Microsoft Word - CJEO Annotated California Code of Judicial Ethics (7.12.22)



350 McAllister Street

San Francisco, CA 94102

(855) 854-5366

www.JudicialEthicsOpinions.ca.gov

CALIFORNIA CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS

ANNOTATED BY

THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINIONS

WITH ADVISORY OPINIONS

ISSUED BY

THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINIONS

The CJEO Annotated California Code of Judicial Ethics: CJEO Opinions contains

annotations prepared by the California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions

(CJEO), which holds the copyright to this document. The annotations consist of historical

notations about the effective and amendment dates of the canons and advisory committee

commentary in the official California Code of Judicial Ethics, and summaries of CJEO opinions

and advice that are relevant to specific canon provisions and advisory committee commentary.

These notations and annotations are clearly marked as CJEO Historical Notes and CJEO

Annotations.

Notice to users: By posting the CJEO Annotated California Code of Judicial Ethics:

CJEO Opinions on its website, CJEO makes the annotations available to the public and hereby

grants permission to members of the public to download, print, and copy that document for

noncommercial purposes. The foregoing nonexclusive public license does not extend to any

commercial publisher for purposes of reproducing the CJEO Annotated California Code of

Judicial Ethics: CJEO Opinions (in any format), preparing derivative works based on the

CJEO Annotated California Code of Judicial Ethics: CJEO Opinions, or publicly

distributing or displaying copies of the CJEO Annotated California Code of Judicial Ethics:

CJEO Opinions. For purposes of this notice, ‘commercial publishers’ means entities that

publish works for sale, whether for profit or otherwise. Commercial publishers may request

permission to reprint the CJEO Annotated California Code of Judicial Ethics: CJEO

Opinions by contacting CJEO staff.



CALIFORNIA CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS

Amended by the Supreme Court of California effective July 1, 2020; adopted effective January

15, 1996; previously amended March 4, 1999, December 13, 2000, December 30, 2002, June 18,

2003, December 22, 2003, January 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, July 1, 2006, January 1, 2007, January

1, 2008, April 29, 2009, January 1, 2013, January 21, 2015, and August 19, 2015, December 1,

2016, and October 10, 2018.

Preface

Preamble

Terminology

Canon 1. A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

Canon 2. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the

judge’s activities.

Canon 3. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and

diligently.

Canon 4. A judge shall so conduct the judge’s quasi-judicial and extrajudicial activities as to

minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.

Canon 5. A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign

activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.

Canon 6. Compliance with the Code of Judicial Ethics.

PREFACE

Formal standards of judicial conduct have existed for more than 65 years. The original Canons of

Judicial Ethics promulgated by the American Bar Association were modified and adopted in 1949

for application in California by the Conference of California Judges (now the California Judges

Association).

In 1969, the American Bar Association determined that then current needs and problems

warranted revision of the canons. In the revision process, a special American Bar Association

committee, headed by former California Chief Justice Roger Traynor, sought and considered the

views of the bench and bar and other interested persons. The American Bar Association Code of

Judicial Conduct was adopted by the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association

August 16, 1972.

Effective January 5, 1975, the California Judges Association adopted a new California Code of

Judicial Conduct adapted from the American Bar Association 1972 Model Code. The California

code was recast in gender-neutral form in 1986.

In 1990, the American Bar Association Model Code was further revised after a lengthy study.

The California Judges Association again reviewed the model code and adopted a revised

California Code of Judicial Conduct on October 5, 1992.

Proposition 190 (amending Cal. Const., art., § 18, subd. (m), operative March 1, 1995) created a

new constitutional provision that states, “The Supreme Court shall make rules for the conduct of

judges, both on and off the bench, and for judicial candidates in the conduct of their campaigns.

These rules shall be referred to as the Code of Judicial Ethics.”

The Supreme Court formally adopted the 1992 Code of Judicial Conduct in March 1995, as a

transitional measure pending further review.

The Supreme Court formally adopted the Code of Judicial Ethics effective January 15, 1996.

The Supreme Court has formally adopted amendments to the Code of Judicial Ethics on several

occasions. The Advisory Committee Commentary is published by the Supreme Court Advisory

Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics.

 CJEO Historical Note:

Preface amended effective January 21, 2015; previously amended effective January 1,

2013 and April 15, 1996; adopted effective January 15, 1996.

PREAMBLE

Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair, and competent judiciary will

interpret and apply the laws that govern us. The role of the judiciary is central to American

concepts of justice and the rule of law. Intrinsic to this code are the precepts that judges,

individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and must

strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system. The judge is an arbiter of facts

and law for the resolution of disputes and is a highly visible member of government under the

rule of law.

The Code of Judicial Ethics (“code”) establishes standards for ethical conduct of judges on and

off the bench and for candidates for judicial office.* The code consists of broad declarations

called canons, with subparts, and a terminology section. Following many canons is a

commentary section prepared by the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Code of

Judicial Ethics. The commentary, by explanation and example, provides guidance as to the

purpose and meaning of the canons. The commentary does not constitute additional rules and

should not be so construed. All members of the judiciary must comply with the code.

Compliance is required to preserve the integrity* of the bench and to ensure the confidence of

the public.

The canons should be read together as a whole, and each provision should be construed in

context and consistent with every other provision. They are to be applied in conformance with

constitutional requirements, statutes, other court rules, and decisional law. Nothing in the code

shall either impair the essential independence* of judges in making judicial decisions or provide

a separate basis for civil liability or criminal prosecution.

The code governs the conduct of judges and candidates for judicial office* and is binding upon

them. Whether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the degree of discipline to be imposed,

requires a reasoned application of the text and consideration of such factors as the seriousness of

the transgression, if there is a pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the improper activity

on others or on the judicial system.

 CJEO Historical Note:

Preamble amended effective January 21, 2015; previously amended effective January 1,

2013 and January 1, 2008; adopted effective January 15, 1996.

TERMINOLOGY

Terms explained below are noted with an asterisk (*) in the canons where they appear. In

addition, the canons in which these terms appear are cited after the explanation of each term

below.

“Candidate for judicial office” is a person seeking election to or retention of a judicial office. A

person becomes a candidate for judicial office as soon as he or she makes a public announcement

of candidacy, declares or files as a candidate with the election authority, or authorizes solicitation

or acceptance of contributions or support. See Preamble and Canons 3E(2)(b)(i), 3E(3)(a), 5, 5A,

5A (Commentary), 5B(1), 5B(2), 5B(3), 5B(4), 5B (Commentary), 5B(4) (Commentary), 5C,

5D, and 6E.

“Fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian. See

Canons 3E(5)(d), 4E(1), 4E(2), 4E(3), 4E (Commentary), 6B, and 6F (Commentary).

“Gender identity” means a person’s internal sense of being male, female, a combination of male

and female, or neither male nor female. See Canons 2C, 2C (Commentary), 3B(5), 3B(6), 3C(1),

and 3C(3).

“Gender expression” is the way people communicate or externally express their gender identity

to others, through such means as pronouns used, clothing, appearance, and demeanor. See

Canons 2C, 2C (Commentary), 3B(5), 3B(6), 3C(1), and 3C(3).

“Gift” means anything of value to the extent that consideration of equal or greater value is not

received, and includes a rebate or discount in the price of anything of value unless the rebate or

discount is made in the regular course of business to members of the public without regard to

official status. See Canons 4D(5), 4D(5) (Commentary), 4D(6), 4D(6)(a), 4D(6)(b), 4D(6)(b)

(Commentary), 4D(6)(d), 4D(6)(f), 4D(6)(i), 4D(6)(i) (Commentary), 4D(6) and 4D(7)

(Commentary), 4H (Commentary), 5A (Commentary), 5B(4) (Commentary), 6D(2)(c), and

6D(7).

 CJEO Annotations:

A law firm offer to provide attorney services to an appellate justice constitutes a gift from

the law firm to both the justice and the court, which does not fall within any exception to

the general prohibition on gifts. CJEO Expedited Opinion 2021-038, Acceptance of

Attorney Services from a Law Firm, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 2-3.

Gifts of di minimus or nominal value fall within the definition of a gift in the Code of

Judicial Ethics and are subject to canons 4D(5) & (6). CJEO Formal Opinion 2014-005,

Accepting Gifts of Little or Nominal Value Under the Ordinary Social Hospitality

Exception, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 6.

