Comment
[1] Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety.
[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 under this standardinclude 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’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and appropriate temperament is impaired.
[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.
RULE 2-1.3 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] In addition, the need for every recommendation on official stationery to recite that it is the “personal” act of the judge is questionable. Recommendation letters of the type authorized by judicial codes are reviewed by sophisticated individuals with a sufficient knowledge that references are private, not official acts. References sent to educational institutions, governmental agencies, scholarship committees, and businesses are not likely to be misinterpreted as court acts.
[3] Judges may participate in the process of judicial selection by communicating with appointing authorities and screening committees 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 2-1.3 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.
