![]() |
|
WELCOME!
|
|
|
|
CANON 1Judges shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. Judges should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of judicial conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved. The provisions of this Code are to be construed and applied to further that objective. Comment Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depends in turn upon their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law, including the provisions of this Code. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law.
CANON 2Judges should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities.(A) Judges 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) Judges should not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence their judicial conduct or judgment. Judges should not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor should judges convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence them. Judges should not testify voluntarily as character witnesses. Comment Maintaining the prestige of judicial office is essential to a system of government in which the judiciary functions independently of the executive and legislative branches. Respect for the judicial office facilitates the orderly conduct of legitimate judicial functions. Judges should distinguish between proper and improper use of the prestige of office in all of their activities. The testimony of judges as character witnesses injects the prestige of their office into the proceeding in which they testify and may be misunderstood to be an official testimonial. This canon however, does not afford judges a privilege against testifying in response to a subpoena. (C) Judges should not hold membership in any organization practicing discrimination prohibited by law.
CANON 3Judges shall perform the duties of their office impartially and diligently.The judicial duties of judges should take precedence over all other activities. Their judicial duties include all the duties of office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply: (A) Adjudicative Responsibilities.
Comment 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.
Comment The proscription against communications concerning a proceeding includes communications from lawyers, law teachers, and other persons who are not participants in the proceeding, except to the limited extent permitted. It does not preclude judges from consulting with other judges, or with court personnel whose function is to aid judges in carrying out their adjudicative responsibilities. An appropriate and often desirable procedure for a court to obtain the advice of a disinterested expert on legal issues is to invite the expert to file a brief amicus curiae.
Comment A judge must perform judicial duties impartially and fairly. A judge who manifests bias on any basis in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute.
Comment Prompt disposition of the court's business requires judges to devote adequate time to their duties, to be punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters under submission, and to insist that court officials, litigants and their lawyers cooperate with them to that end.
Comment Commending or criticizing jurors for their verdict may imply a judicial expectation in future cases and may impair a juror's ability to be fair and impartial in a subsequent case. (B) Administrative Responsibilities.
Comment Appointees of the judge include officials such as referees, commissioners, special masters, receivers, guardians and personnel such as clerks, secretaries and bailiffs. Consent by the parties to an appointment or an award of compensation does not relieve the judge of the obligation prescribed by this subsection. (C) Disciplinary Responsibilities.
(D) Disqualification.
Comment The fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law firm with which a lawyer-relative of the judge is affiliated does not of itself disqualify the judge. Under appropriate circumstances, the fact that "their impartiality might reasonably be questioned" under Canon 3(D)(1), or that the lawyer-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" may require the judge's disqualification.
(E) Remittal of Disqualification. A judge disqualified by the terms of Canon 3(D)(1)(c) or Canon 3(D)(1)(d) may, instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on the record the basis of the disqualification. If, based on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers, independently of the judge's participation, all agree in writing or on the record that the judge's relationship is immaterial or that the judge's economic interest is de minimis, the judge is no longer disqualified, and may participate in the proceeding. When a party is not immediately available, the judge may proceed on the assurance of the lawyer that the party's consent will be subsequently given.
CANON 4Judges may engage in activities to improve the law, the legal system and the administration of justice.Judges, subject to the proper performance of their judicial duties, may engage in the following quasi-judicial activities, if in doing so they do not cast doubt on their capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before them: (A) They may speak, write, lecture, teach and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system and the administration of justice. (B) They may appear at a public hearing before an executive or legislative body or official on matters concerning the law, the legal system and the administration of justice, and they may otherwise consult with an executive or legislative body or official, but only on matters concerning the administration of justice. (C) Judges may serve as members, officers or directors of an organization or governmental agency devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice. They may assist such an organization in raising funds and may participate in their management and investment, but should not personally solicit contributions from the public. They may attend fund raising activities. They may make recommendations to public and private fund granting agencies on projects and programs concerning the law, the legal system and the administration of justice. Comment As judicial officers and persons specially learned in the law, judges are in a unique position to contribute to the improvement of the law, the legal system and the administration of justice, including revision of substantive and procedural law and improvement of criminal and juvenile justice. To the extent that their time permits, they are encouraged to do so, either independently or through a bar association, judicial conference, or other organization dedicated to the improvement of the law. Use of an organization's letterhead for fund raising or membership solicitation is permissible provided the letterhead lists only the judge's name and position in the organization, and if comparable designations are listed for other persons. Judges must not be speakers or guests of honor at an organization's fund raising event, but attendance at such an event is permissible if otherwise consistent with this Code. Judges may pay to attend an organization's fund raising event. Extrajudicial activities are governed by Canon 5.
CANON 5Judges shall regulate their extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties.(A) Avocational Activities. Judges may write, lecture, teach and speak on nonlegal subjects, and engage in the arts, sports and other social and recreational activities, if such avocational activities do not detract from the dignity of their office or interfere with the performance of their judicial duties. Comment Complete separation of judges from extrajudicial activities is neither possible nor wise; they should not become isolated from the society in which they live. (B) Civic and Charitable Activities. Judges may participate in civic and charitable activities that do not reflect adversely upon their impartiality or interfere with the performance of their judicial duties. Judges may serve as officers, directors, trustees or nonlegal advisors of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic organization not conducted for the economic or political advantage of its members, subject to the following limitations:
Comment Judges may pay to attend an organization's fund raising event. Participation in fund raising activities for organizations devoted to the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice are governed by Canon 4. Use of an organization's letterhead lists only the judge's name and position in the organization, and if comparable designations are listed for other persons. (C) Financial Activities.
