Rule 51:2.15 Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct

[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 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.

[3] Information about a judge’s misconduct or fitness may be received by a judge in the course of that judge’s participation in an approved judges assistance program. In that circumstance, providing for an exception to reporting requirements of paragraphs (A) and (B) of this rule encourages judges to seek treatment through such a program. Conversely, without such an exception, judges may hesitate to seek assistance from these programs, which may then result in additional harm to their professional careers and additional injury to the welfare of the public. These rules do not otherwise address the confidentiality of information received by a judge participating in an approved judges assistance program; such an obligation, however, may be imposed by the rules of the program or other law.