“Impartial,” “impartiality,” and “impartially” mean the absence of bias or prejudice in favor of,

or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as the maintenance of an open mind in

considering issues that may come before a judge. See Canons 1, 1 (Commentary), 2A, 2 and 2A

(Commentary), 2B (Commentary), 2C (Commentary), 3, 3B(9) (Commentary), 3B(10)

(Commentary), 3B(12), 3B(12) (Commentary), 3C(1), 3C(5), 3E(4)(b), 3E(4)(c), 4A(1), 4A

(Commentary), 4C(3)(b) (Commentary), 4C(3)(c) (Commentary), 4D(1) (Commentary),

4D(6)(a) (Commentary), 4D(6)(b) (Commentary), 4D(6)(g) (Commentary), 4D(6)(i)

(Commentary), 4H (Commentary), 5, 5A, 5A (Commentary), 5B (Commentary), 5B(4)

(Commentary), 6D(2)(a), and 6D(3)(a)(vii).

“Impending proceeding” is a proceeding or matter that is imminent or expected to occur in the

near future. The words “proceeding” and “matter” are used interchangeably, and are intended to

have the same meaning. See Canons 2 and 2A (Commentary), 3B(7), 3B(7)(a), 3B(9), 3B(9)

(Commentary), 4H (Commentary), and 6D(6). “Pending proceeding” is defined below.

“Impropriety” includes conduct that violates the law, court rules, or provisions of this code, as

well as conduct that undermines a judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality. See Canons 2,

2 and 2A (Commentary), 2B (Commentary), 2C (Commentary), 3B(9) (Commentary), 4D(1)(b)

(Commentary), 4D(6)(g) (Commentary), 4D(6)(i) (Commentary), 4H, 5.

“Independence” means a judge’s freedom from influence or control other than as established by

law. See Preamble, Canons 1, 1 (Commentary), 2C, 4C(2) (Commentary), 4D(6)(a)

(Commentary), 4D(6)(g) (Commentary), 4D(6)(i) (Commentary), 4H(3) (Commentary), 5, 5A

(Commentary), 5B (Commentary), and 6D(1).

“Integrity” means probity, fairness, honesty, uprightness, and soundness of character. See

Preamble, Canons 1, 1 (Commentary), 2A, 2 and 2A (Commentary), 2B (Commentary), 2C

(Commentary), 3B(9) (Commentary), 3C(1), 3C(5), 4D(6)(a) (Commentary), 4D(6)(b)

(Commentary), 4D(6)(g) (Commentary), 4D(6)(i) (Commentary), 4H (Commentary), 5, 5A

(Commentary), 5B (Commentary), and 6D(1).

“Knowingly,” “knowledge,” “known,” and “knows” mean actual knowledge of the fact in

question. A person’s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances. See Canons 2B(2)(b),

2B(2)(e), 2C (Commentary), 3B(2) (Commentary), 3B(7)(a), 3B(7)(a) (Commentary), 3D(2),

3D(5), 3E(5)(f), 5B(1)(b), 6D(3)(a)(i), 6D(3)(a) (Commentary), 6D(4) (Commentary), and

6D(5)(a).

 CJEO Annotation:

Appellate Presiding Justices have an affirmative obligation under canon 3D(2) to take

appropriate corrective actions if they have personal knowledge of facts that constitute

attorney misconduct. CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2018-024, Reporting Misconduct by a

Superior Court Research Attorney in a Pending Matter, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud.

Ethics Opns., pp. 3-4.

“Law” means constitutional provisions, statutes, court rules, and decisional law. See Canons 1

(Commentary), 2A, 2C (Commentary), 3A, 3B(2), 3B(7), 3B(7)(c), 3B(8), 3B(8) (Commentary),

3B(12) (Commentary), 3E(1), 4C(3)(c) (Commentary), 4F, and 4H.

 CJEO Annotation:

Effective July 10, 2017, judges may again accept compensation for performing marriages

on weekends or holidays. The inconsistency with the Code of Judicial Ethics and Penal

Code section 94.5, as discussed in this oral advice summary, was eliminated. CJEO Oral

Advice Summary 2016-019, Accepting Compensation for Performing a Marriage After

January 1, 2017, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 2-3.

“Law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.” When a judge engages in an activity

that relates to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, the judge should also

consider factors such as whether the activity upholds the integrity, impartiality, and

independence of the judiciary (Canons 1 and 2A), whether the activity impairs public confidence

in the judiciary (Canon 2), whether the judge is allowing the activity to take precedence over

judicial duties (Canon 3A), and whether engaging in the activity would cause the judge to be

disqualified (Canon 4A(4)). See Canons 4B (Commentary), 4C(1), 4C(1) (Commentary), 4C(2),

4C(2) (Commentary), 4C(3)(a), 4C(3)(b) (Commentary), 4C(3)(d)(ii), 4C(3)(d) (Commentary),

4D(6)(d), 4D(6)(e), 5A (Commentary), 5D, and 5D (Commentary).

 CJEO Annotations:

When analyzing whether serving as a member of an organization or government agency

is permissible, judges must determine whether service falls within the meaning of the

phrase, “the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice,” which is not defined

with specificity in the code but requires consideration of other code obligations. Judicial

engagement in substantive policy matters may fall within the law, the legal system, or the

administration of justice if the primary focus is to benefit the court system and its users

rather than favoring partisan causes or groups. CJEO Expedited Opinion 2021-043,

Service on the California Access to Justice Commission or Child Welfare Council, Cal.

Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 6-7.

The code does not precisely define the law, the legal system, or the administration of

justice, and an overly broad interpretation could sweep nearly any sociopolitical topic

within its ambit. Judges must therefore exercise caution to ensure that public statements

directly relate to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice rather than

their personal social or political views. CJEO Expedited Opinion 2021-042, Social

Media Posts About the Law, the Legal System, or the Administration of Justice, Cal.

Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 7.

The phrase “the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice” is not defined with

specificity in the code and requires a careful analysis of the facts. CJEO Expedited

Opinion 2021-041, Service on a Governmental Task Force, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud.

Ethics Opns., pp. 3-4.

Activities falling within the scope of “the law, the legal system, or the administration of

justice” are those addressing the legal process. Comment and consultation about

substantive legal issues, where the purpose is to benefit the law and legal system itself

rather than any particular cause or group, would fall within the permissible scope of the

term. CJEO Formal Opinion 2014-006, Judicial Comment at Public Hearings and

Consultation with Public Officials and Other Branches of Government, Cal. Supreme Ct.,

Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 7.

“Member of the judge’s family” means a spouse, registered domestic partner, child, grandchild,

parent, grandparent, or other relative or person with whom the judge maintains a close familial

relationship. See Canons 2B(3)(c), 2B (Commentary), 4C(3)(d)(i), 4D(1) (Commentary), 4D(2),

4D(5) (Commentary), 4E(1), and 4G (Commentary).

“Member of the judge’s family residing in the judge’s household” means a spouse or registered

domestic partner and those persons who reside in the judge’s household and who are relatives of

the judge, including relatives by marriage or persons with whom the judge maintains a close

familial relationship. See Canons 4D(5), 4D(5) (Commentary), 4D(6), 4D(6)(b) (Commentary),

4D(6)(f) and 6D(2)(c).

“Nonpublic information” means information that, by law, is not available to the public.

Nonpublic information may include, but is not limited to, information that is sealed by statute or

court order, impounded, or communicated in camera, and information offered in grand jury

proceedings, presentencing reports, dependency cases, or psychiatric reports. Nonpublic

information also includes information from affidavits, jury results, or court rulings before it

becomes public information. See Canons 3B(11) and 6D(8)(a).

“Pending proceeding” is a proceeding or matter that has commenced. A proceeding continues to

be pending through any period during which an appeal may be filed and any appellate process

until final disposition. The words “proceeding” and “matter” are used interchangeably, and are

intended to have the same meaning. See Canons 2 and 2A (Commentary), 2B(3)(a), 3B(7),

3B(9), 3B(9) (Commentary), 3E(5)(a), 4H (Commentary), and 6D(6). “Impending proceeding” is

defined above.

