Judicial Ethics Resources
Lawyers often interact with judges and court staff, sometimes on a daily basis. An awareness of the standards of conduct applicable to judges and court staff helps assure that a lawyer practices law in a competent and professionally responsible manner.
In some circumstances, a lawyer is required to comply with standards ordinarily applicable only to judges (for example, a lawyer serving as a temporary judge, referee, or court-appointed arbitrator).
These resources are aimed at promoting a lawyer’s awareness and understanding of judicial ethics, including rules, statutes, advisory ethics opinions, and court policy guides. This page is not intended to be a comprehensive collection of judicial ethics resources.
The resources are organized into five categories:
General information
Candidates for judicial office
Gifts to judges
Lawyers as temporary judicial officers
Social media
General information
- California Code of Judicial Ethics
- California Constitution, Article VI
- California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 170 - 170.9
- Standards of Judicial Administration
- United States Courts - Code of Conduct for United States Judges
- Commission on Judicial Performance Decisions
- California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions
- California Judges Association Advisory Opinions
- Federal Court Advisory Opinions
- American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct
Candidates for judicial office
Lawyer candidates for judicial office are subject to Rule 8.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In part, this rule provides that a lawyer who is a candidate for judicial office in California shall comply with Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Ethics.
An online educational course on Judicial Campaign Ethics by the Administrative Office of the Courts Center for Judicial Education and Research (CJER) is now available and is a mandatory requirement for all candidates for judicial office in California.
Canon 5(b)(3) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, in part, provides that the educational course must be completed: “[n]o earlier than one year before or no later than 60 days after either the filing of a declaration of intention by the candidate, the formation of a campaign committee, or the receipt of any campaign contribution, whichever is earliest. This requirement does not apply to judges who are unopposed for election and will not appear on the ballot. This requirement also does not apply to appellate justices who have not formed a campaign committee.”
Selected resources include the following:
- California Judges Association Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 42 (1998): Fund Raising Among Judges
- California Judges Association Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 48 (1999): Disclosure of Judicial Campaign Contributions
- Committee on Judicial Ethics Formal Opinion 2013-003 (2013): Disqualification Based On Judicial Campaign Contributions From A “Lawyer In The Proceeding”
- Committee on Judicial Ethics Formal Opinion 2016-008 (2016): Attending Political Fundraising or Endorsement Events
- California Rule of Professional Conduct 3.5: Contact with Judges, Officials, Employees, and Jurors
Gifts to judges
Lawyers who give gifts to judges or court staff are subject to Rule 3.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Although Rule 3.5 may permit an attorney to give a gift to a judge or court staff in the limited the circumstances specified by the rule, the judge or staff person may be prohibited from accepting the gift. When considering the propriety of giving a gift, a lawyer should consult the provisions of the California Code of Judicial Ethics that restrict acceptance of gifts including, but not limited to, Canons 4D(5) and 4D(6). In addition, the California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions has issued Formal Opinion 2014-005 that provides guidance for judges who receive gifts, from individuals, including attorneys. Selected resources include the following:
- California Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 4(D)(5) and 4(D)(6): Restrictions on Acceptance of Gifts
- Guide to Judiciary Policy, Volume 2C, Chapter 6: Gifts, United States Courts
- 5 U.S.C. § 7351: Federal Government Employee Restrictions on Gifts to Superior
- 5 U.S.C. § 7353: Federal Government Employee Restrictions on Gifts to Federal Employees
- California Judges Association Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 43 (1996):Accepting Invitations from Attorneys to Attend Social Events Where Food, Beverage or Entertainment is Provided Without Charge
- California Judges Association Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 44 (1995):Limitations on Accepting Gifts Under the Code of Judicial Ethics and CCP Sec. 170.9
- California Judges Association Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 5 (1951): Gratuities for Solemnizing Marriage
- Committee on Judicial Ethics Formal Opinion 2014-005 (2014): Accepting Gifts Of Little Or Nominal Value Under The Ordinary Social Hospitality Exception
- Committee on Codes of Conduct Advisory Opinion No. 98: Gifts to Newly Appointed Judges, United States Courts, Guide to Judicial Policy, Vol. 2B, Ch. 2, page 98-1
Lawyers as temporary judicial officers
A lawyer who serves as a temporary judge, referee, or court-appointed arbitrator is subject to Rule 2.4.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. This rule incorporates by reference applicable provisions of the Code of Judicial Ethics and is intended to permit the State Bar to discipline lawyers who violate those provisions while acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity pursuant to an order or appointment by a court. Selected resources include the following:
- Los Angeles County Bar Association Formal Opinion No. 514 (2005): Ethical Issues Involving Lawyer and Judicial Participation in Listserv Communications
- State Bar of California Formal Opinion No. 2004–167 (2004): Use of Current or Former Governmental Title in Promoting an Attorney’s Law Practice
Social media
With the creation of the internet and social networking sites, both lawyers and judges may wonder whether it is ethically permissible for them to interact through social media networks, or simply create personal and/or professional profiles on such networks. Selected resources include the following:
- California Judges Association Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 66 (2010): Online Social Networking
- Los Angeles County Bar Association Formal Opinion No. 514 (2005): Ethical Issues Involving Lawyer and Judicial Participation in Listserv Communications
- Committee on Codes of Conduct Advisory Opinion No. 112: Use of Electronic Social Media by Judges and Judicial Employees, United States Courts, Guide to Judicial Policy, Vol. 2B, Ch. 2, page 112-1
- Resource Packet for Developing Guidelines on Use of Social Media by Judicial Employees (2010), United States Courts Committee on Codes of Conduct Judicial Conference of the United States
- ABA Formal Opinion 462 (2013): Judge’s Use of Electronic Social Networking Media
- #Denied: US Supreme Court Won't Touch Dispute Over Tweeting Federal Judge, The Recorder, June 2018, Marcia Coyle
- Social Media and Judicial Ethics: Part 1 - Friending, Judicial Conduct Reporter, National Center for State Courts Center for Judicial Ethics, Spring 2017
- Judge's Facebook Friendship With Attorney Doesn't Require Recusal, Court Rules, Daily Business Review, August 2017
Reporting obligations
Attorneys who become judges should know what events should trigger a report to the State Bar, including status changes and attorney misconduct.
- Find out what reports judges need to file