

B. Judge Pro Tempore

A judge pro tempore is a person who is appointed to act temporarily as a 

judge or as a special master.

(1) While acting in this capacity, a judge pro tempore is not required to 

comply with Canons 4A(4), 4A(5), 4D(2), 4D(3), 4E, 4F, or 4H(3); 

further, one who acts solely as a special master is not required to 

comply with Canons 4A(3), 4B, 4C, 4D(4), or 5.

(2) A person who has been a judge pro tempore should not act as a 

lawyer in a proceeding in which the judge has served as a judge or 

in any related proceeding.
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Page 20

C. Retired Judge

A judge who is retired under 28 U.S.C. § 371(b) or § 372(a) (applicable to 

Article III judges), or who is subject to recall under § 178(d) (applicable to 

judges on the Court of Federal Claims), or who is recalled to judicial 

service, should comply with all the provisions of this Code except Canon 

4F, but the judge should refrain from judicial service during the period of 

extrajudicial appointment not sanctioned by Canon 4F. All other retired 

judges who are eligible for recall to judicial service (except those in U.S. 

territories and possessions) should comply with the provisions of this 

Code governing part-time judges. However, bankruptcy judges and 

magistrate judges who are eligible for recall but who have notified the 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts that they will not consent 

to recall are not obligated to comply with the provisions of this Code 

governing part-time judges. Such notification may be made at any time 

after retirement, and is irrevocable. A senior judge in the territories and 

possessions must comply with this Code as prescribed by 28 U.S.C.

§ 373(c)(5) and (d).

COMMENTARY

The 2014 amendment to the Compliance section, regarding retired bankruptcy 

judges and magistrate judges and exempting those judges from compliance with the 

Code as part-time judges if they notify the Administrative Office of the United States 

Courts that they will not consent to recall, was not intended to alter those judges’

statutory entitlements to annuities, cost-of-living adjustments, or any other retirement 

benefits.

Applicable Date of Compliance

Persons to whom this Code applies should arrange their financial and fiduciary affairs 

as soon as reasonably possible to comply with it and should do so in any event within 

one year after appointment. If, however, the demands on the person’s time and the 

possibility of conflicts of interest are not substantial, such a person may continue to act, 

without compensation, as an executor, administrator, trustee, or other fiduciary for the 

estate or person of one who is not a member of the person’s family if terminating the 

relationship would unnecessarily jeopardize any substantial interest of the estate or 

person and if the judicial council of the circuit approves.