 CJEO Annotation:

Communication between an appellate presiding justice and a superior court presiding

judge regarding a superior court research attorney’s misconduct in a matter is an

impermissible ex parte communication pursuant to canon 3B(7) so long as there is still

time to file a writ of certiorari. CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2018-024, Reporting

Misconduct by a Superior Court Research Attorney in a Pending Matter, Cal. Supreme

Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 2-3.

“Political organization” means a political party, political action committee, or other group, the

principal purpose of which is to further the election or appointment of candidates to nonjudicial

office. See Canon 5A.

“Registered domestic partner” means a person who has registered for domestic partnership

pursuant to state law or who is recognized as a domestic partner pursuant to Family Code section

299.2. See Canons 3E(5)(d), 3E(5)(e), 3E(5)(i), 4D(6)(d), 4D(6)(f), 4D(6)(j), 4H(2), 5A

(Commentary), 6D(3)(a)(v), and 6D(3)(a)(vi).

“Require.” Any canon prescribing that a judge “require” certain conduct of others means that a

judge is to exercise reasonable direction and control over the conduct of those persons subject to

the judge’s direction and control. See Canons 3B(3), 3B(4), 3B(6), 3B(8) (Commentary), 3B(9),

3C(3), 6D(1), 6D(2)(a), and 6D(6).

“Service organization” includes any organization commonly referred to as a “fraternal

organization.” See Canons 3E(5)(d), 4C(2) (Commentary), 4C(3)(b), 4C(3)(b) (Commentary),

4C(3)(d) (Commentary), 4D(6)(j), and 6D(2)(b).

“Subordinate judicial officer.” A subordinate judicial officer is, for the purposes of this code, a

person appointed pursuant to article VI, section 22 of the California Constitution, including, but

not limited to, a commissioner, referee, and hearing officer. See Canons 3D(3), 4G

(Commentary), and 6A.

“Temporary Judge” means an active or inactive member of the bar who, pursuant to article VI,

section 21 of the California Constitution, serves or expects to serve as a judge once, sporadically,

or regularly on a part-time basis under a separate court appointment for each period of service or

for each case heard. See Canons 3E(5)(h), 4C(3)(d)(i), 4C(3)(d) (Commentary), 6A, and 6D.

“Third degree of relationship” includes the following persons: great-grandparent, grandparent,

parent, uncle, aunt, brother, sister, child, grandchild, great-grandchild, nephew, and niece. See

Canons 3E(5)(e), 3E(5)(i), and 6D(3)(a)(v).

 CJEO Historical Note:

Terminology amended effective October 10, 2018; previously amended effective January

21, 2016, January 1, 2015, January 1, 2013, January 1, 2008, and January 1, 2007;

adopted effective January 15, 1996.

CANON 1

A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY* AND INDEPENDENCE* OF THE

JUDICIARY

An independent, impartial,* and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A

judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct,

and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity* and independence* of the

judiciary is preserved. The provisions of this code are to be construed and applied to further that

objective. A judicial decision or administrative act later determined to be incorrect legally is not

itself a violation of this code.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 1

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 must

comply with the law* and 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,

violations of this code diminish public confidence in the judiciary and thereby do injury to the

system of government under law.

The basic function of an independent, impartial,* and honorable judiciary is to maintain

the utmost integrity* in decisionmaking, and this code should be read and interpreted with that

function in mind.

 CJEO Historical Notes:

Commentary following canon 1 adopted effective January 15, 1996.

Canon 1 amended effective August 19, 2015; previously amended effective January 1,

2013; adopted effective January 15, 1996.

 CJEO Annotations:

Before attending or otherwise participating in a public demonstration or rally, or making

a public statement on matters of public concern, judges should examine whether their

conduct promotes the public’s confidence in judicial impartiality. CJEO Formal Opinion

2020-014, Judicial Participation in Public Demonstrations and Rallies, Cal. Supreme

Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 2.

A judge should disclose if the judge’s spouse is engaged in campaign services to reelect

the head of a government legal office when attorneys from that office appear. Disclosure

should continue while the spouse provides such services and for a reasonable period of

time after the spouse's services end or after the last payment related to the services is

received, whichever is later. CJEO Informal Opinion Summary 2018-005,

Disqualification for Spouse's Political Campaign Services, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud.

Ethics Opns., pp. 3, 8.

A judicial officer may not serve on an advisory council of a nonprofit credit union.

CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2017-020, Judicial Service on a Nonprofit Credit Union

Advisory Council, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 2.

CANON 2

A JUDGE SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY* AND THE APPEARANCE OF

IMPROPRIETY* IN ALL OF THE JUDGE’S ACTIVITIES

A. Promoting Public Confidence

A judge shall respect and comply with the law* and shall act at all times in a manner that

promotes public confidence in the integrity* and impartiality* of the judiciary. A judge shall not

make statements, whether public or nonpublic, that commit the judge with respect to cases,

controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the courts or that are inconsistent with the

impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canons 2 and 2A

Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by

judges.

A judge must avoid all impropriety* and appearance of impropriety.* A judge must

expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on

the judge’s conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by other members of the community and

should do so freely and willingly.

A judge must exercise caution when engaging in any type of electronic communication,

including communication by text or email, or when participating in online social networking

sites or otherwise posting material on the Internet, given the accessibility, widespread

transmission, and permanence of electronic communications and material posted on the Internet.

The same canons that govern a judge’s ability to socialize and communicate in person, on paper,

or over the telephone apply to electronic communications, including use of the Internet and

social networking sites. These canons include, but are not limited to, Canons 2B(2) (lending the

prestige of judicial office), 3B(7) (ex parte communications), 3B(9) (public comment about

pending* or impending proceedings*), 3E(2) (disclosure of information relevant to

disqualification), and 4A (conducting extrajudicial activities to avoid casting doubt on the

judge’s capacity to act impartially,* demeaning the judicial office, or frequent disqualification).

The prohibition against behaving with impropriety* or the appearance of impropriety*

applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge.

The test for the appearance of impropriety* is whether a person aware of the facts might

reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to act with integrity,* impartiality,*

and competence.

As to membership in organizations that practice invidious discrimination, see

Commentary under Canon 2C.

As to judges making statements that commit the judge with respect to cases,

controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the courts, see Canon 3B(9) and its

commentary concerning comments about a pending proceeding,* Canon 3E(3)(a) concerning

the disqualification of a judge who makes statements that commit the judge to a particular result,

and Canon 5B(1)(a) concerning statements made during an election campaign that commit the

candidate to a particular result. In addition, Code of Civil Procedure section 170.2, subdivision

(b), provides that, with certain exceptions, a judge is not disqualified on the ground that the

judge has, in any capacity, expressed a view on a legal or factual issue presented in the

proceeding before the judge.

 CJEO Historical Notes:

Commentary following canons and 2A amended effective October 10, 2018; previously

amended effective January 1, 2013; adopted effective January 15, 1996.

Canon 2A amended effective January 1, 2013; adopted effective January 15, 1996.

 CJEO Annotations:

Judicial officers are prohibited from providing feedback on attorney courtroom

performance that exhibits favoritism or otherwise undermines the judicial officer’s

impartiality. To minimize ethical risks, judicial officers choosing to provide feedback

must ensure that the substantive nature and tone of the feedback would not suggest to an

objective observer that the judicial officer has a particular affinity or dislike for certain

attorneys or parties. As a precaution, the feedback should be equally applicable and

appropriate to say in the presence of attorneys on opposing sides of the same case. CJEO

Formal Opinion 2021-018, Providing Feedback on Attorney Courtroom Performance,

Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 2, 8-9, 12.

A judicial officer who engages in independent fact-finding may demonstrate a lack of

impartiality or embroilment and, if the judge relies on information obtained from an

independent investigation, deprive a party of the opportunity to confront and respond to

evidence. CJEOFormalOpinion2021‐016, Independent Investigation of Information

Contained in Electronic Court Case Management Systems, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud.

Ethics Opns., p. 8.

Judicial use of social media is governed by the same ethical rules that govern judicial

conduct in any other setting. The code instructs judges to use caution in online

communications due to lack of control over dissemination or permanence of statements.

Judges must be mindful of how the public may perceive social media activity and refrain

from any online statements or communications that call into question the impartiality of

the judiciary. A judge’s online statements and social media posts are particularly likely

to draw heightened attention when a judge is engaging in discourse on controversial

subjects or current events. Thus, judges must assume that any statements they make on

social media are public statements, potentially subject to scrutiny, and use discretion and

heightened caution when online. CJEO Expedited Opinion 2021-042, Social Media

Posts About the Law, the Legal System, or the Administration of Justice, Cal. Supreme

Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 2-4, 6.

Service on a county task force created to address hate crimes with a broad-based agenda

would not promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary because it is not

reasonable to expect the judge limit participation when the task force activities concern

matters beyond the law. Nor is it reasonable to expect members of the public to make the

distinction between permissible and impermissible activities, even if a judge could limit

involvement. A judge may assist the task force in ways other than serving as a member.

CJEO Expedited Opinion 2021-041, Service on a Governmental Task Force, Cal.

Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 5-6.

Before attending a public demonstration or rally, or making a public statement on matters

of public concern, judges should examine whether a person aware of their presence at the

event might reasonably entertain a doubt about the judge’s impartiality or might interpret

the judge’s presence as an endorsement of a political candidate or cause. Judges should

also consider whether it is reasonably foreseeable that their attendance might result in a

violation of a law such as a curfew. When attending judges should avoid engaging in

symbolic gestures or wearing apparel likely to be seen as one-sided statements that may

call into question their impartiality. Speaking at a demonstration or rally on a topic likely

to come before the courts in a way that commits a judge to taking a position is prohibited.

CJEO Formal Opinion 2020-014, Judicial Participation in Public Demonstrations and

Rallies, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 5-13.



Judges may speak about and teach legal subject matters through specialty bar associations

but must avoid creating an appearance of bias and avoid an appearance that the specialty

bar association is in a special position to influence the judge. CJEO Formal Opinion

2018-012, Providing Educational Presentations at Specialty Bar Events, Cal. Supreme

Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics. Opns., pp. 6-10.

When soliciting attorney assistance regarding the court budget, judges should avoid any

suggestion of advantage or favor. CJEO Formal Opinion 2013-001, Requesting

Assistance from Attorneys, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 6.

Factors for judges to consider when meeting with attorneys or requesting assistance

include whether the invitations might (1) convey impropriety or the appearance of

impropriety, (2) convey an impression of favor or influence, or (3) reasonably lead to

disqualification. CJEO Formal Opinion 2013-001, Requesting Assistance from Attorneys,

Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 6.

A judge should disclose if the judge’s spouse is engaged in campaign services to reelect

the head of a government legal office when attorneys from that office appear. Disclosure

should continue while the spouse provides such services and for a reasonable period of

time after the spouse's services end or after the last payment related to the services is

received, whichever is later. CJEO Informal Opinion Summary 2018-005,

Disqualification for Spouse's Political Campaign Services, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud.

Ethics Opns., pp. 3, 8.

Appellate justices must exercise reasonable direction and control over the conduct of

their staff to prevent them from making public comments that would violate the

canons. When a justice becomes aware that a staff member has used social media to post

a comment that violates the canons, the justice should immediately take steps to remedy

the violation. CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2020-037, Judicial Obligations Relating to

Social Media Comments by Appellate Staff, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns.,

pp. 2-3.

A judicial officer may not serve on an advisory council of a nonprofit credit union.

CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2017-020, Judicial Service on a Nonprofit Credit Union

Advisory Council, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 2, 4.

Effective July 10, 2017, judges may again accept compensation for performing marriages

on weekends or holidays. The inconsistency with the Code of Judicial Ethics and Penal

Code section 94.5, as discussed in this oral advice summary, was eliminated. CJEO Oral

Advice Summary 2016-019, Accepting Compensation for Performing a Marriage After

January 1, 2017, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 2-3.

While judges must avoid activities that might convey an appearance of bias, a person

aware of the fact that a judge was performing an official function of office, such as

administering an oath, would not entertain doubt as to impartiality. CJEO Oral Advice

Summary 2016-018, Administering the Oath of Office to a Recently Elected District

Attorney, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 1-2.

Presiding justices may invite attorneys to speak on law-related topics at a legal education

program for the justices of the appellate district court where the attorneys practice, so

long as precautions are taken to avoid the appearance of favor or influence. CJEO Oral

Advice Summary 2015-012, Inviting Attorneys to Provide Legal Education to Appellate

Justices, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 1-2.

Service by an appellate justice as a court appointed prison compliance officer in a federal

court matter is not prohibited because a person aware of the federal court appointment

would not have reason to doubt the justice’s impartiality or independence in state

appellate matters generally. CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2015-010, Service by an

Appellate Justice as a Compliance Officer in Pending Federal Proceedings, Cal.

Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 2.

B. Use of the Prestige of Judicial Office

(1) A judge shall not allow family, social, political, or other relationships to influence the judge’s

judicial conduct or judgment, nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression

that any individual is in a special position to influence the judge.

 CJEO Annotations:

When deciding to provide requested feedback to attorneys, judicial officers must ensure

that their conduct does not suggest that the requesting attorneys have a special

relationship with the judicial officer. Only providing feedback to a particular group of

attorneys may suggest bias or imply that those attorneys are in a special position to

influence the judicial officer. In addition, providing feedback regarding an appearing

attorney’s performance, particularly when it is requested by the attorney’s supervisor,

may put the judicial officer in a position of evaluating the attorney from the perspective

of a supervisor-supervisee relationship. Providing such feedback may suggest that the

judicial officer favors or has a special relationship with a particular law office or has a

special interest in the development of its employees. CJEO Formal Opinion 2021-018,

Providing Feedback on Attorney Courtroom Performance, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud.

Ethics Opns., pp. 2, 8-9, 12.

Judges participating in the California Judicial Mentor Program (CJMP) should disqualify

from matters involving their mentee attorneys. The mentor-mentee relationship created

through the CJMP implies a close and influential relationship. A mentor-mentee

relationship may also suggest that a mentee is in a position of special influence or could

influence the judicial officer’s judicial decisionmaking, which must be avoided. CJEO

Expedited Opinion 2022-045, Disqualification Obligations for Participants in the

California Judicial Mentor Program (CJMP), Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns.,

p. 5.

Judges should carefully consider whether online friendships or participation in certain

online groups or forums suggest that they have allowed family, social, political, other

relationships to influence their judgement or convey the impression that anyone is in a

special position to influence them. CJEO Expedited Opinion 2021-042, Social Media

Posts About the Law, the Legal System, or the Administration of Justice, Cal. Supreme

Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 4-5.

Judges may speak about and teach legal subject matters through specialty bar associations

but must avoid creating an appearance of bias and avoid an appearance that the specialty

bar association is in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should request to

review promotional materials related to an educational presentation and if the judge is

aware that the promotional materials create an appearance of bias or lend the prestige of

judicial office to advance the interests of the specialty bar association, the judge has a

duty to take corrective action. CJEO Formal Opinion 2018-012, Providing Educational

Presentations at Specialty Bar Events, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 6-

11.

A judge may meet with private vendors, including private vendors providing remote

alcohol monitoring services to parties under court order, if such meetings are authorized

by law, would aid the judge in discharging administrative responsibilities, and would not

violate the Code of Judicial Ethics by creating a conflict of interest, conveying influence

or favoritism, advancing the pecuniary interests of others, or involving the judge in

business relationships with potential litigants. Judges should, where possible, enlist the

assistance of court administrative staff to ensure compliance with administrative rules

and public contracting laws, guarantee impartiality and avoid the appearance of improper

use of judicial office to advance the pecuniary interests of the vendors. CJEO Formal

Opinion 2017-09, Judges Meeting with Vendors, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics

Opns., pp. 7, 11-12, 14-15.

A judge should disclose if the judge’s spouse is engaged in campaign services to reelect

the head of a government legal office when attorneys from that office appear. Disclosure

should continue while the spouse provides such services and for a reasonable period of

time after the spouse's services end or after the last payment related to the services is

received, whichever is later. CJEO Informal Opinion Summary 2018-005,

Disqualification for Spouse's Political Campaign Services, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud.

Ethics Opns., pp. 3, 8.

When an intimate personal relationship develops between an appellate justice and an

attorney assigned to his or her chambers, continued service by the attorney in the justice’s

chambers create the appearance of nepotism, favoritism, and impropriety. CJEO

Informal Opinion Summary 2012-001, Employment of an Appellate Court Justice’s

Spouse as a Staff Attorney in that Justice’s Chambers, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud.

Ethics Opns., p. 2.

(2) A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office or use the judicial title in any manner,

including any oral or written communication, to advance the pecuniary or personal interests of

the judge or others. This canon does not prohibit the following:

 CJEO Annotations:

While a judicial officer may review, critique, or comment on legal education books for

educational purposes, a judicial officer who has not contributed to a legal education book

may not provide a book cover endorsement referencing the judicial officer’s title. When

a judicial officer has not authored, co-authored, or contributed to the book, the primary

purpose of such an endorsement is not to identify a contributor by judicial title or engage

in an educational exercise, but rather to use the endorsing judicial officer’s title to

promote sales. The code prohibits lending judicial prestige or using judicial title for this

purpose, regardless of whether a book is educational in nature. CJEO Expedited Opinion

2022-048, Commenting on or Endorsing Legal Education Books Written by Others, pp.

4-5.

Judges must ensure that online statements and social media posts do not lend judicial

prestige to benefit anyone’s personal or pecuniary interest. CJEO Expedited Opinion

2021-042, Social Media Posts About the Law, the Legal System, or the Administration of

Justice, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 5.

An appellate justice may not accept the services of an attorney from a law firm because it

would impermissibly lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the interests of the

law firm. Allowing a law firm to place an incoming associate on a justice’s staff, even

temporarily, is likely to enhance the law firm’s reputation and afford the law firm a

favored position not enjoyed by its competitors. CJEO Expedited Opinion 2021-038,

Acceptance of Attorney Services from a Law Firm, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics

Opns., pp. 2-4.

Judges may speak about and teach legal subject matters through specialty bar associations

but must avoid creating an appearance of bias and avoid an appearance that the specialty

bar association is in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should request to

review promotional materials related to an educational presentation and if the judge is

aware that the promotional materials create an appearance of bias or lend the prestige of

judicial office to advance the interests of the specialty bar association, the judge has a

duty to take corrective action. CJEO Formal Opinion 2018-012, Providing Educational

Presentations at Specialty Bar Events, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 6,

10-11.

A judge may meet with private vendors, including private vendors providing remote

alcohol monitoring services to parties under court order, if such meetings are authorized

by law, would aid the judge in discharging administrative responsibilities, and would not

violate the California Code of Judicial Ethics by creating a conflict of interest, conveying

influence or favoritism, advancing the pecuniary interests of others, or involving the

judge in business relationships with potential litigants. Judges should, where possible,

enlist the assistance of court administrative staff to ensure compliance with

administrative rules and public contracting laws, guarantee impartiality and avoid the

appearance of improper use of judicial office to advance the pecuniary interests of the

vendors. CJEO Formal Opinion 2017-09, Judges Meeting with Vendors, Cal. Supreme

Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 7, 12-16.

When a judge’s attendance at a partisan political fundraising event is known to the event

organizers, the judge should request that he or she not be introduced to avoid improper

use of judicial title. CJEO Formal Opinion 2016-008, Attending Political Fundraising or

Endorsement Events, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 13.

A judge’s volunteer work for a civics organization may not include accepting a legal

advisory or advocacy position that would impermissibly lend title and prestige to the

organization in court proceedings or otherwise create an appearance of impartiality.

CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2019-031 Extrajudicial Service as a Rotary District Youth

Protection Officer, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Adv. Opns., p.4.



A judge may allow a civics organization to name an award given to a law student in

honor of the judge, where no pecuniary interest or advantage flowed to the judge, the

student, or the organization from the award. CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2019-030,

Acceptance of a Private Testimonial Dinner and Honors, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. on Jud.

Ethics Opns., p. 7.

A judicial officer may not serve on an advisory council of a nonprofit credit union.

CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2017-020, Judicial Service on a Nonprofit Credit Union

Advisory Council, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 2, 4.

A scholarship may not be named in honor of a judge if it will be funded by donations

solicited using judicial title. CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2015-011, Use of Judicial

Title on a Scholarship Fund, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 2.

(a) A judge may testify as a character witness, provided the judge does so only when

subpoenaed.

(b) A judge may, without a subpoena, provide the Commission on Judicial Performance with a

written communication containing (i) factual information regarding a matter pending before the

commission or (ii) information related to the character of a judge who has a matter pending

before the commission, provided that any such factual or character information is based on

personal knowledge.* In commission proceedings, a judge shall provide information responsive

to a subpoena or when officially requested to do so by the commission.

provide information responsive to a subpoena or when officially requested to do so by the State

Bar.

(d) A judge may respond to judicial selection inquiries, provide recommendations (including a

general character reference relating to the evaluation of persons being considered for a

judgeship), and otherwise participate in the process of judicial selection.

(e) A judge may serve as a reference or provide a letter of recommendation only if based on the

judge’s personal knowledge* of the individual. These written communications may include the

judge’s title and may be written on stationery that uses the judicial title.

 CJEO Annotation:

A judicial officer may sign a testimonial letter mailed directly to sitting federal and state

judges using judicial letterhead to promote a national bar association program. CJEO

Oral Advice Summary 2014-004, Use of a Testimonial Letter to Promote a National Bar

Association Program, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 2.

(3) Except as permitted in subdivision (c) or otherwise authorized by law* or these canons:

(a) A judge shall not advance the pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or others by

initiating communications with a sentencing judge or a representative of a probation department

about a proceeding pending* before the sentencing judge, but may provide information in

response to an official request. “Sentencing judge” includes a judge who makes a disposition

pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 725.

(b) A judge, other than the judge who presided over the trial of or sentenced the person seeking

parole, pardon, or commutation of sentence, shall not initiate communications with the Board of

Parole Hearings regarding parole or the Office of the Governor regarding parole, pardon, or

commutation of sentence, but may provide these entities with information for the record in

response to an official request.

representative of a probation department regarding sentencing, the Board of Parole Hearings

regarding parole, or the Office of the Governor regarding parole, pardon, or commutation of

sentence, provided the judge is not identified as a judge in the communication.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 2B

A strong judicial branch, based on the prestige that comes from effective and ethical

performance, is essential to a system of government in which the judiciary functions

independently of the executive and legislative branches. A judge should distinguish between

proper and improper use of the prestige of office in all of his or her activities.

As to those communications that are permitted under this canon, a judge must keep in

mind the general obligations to maintain high standards of conduct as set forth in Canon 1, and

to avoid any impropriety* or the appearance of impropriety* as set forth in Canon 2. A judge

must also be mindful of Canon 2A, which requires a judge to act at all times in a manner that

promotes public confidence in the integrity* and impartiality* of the courts.

A judge must avoid lending the prestige of judicial office for the advancement of the

private interests of the judge or others. For example, a judge must not use the judicial position to

gain advantage in a civil suit involving a member of the judge’s family,* or use his or her

position to gain deferential treatment when stopped by a police officer for a traffic offense.

If a judge posts on social networking sites such as Facebook or crowdsourcedsites such

as Yelp or Trip Advisor, the judge may not lend the prestige of judicial office toadvance the

pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or others.For example, a judgemay not comment

on, recommend, or criticize businesses, products, or services on suchsites if it is reasonably

likely that the judge can be identified as a judge.

See canon 4C(3)(d)(iv) prohibiting the use of the prestige of judicial office for

fundraising or membership solicitation, but allowing a judge to be a speaker, guest ofhonor, or

recipient of an award for public or charitable service, provided the judge doesnot personally

solicit funds and complies with Canons 4A (1), (2), (3), and (4).

As to the use of a judge’s title to identify a judge’s role in the presentation and creation

of legal education programs and materials, see Commentary to Canon 4B. In contracts for

publication of a judge’s writings, a judge should retain control over the advertising, to the extent

feasible, to avoid exploitation of the judge’s office.

This canon does not afford a judge a privilege against testifying in response to any

official summons.

See also Canons 3D(1) and 3D(2) concerning a judge’s obligation to take appropriate

corrective action regarding other judges who violate any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics

and attorneys who violate any provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Except as set forth in Canon 2B(3)(a), this canon does not preclude consultations among

judges. Additional limitations on such consultations among judges are set forth in Canon

3B(7)(a).

 CJEO Historical Notes:

Commentary following canon 2B amended effective July 1, 2020;previously amended

effectiveJanuary 21, 2015,January 1, 2013, January 1, 2007, and March 4, 1999;

adopted effective January 15, 1996.

Canon 2B amended effective August 19, 2015; previously amended effective January 1,

2013 and January 1, 2008; adopted effective January 15, 1996.

C. Membership in Organizations

A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on

the basis of race, sex, gender, gender identity,* gender expression,* religion, national origin,

ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

This canon does not apply to membership in a religious organization.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 2C

Membership by a judge in an organization that practices invidious discrimination on the

basis of race, sex, gender, gender identity,* gender expression,* religion, national origin,

ethnicity, or sexual orientation gives rise to a perception that the judge’s impartiality* is

impaired. The code prohibits such membership by judges to preserve the fairness, impartiality,*

independence,* and honor of the judiciary, to treat all parties equally under the law,* and to

avoid impropriety* and the appearance of impropriety.*

Previously, Canon 2C contained exceptions to this prohibition for membership in

religious organizations, membership in an official military organization of the United States and,

so long as membership did not violate Canon 4A, membership in a nonprofit youth organization.

The exceptions for membership in an official military organization of the United States and

nonprofit youth organizations have been eliminated as exceptions to the canon. The exception for

membership in religious organizations has been preserved.

Canon 2C refers to the current practices of the organization. Whether an organization

practices invidious discrimination is often a complex question to which judges should be

sensitive. The answer cannot be determined from a mere examination of an organization’s

current membership rolls, but rather depends on how the organization selects members and

other relevant factors, such as whether the organization is dedicated to the preservation of

religious, ethnic, or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members, or whether it is

in fact and effect an intimate, purely private organization whose membership limitations could

not be constitutionally prohibited. Absent such factors, an organization is generally said to

discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from membership on the basis of race, religion,

sex, gender, gender identity,* gender expression,* national origin, ethnicity, or sexual

orientation persons who would otherwise be admitted to membership.

Although Canon 2C relates only to membership in organizations that invidiously

discriminate on the basis of race, sex, gender, gender identity,* gender expression,* religion,

national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, a judge’s membership in an organization that

engages in any discriminatory membership practices prohibited by law* also violates Canon 2

and Canon 2A and gives the appearance of impropriety.* In addition, it would be a violation of

Canon 2 and Canon 2A for a judge to arrange a meeting at a club that the judge knows*

practices such invidious discrimination or for the judge to use such a club regularly. Moreover,

public manifestation by a judge of the judge’s knowing* approval of invidious discrimination on

any basis gives the appearance of impropriety* under Canon 2 and diminishes public confidence

in the integrity* and impartiality* of the judiciary in violation of Canon 2A.

 CJEO Historical Notes:

Commentary following canon 2C amended effective October 10, 2018; previously

amended effective January 21, 2016, January 21, 2015, June 18, 2003, and March 4,

1999; adopted effective January 15, 1996.

Canon 2C amended effective October 10, 2018; previously amended effective January

21, 2016, January 1, 2013, and June 18, 2003; adopted effective January 15, 1996.

 CJEO Annotations:

Judges who are leaders of a Boy Scouts of America troop must investigate their troop’s

policies, practices, and values of common interest to determine whether their local troop

practices invidious discrimination. CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2015-014, Judicial

Membership in a Church-Sponsored Boy Scouts of America Troop, Cal. Supreme Ct.,

Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 2-3.

Membership in a Boy Scouts of America alumni group is permissible under the

organization’s policy prohibiting the denial of membership and employment on the basis

of sexual orientation. CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2015-013, Judicial Membership in a

Boy Scouts of America-Sponsored Eagle Scout Alumni Group, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com.

Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 2-3.

CANON 3

A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY,*

COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY

A. Judicial Duties in General

All of the judicial duties prescribed by law* shall take precedence over all other activities of

every judge. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply.

 CJEO Historical Note:

Canon 3A adopted effective January 15, 1996.

 CJEO Annotations:

A judge may not attend a public demonstration or rally if doing so would interfere with

the judge’s official duties. CJEO Formal Opinion 2020-014, Judicial Participation in

Public Demonstrations and Rallies, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 6-7.

A justice appointed by a federal court as a prison compliance officer in a federal case

must continually assess appropriateness of the simultaneous service in light of time

demands and potential for interference with judicial duties. CJEO Oral Advice Summary

2015-010, Service by an Appellate Justice as a Compliance Officer in Pending Federal

Proceedings, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 2.

B. Adjudicative Responsibilities

(1) A judge shall hear and decide all matters assigned to the judge except those in which he or

she is disqualified.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3B(1)

Canon 3B(1) is based upon the affirmative obligation contained in Code of Civil

Procedure section 170.

 CJEO Historical Note:

Commentary following canon 3B(1) amended effective January 1, 2013; adopted

effective January 15, 1996.

 CJEO Annotations:

A judge is obligated to hear and decide all matters unless the judge is disqualified,

including those matters that are controversial and may subject the judge to public

disapproval and criticism. CJEO Informal Opinion Summary 2018-005, Disqualification

for Spouse's Political Campaign Services, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p.

While a judge has an ethical duty to hear all matters assigned unless disqualified, the

question of whether a judge may work remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic is a

matter left to presiding judges who are responsible for court management and

administration. CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2020-034, Judges Working Remotely After

Court Reopening During the COVID-19 Pandemic, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. on Jud.

Ethics Opns., pp. 3-4.

(2) A judge shall be faithful to the law* regardless of partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of

criticism, and shall maintain professional competence in the law.*

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3B(2)

Competence in the performance of judicial duties requires the legal knowledge,* skill,

thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary to perform a judge’s responsibilities of

judicial office. Canon 1 provides that an incorrect legal ruling is not itself a violation of this

code.

 CJEO Historical Note:

Commentary following canon 3B(2) adopted effective January 1, 2013.

(3) A judge shall require* order and decorum in proceedings before the judge.

(4) A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and

others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and shall require* similar conduct of

lawyers and of all staff and court personnel under the judge’s direction and control.

 CJEO Annotation:

Appellate justices must exercise reasonable direction and control over the conduct of

their staff to prevent them from making public comments that would violate the canons.

When a justice becomes aware that a staff member has used social media to post a

comment that violates the canons, the justice should immediately take steps to remedy the

violation. CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2020-037, Judicial Obligations Relating to

Social Media Comments by Appellate Staff, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns.,

pp. 2-3.

(5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the

performance of judicial duties, engage in speech, gestures, or other conduct that would

reasonably be perceived as (a) bias, prejudice, or harassment, including but not limited to bias,

prejudice, or harassment based upon race, sex, gender, gender identity,* gender expression,*

religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status,

socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, or (b) sexual harassment.

(6) A judge shall require* lawyers in proceedings before the judge to refrain from (a)

manifesting, by words or conduct, bias, prejudice, or harassment based upon race, sex, gender,

gender identity,* gender expression,* religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual

orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, or (b) sexual harassment

against parties, witnesses, counsel, or others. This canon does not preclude legitimate advocacy

when race, sex, gender, gender identity,* gender expression,* religion, national origin, ethnicity,

disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, political affiliation, or

other similar factors are issues in the proceeding.

(7) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s

lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law.* Unless otherwise authorized by law,* a

judge shall not independently investigate facts in a proceeding and shall consider only the

evidence presented or facts that may be properly judicially noticed. This prohibition extends to

information available in all media, including electronic. A judge shall not initiate, permit, or

consider ex parte communications, that is, any communications to or from the judge outside the

presence of the parties concerning a pending* or impending* proceeding, and shall make

reasonable efforts to avoid such communications, except as follows:

(a) Except as stated below, a judge may consult with other judges. A judge presiding over a case

shall not engage in discussions about that case with a judge who has previously been disqualified

from hearing that case; likewise, a judge who knows* he or she is or would be disqualified from

hearing a case shall not discuss that matter with the judge assigned to the case. A judge also shall

not engage in discussions with a judge who may participate in appellate review of the matter, nor

shall a judge who may participate in appellate review of a matter engage in discussions with the

judge presiding over the case.

A judge may consult with court personnel or others authorized by law,* as long as the

communication relates to that person’s duty to aid the judge in carrying out the judge’s

adjudicative responsibilities.

In any discussion with judges or court personnel, a judge shall make reasonable efforts to avoid

receiving factual information that is not part of the record or an evaluation of that factual

information. In such consultations, the judge shall not abrogate the responsibility personally to

decide the matter.

For purposes of Canon 3B(7)(a), “court personnel” includes bailiffs, court reporters, court

externs, research attorneys, courtroom clerks, and other employees of the court, but does not

include the lawyers in a proceeding before a judge, persons who are appointed by the court to

serve in some capacity in a proceeding, or employees of other governmental entities, such as

lawyers, social workers, or representatives of the probation department.

 CJEO Annotations:

A local rule allowing ex parte communications to determine good cause in non-domestic-

violence emergency orders does not fall within any exception in the Code of Judicial

Ethics if the ex parte communications are not specifically authorized by statute. CJEO

Formal Opinion 2014-004, Judicial Screening of Ex Parte Applications for Non-

Domestic-Violence Emergency Family Law Orders, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics

Opns., pp. 9-11.

A matter remains pending within the meaning of the Code of Judicial Ethics if there is

sufficient time for a party to petition the United States Supreme Court seeking review of

the appellate decision. Therefore, it is an impermissible ex parte communication where an

appellate presiding justice contacts a superior court presiding judge about a case while

there is sufficient time for a party to file a writ of certiorari. CJEO Oral Advice Summary

2018-024, Reporting Misconduct by a Superior Court Research Attorney in a Pending

Matter, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 2-3.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3B(7)(a)

Regarding communications between a judge presiding over a matter and a judge of a

court with appellate jurisdiction over that matter, see Government Code section 68070.5.

Though a judge may have ex parte discussions with appropriate court personnel, a judge

may do so only on matters that are within the proper performance of that person’s duties. For

example, a bailiff may inform the judge of a threat to the judge or to the safety and security of

the courtroom, but may not tell the judge ex parte that a defendant was overheard making an

incriminating statement during a court recess. A clerk may point out to the judge a technical

defect in a proposed sentence, but may not suggest to the judge that a defendant deserves a

certain sentence.

A sentencing judge may not consult ex parte with a representative of the probation

department about a matter pending before the sentencing judge.

This canon prohibits a judge who is presiding over a case from discussing that case with

another judge who has already been disqualified from hearing that case. A judge also must be

careful not to talk to a judge whom the judge knows* would be disqualified from hearing the

matter.

 CJEO Historical Note:

Commentary following canon 3B(7)(a) amended effective October 10, 2018; adopted

effective January 1, 2013.

(b) A judge may initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, where circumstances

require, for scheduling, administrative purposes, or emergencies that do not deal with substantive

matters provided:

(i) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural or tactical advantage as a

result of the ex parte communication, and

(ii) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of the substance of the ex parte

communication and allows an opportunity to respond.

authorized by law* to do so or when authorized to do so by stipulation of the parties.

(d) If a judge receives an unauthorized ex parte communication, the judge shall make provision

promptly to notify the parties of the substance of the communication and provide the parties with

an opportunity to respond.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3B(7)

An exception allowing a judge, under certain circumstances, to obtain the advice of a

disinterested expert on the law* has been eliminated from Canon 3B(7) because consulting with

legal experts outside the presence of the parties is inconsistent with the core tenets of the

adversarial system. Therefore, a judge shall not consult with legal experts outside the presence

of the parties. Evidence Code section 730 provides for the appointment of an expert if a judge

determines that expert testimony is necessary. A court may also invite the filing of amicus curiae

briefs.

An exception allowing a judge to confer with the parties separately in an effort to settle

the matter before the judge has been moved from this canon to Canon 3B(12).

This canon does not prohibit court personnel from communicating scheduling

information or carrying out similar administrative functions.

A judge is statutorily authorized to investigate and consult witnesses informally in small

claims cases. Code of Civil Procedure section 116.520, subdivision (c).

 CJEO Historical Note:

Commentary following canon 3B(7) amended effective January 1, 2013, adopted effective

March 4, 1999.

 CJEO Annotations:

Judicial officers may not provide feedback about attorney courtroom performance if

doing so would result in an ex parte communication. However well-intentioned,

commenting on an appearing attorney’s courtroom performance runs the risk of

discussing the facts, merits, or status of a particular case or matter. Even a seemingly

innocuous comment may interfere, intentionally or unintentionally, with one party’s

decisionmaking process or strategy on appeal. For this reason, judicial officers should

exercise extreme caution when asked to provide feedback at the close of a trial or hearing

and may not comment on attorney performance relating to that trial or hearing prior to

final resolution of all possible appeals. CJEO Formal Opinion 2021-018, Providing

Feedback on Attorney Courtroom Performance, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics

Opns., pp. 2, 6-7, 12.

A judicial officer may use an electronic case management system (CMS) to search for

information that will assist in the proper performance of judicial duties or to

independently investigate facts in a proceeding where the investigation is authorized by

law; however, a judicial officer may not initiate or use a CMS search for the purpose of

independently investigating adjudicative facts that pertain to resolving factual issues or to

assess credibility in an assigned matter unless the judge has determined that review of

those facts is permitted by statute or the facts are the proper subject of judicial notice.

CJEO Formal Opinion 2021-016, Independent Investigation of Information Contained in

Electronic Court Case Management Systems, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns.,

pp. 2, 5-10, 12-13.

In cases where the duty of oversight requires a supervising judge to communication with

a trial judge about a party’s complaint, the supervising judge should give careful

consideration to whether it is necessary to refer to specific facts and circumstances that

relate to a proceeding pending before the trial judge. Disclosure of such information by

the supervising judge to the trial judge would constitute an ex parte communication. If

discussion of a case currently before the trial judge is required, the supervising judge

should consider whether it would be appropriate and practicable to avoid an ex parte

communication by delaying the discussion while the case proceeds to conclusion, and

then resuming the inquiry with the trial judge when the case is no longer pending and no

further proceedings before the trial judge are reasonably anticipated. CJEO Formal

Opinion 2020-015, Supervising Judge’s Duties When a Party Complains About a Judge

in a Pending Matter, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 5.

(8) A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters fairly, promptly, and efficiently. A judge shall

manage the courtroom in a manner that provides all litigants the opportunity to have their matters

fairly adjudicated in accordance with the law.*

 CJEO Annotations:

Judges are permitted to work remotely on their judicial assignments as court

administration and management allow during the COVID-19 pandemic. CJEO Oral

Advice Summary 2020-034, Judges Working Remotely After Court Reopening During

the COVID-19 Pandemic, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. on Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 4.

When considering whether witnesses may be ordered to remove a face mask during the

COVID-19 pandemic, judges must consider their duty to ensure that litigants have their

matters fairly adjudicated when resolving questions of law raised in individual matters

and circumstances. CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2020-032, Judicial Obligations

Regarding Witness Face Masks During the COVID-19 Pandemic, Cal. Supreme Ct.,

Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 3.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3B(8)

The obligation of a judge to dispose of matters promptly and efficiently must not take

precedence over the judge’s obligation to dispose of the matters fairly and with patience. For

example, when a litigant is self-represented, a judge has the discretion to take reasonable steps,

appropriate under the circumstances and consistent with the law* and the canons, to enable the

litigant to be heard. A judge should monitor and supervise cases so as to reduce or eliminate

dilatory practices, avoidable delays, and unnecessary costs.

Prompt disposition of the court’s business requires a judge to devote adequate time to

judicial duties, to be punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters under

submission, and to require* that court officials, litigants, and their lawyers cooperate with the

judge to those ends.

 CJEO Historical Note:

Commentary following canon amended effective January 1, 2013; previously amended

effective January 1, 2007; adopted effective January 15, 1996.