Comment See Application of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Section (B).
Comment This canon does not apply to contributions to a judge's campaign for judicial office, a matter governed by Canon 7.
Comment Canon 3 requires judges to disqualify themselves in any proceeding in which they have a financial interest, however small; Canon 5 requires judges to refrain from engaging in business and from financial activities that might interfere with the impartial performance of their judicial duties; Canon 6 requires judges to report all compensation they receive for activities outside their judicial office. Judges have the rights of ordinary citizens, including the right to privacy of their financial affairs, except to the extent that limitations thereon are required to safeguard the proper performance of their duties. Owning and receiving income from investments do not as such affect the performance of a judge's duties.
(D) Fiduciary Activities. Judges shall not serve as executors, administrators, trustees, guardians or other fiduciaries, except for the estate, trust or person of members of their families, and then only if such service will not interfere with the proper performance of their judicial duties. As family fiduciaries judges are subject to the following restrictions:
Comment Judges' obligations under this canon and their obligations as a fiduciary may come into conflict. For example, judges should resign as trustees if it would result in detriment to the trust to divest it of holdings whose retention would place the judge in violation of Canon 5(C)(4). (E) Arbitration. Judges should not participate as arbitrators or mediators or otherwise perform judicial functions in a private capacity unless expressly authorized by law. (F) Practice of Law. Judges shall not practice law. Notwithstanding this prohibition, judges may act pro se and may, without compensation, give legal advice to and draft or review documents for members of their families. (G) Extrajudicial Appointments. Judges should not accept appointment to a governmental committee, commission or other position that is concerned with issues of fact or policy on matters other than the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice. Judges, however, may represent their country, state or locality on ceremonial occasions or in connection with historical, educational and cultural activities. Comment Valuable services have been rendered in the past to the states and the nation by judges appointed by the executive to undertake important extrajudicial assignments. The appropriateness of conferring these assignments on judges must be reassessed, however, in the light of the demands on the judiciary created by today's crowded dockets and the need to protect the courts from involvement in extrajudicial matters that may prove to be controversial. Judges should not be expected or permitted to accept governmental appointments that could interfere with the efficiency, effectiveness and independence of the judiciary.
CANON 6Judges shall regularly file reports of compensation received for quasi-judicial and extra-judicial activities.Judges may receive compensation and reimbursement of expenses for the quasi-judicial and extrajudicial activities permitted by this Code, if the source of such payments does not give the appearance of influencing the judges in their judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety, subject to the following restrictions: (A) Compensation. Compensation shall not exceed a reasonable amount nor shall it exceed what a person who is not a judge would receive for the same activity. (B) Expense Reimbursement. Expense reimbursement should be limited to the actual cost of travel, food and lodging reasonably incurred by the judge and, where appropriate to the occasion, by the judge's spouse. Any payment in excess of such an amount is compensation. (C) Public Reports. A judge shall make such financial disclosures as required by law. Comment The Code does not prohibit judges from accepting honoraria or speaking fees provided that the compensation is reasonable and commensurate with the task performed. Judges should ensure, however, that no conflicts are created by the arrangement. Judges must not appear to trade on their judicial position for personal advantage. Judges should not spend significant time away from court duties to meet speaking or writing commitments for compensation. In addition, the source of the payments must not raise any question of undue influence or the judges' ability or willingness to be impartial.
CANON 7Judges shall refrain from political activity inappropriate to their judicial office.(A) Political Conduct in General.
Comment See State ex. rel. Reynolds v. Howell, 70 Wash. 467, 126 Pac. 954 (1912) and State ex. rel. Chandler v. Howell, 104 Wash. 99, 175 Pac. 569 (1918).
(B) Campaign Conduct.
Comment Section 7(B)(1)(c) prohibits a candidate for judicial office from making statements that appear to commit the candidate regarding cases, controversies or issues likely to come before the court. As a corollary, a candidate should emphasize in any public statement the candidate's duty to uphold the law regardless of his or her personal views. See also Section 3(A)(6), the general rule on public comment by judges. Section 7(B)(1)(c) does not prohibit a candidate from making pledges or promises respecting improvements in court administration. Nor does this Section prohibit an incumbent judge from making private statements to other judges or court personnel in the performance of judicial duties. This Section applies to any statement made in the process of securing judicial office.
Comment Although campaign contributions of which a judge has knowledge are not prohibited, these contributions may be relevant to recusal.
|
|
|
* These files were saved in ".pdf" format. Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view them. If you don't have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed, it is available for free from the Adobe web site. |
||||
|
Home | About the Commission | Disciplinary Function | Commission Activity | Governing Provisions | Filing a Complaint Discipline Database | Contact Us | Privacy Notice Information | Site map Copyright
© 2000-2001 Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct |