Rule 3.1 Extrajudicial Activities in General

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. However, when engaging in extrajudicial activities, a judge shall not participate in activities that will lead to frequent disqualification or recusal of the judge. 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 duties of judicial office, 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, gender identity, gender expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, political affiliation, or personal characteristics. For the same reason, a judge’s extrajudicial activities must not be conducted in connection or affiliation with an organization that practices invidious discrimination. See Rule 3.6.

Code Comparison

The Hawaiʻi Revised Code of Judicial Conduct modifies ABA Model Code Comment [3] by adding marital status, political affiliation, and personal characteristics.

[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 on behalf of 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.