Litigation

Revised Code of Conduct for United States Judges

By Deanna Dawson

Earlier this week, the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted a revised Code of Conduct for United States Judges. A summary of the revisions can be found here. A table cross-referencing the Codes can be found here.

The Code of Conduct contains rules (called “cannons”) and commentary that govern the behavior of United States circuit judges, district judges, Court of International Trade judges, Court of Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges. Revisions to the Code will take effect on July 1, 2009.

Both versions of the Code begin with an identical rule: A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. As explained in the commentary to that rule:

“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 depend in turn upon their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they should comply with the law, as well as 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.”

The Code has been updated to replace “legalese” with cleaner, easier to understand language. The Code has also been streamlined from seven rules to five. While the prior version of the Code had three rules governing behavior of judges off the bench (”extra-judicial activities”), the revised Code condenses those rules into one.

Both versions of the Code state that judges should avoid not just impropriety, but also the appearance of impropriety, in all activities. The definition of an “appearance of impropriety” has been updated, and provides:

?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.?

While both versions of the Code provide that a judge should not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence their conduct or judgment, the revised Code also specifically states that a judge should not let “political” or “financial” relationships influence them.

The revisions to the Code were adopted two weeks to the day after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the matter of Caperton v. Massey. In that case, a coal company CEO spent $3 million to elect a West Virginia Supreme Court justice, who later voted to overturn a $50 million jury award against the company.

For more on the Caperton case, see Justice at Stake’s online resource page.

Full post as published by The Gavel on March 20, 2009 (boomark / email).