(9) A judge shall not make any public comment about a pending* or impending* proceeding in

any court, and shall not make any nonpublic comment that might substantially interfere with a

fair trial or hearing. The judge shall require* similar abstention on the part of staff and court

personnel subject to the judge’s direction and control. This canon does not prohibit judges from

making statements in the course of their official duties or from explaining the procedures of the

court, and does not apply to proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity. In

connection with a judicial election or recall campaign, this canon does not prohibit any judge

from making a public comment about a pending* proceeding, provided (a) the comment would

not reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of the proceeding, and (b)

the comment is about the procedural, factual, or legal basis of a decision about which a judge has

been criticized during the election or recall campaign. Other than cases in which the judge has

personally participated, this canon does not prohibit judges from discussing, in legal education

programs and materials, cases and issues pending in appellate courts. This educational exemption

does not apply to cases over which the judge has presided or to comments or discussions that

might interfere with a fair hearing of the case.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3B(9)

The requirement that judges abstain from public comment regarding a pending* or

impending* proceeding continues during any appellate process and until final disposition. A

judge shall make reasonable efforts to ascertain whether a case is pending* or impending*

before commenting on it. This canon does not prohibit a judge from commenting on proceedings

in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity, but in cases such as a writ of mandamus

where the judge is a litigant in an official capacity, the judge must not comment publicly.

“Making statements in the course of their official duties” and “explaining the procedures

of the court” include providing an official transcript or partial official transcript of a court

proceeding open to the public and explaining the rules of court and procedures related to a

decision rendered by a judge.

The provision allowing a judge to make a public comment about a pending* decision that

is the subject of criticism during an election campaign applies to all judicial elections, including

recall elections. Depending on the circumstances, the judge should consider whether it may be

preferable for a third party, rather than the judge, to respond or issue statements in connection

with allegations concerning the decision. For purposes of this provision, a recall campaign

begins when a judge is served with a notice of intention to circulate a recall petition (see Elec.

Code, § 11006), and a judicial election campaign begins when a judge or candidate for judicial

office* files a declaration of intention of candidacy for judicial office (see Elec. Code, § 8023).

Although this canon does not prohibit a judge from commenting on cases that are not

pending* or impending* in any court, a judge must be cognizant of the general prohibition in

Canon 2 against conduct involving impropriety* or the appearance of impropriety.* A judge

should also be aware of the mandate in Canon 2A that a judge must act at all times in a manner

that promotes public confidence in the integrity* and impartiality* of the judiciary. In addition,

when commenting on a case pursuant to this canon, a judge must maintain the high standards of

conduct, as set forth in Canon 1.

Although a judge is permitted to make nonpublic comments about pending* or

impending* cases that will not substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing, the judge

should be cautious when making any such comments. There is always a risk that a comment can

be misheard, misinterpreted, or repeated. A judge making such a comment must be mindful of the

judge’s obligation under Canon 2A to act at all times in a manner that promotes public

confidence in the integrity* and impartiality* of the judiciary. When a judge makes a nonpublic

comment about a case pending* before that judge, the judge must keep an open mind and not

form an opinion prematurely or create the appearance of having formed an opinion prematurely.

 CJEO Historical Note:

Commentary following canon 3B(9) amended effective July 1, 2020; previously amended

January 1, 2013, March 4, 1999; adopted effective January 15, 1996.

 CJEO Annotations:

When deciding to provide feedback on attorney courtroom performance, judicial officers

may not make public comments about a pending or impending proceeding and refrain

from making nonpublic comments that may substantially interfere with a fair trial or

hearing, including those pending before other judges or courts. CJEO Formal Opinion

2021-018, Providing Feedback on Attorney Courtroom Performance, Cal. Supreme Ct.,

Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 2, 7-8, 12.

A judge advising a close family member about law-related issues must be cautious not to

violate the constitutional and code prohibitions on practicing law, and not to violate the

prohibition against improper ex parte communications by commenting on pending or

impending cases. CJEO Formal Opinion 2021-017, Providing Close Family Members

with Advice that Implicates Legal Issues, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p.

12.

Judges must avoid demonstrations and rallies concerning current and future cases, and

should not make any statement or symbolic reference at a demonstration or rally about a

pending or impending proceeding. CJEO Formal Opinion 2020-014, Judicial

Participation in Public Demonstrations and Rallies, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics

Opns., pp. 8, 12.

Appellate justices must exercise reasonable direction and control over the conduct of

their staff to prevent them from making public comments that would violate the

canons. When a justice becomes aware that a staff member has used social media to post

a comment that violates the canons, the justice should immediately take steps to remedy

the violation. CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2020-037, Judicial Obligations Relating to

Social Media Comments by Appellate Staff, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns.,

pp. 2-3.

Judges may speak about and teach legal subject matters through specialty bar associations

but must avoid creating an appearance of bias and avoid an appearance that the specialty

bar association is in a special position to influence the judge. A judge may discuss cases

and issues pending in appellate courts as long as the judge did not preside over the case,

the comments or discussions do not interfere with a fair hearing of the case, and the

discussions are limited to legal education programs and materials. CJEO Formal Opinion

2018-012, Providing Educational Presentations at Specialty Bar Events, p. 9.

In giving an interview under the public procedural exemption, a judge may comment on

the procedures of a pending case but on not the substance of the matter. CJEO Informal

Opinion Summary 2014-004, Judicial Appearance in an Educational Documentary, Cal.

Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 9.

An interview to develop a personal profile of a judge that does not mention pending cases

is permissible. CJEO Informal Opinion Summary 2014-004, Judicial Appearance in an

Educational Documentary, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 10.

(10) A judge shall not commend or criticize jurors for their verdict other than in a court order or

opinion in a proceeding, but may express appreciation to jurors for their service to the judicial

system and the community.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3B(10)

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.

 CJEO Historical Note:

Commentary following canon 3B(10) adopted effective January 15, 1996.

(11) A judge shall not disclose or use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic

information* acquired in a judicial capacity.

(12) A judge may participate in settlement conferences or in other efforts to resolve matters in

dispute, including matters pending before the judge. A judge may, with the express consent of

the parties or their lawyers, confer separately with the parties and/or their lawyers during such

resolution efforts. At all times during such resolution efforts, a judge shall remain impartial* and

shall not engage in conduct that may reasonably be perceived as coercive.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3B(12)

While the judge plays an important role in overseeing efforts to resolve disputes,

including conducting settlement discussions, a judge should be careful that efforts to resolve

disputes do not undermine any party’s right to be heard according to law.*

The judge should keep in mind the effect that the judge’s participation in dispute

resolution efforts may have on the judge’s impartiality* or the appearance of impartiality* if the

case remains with the judge for trial after resolution efforts are unsuccessful. Accordingly, a

judge may wish to consider whether: (1) the parties or their counsel have requested or objected

to the participation by the trial judge in such discussions; (2) the parties and their counsel are

relatively sophisticated in legal matters or the particular legal issues involved in the case; (3) a

party is unrepresented; (4) the case will be tried by the judge or a jury; (5) the parties will

participate with their counsel in settlement discussions and, if so, the effect of personal contact

between the judge and parties; and (6) it is appropriate during the settlement conference for the

judge to express an opinion on the merits or worth of the case or express an opinion on the legal

issues that the judge may later have to rule upon.

If a judge assigned to preside over a trial believes participation in resolution efforts

could influence the judge’s decisionmaking during trial, the judge may decline to engage in such

efforts.

Where dispute resolution efforts of any type are unsuccessful, the judge should consider

whether, due to events that occurred during the resolution efforts, the judge may be disqualified

under the law* from presiding over the trial. See, e.g., Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1,

subdivision (a)(6)(A).

 CJEO Historical Notes:

Commentary following canon 3B(12) adopted effective January 1, 2013.

Canon 3B amended effective July 1, 2020;previously amended effective October 10,

2018,August 19, 2015, January 1, 2013, January 1, 2008, and December 22, 2003;

adopted effective January 15, 1996.



C. Administrative Responsibilities

(1) A judge shall diligently discharge the judge’s administrative responsibilities impartially,* on

the basis of merit, without bias or prejudice, free of conflict of interest, and in a manner that

promotes public confidence in the integrity* of the judiciary. A judge shall not, in the

performance of administrative duties, engage in speech, gestures, or other conduct that would

reasonably be perceived as (a) bias, prejudice, or harassment, including but not limited to bias,

prejudice, or harassment based upon race, sex, gender, gender identity,* gender expression,*

religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status,

socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, or (b) sexual harassment.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3C(1)

In considering what constitutes a conflict of interest under this canon, a judge should be

informed by Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, subdivision (a)(6).

 CJEO Historical Note:

Commentary following canon 3C(1) adopted effective April 29, 2009.