23.18.01. General restrictions on extrajudicial activities

As a starting point, the Rules recognize that judges have lives, families, and interests – and they should be encouraged to be a productive part of their community.  In fact, judges have a unique position and unique skills to further appreciation of the judicial process.[1]  Therefore, a judge is encouraged to “engage in extrajudicial activities that concern the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, such as by speaking, writing, teaching, or participating in scholarly research projects.”[2]  A judge can also engage in “educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic” activities even though they do not involve the law.[3]

A judge must be aware, however, that they cannot allow their extrajudicial activity to interfere with judicial obligations.  In engaging in these extrajudicial activities, however, a judge should avoid actions that:

• interfere with performance of judicial duties
• will lead to frequent disqualification
• would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge’s independence, integrity or impartiality
• would appear to a reasonable person to be coercive (a judge should not act in a way where a person feels obligated to do something to maintain favorability with the judge or to curry favor with the judge)[4]

The comments give as an example of actities that could be viewed as undermining the judge’s integrity and impartiality are discriminatory actions and expressions.  Jokes or remarks that demean a person based on their “race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.”[5]  As you will see below, a judge is also prohibited from affiliating with an organization that engages in invidious discrimination – for the same reason.      Rule 3.1 has one additional restriction on a judge’s extrajudicial activities.  A judge may not “use court premises, staff, stationary, equipment, or other resources” except for activities that involve the law, the legal system, or administration of justice.[6]  The concern was that judges would allow third-party groups to utilized court facilities – which could signal to the public that the judge was favoring that particular group or interest.  Instead, the Rule makes the distinction between uses that are not law-related (prohibited) and activities that are law-related (allowed).  So, for example, the judge could allow a moot court competition or a task force that is to propose a revision to the law, but could not allow a non-profit organization to hold a fund-raising event in the courthouse.

[1] ABA Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3, Rule 3.1, Comment [2] (judges can further “public understanding of and respect for courts and the judicial system.”).

[2] ABA Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3, Rule 3.1, Comment [1].

[3] ABA Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3, Rule 3.1, Comment [1].

[4] ABA Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3, Rule 3.1(A) – (D).

[5] ABA Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3, Rule 3.1, Comment [3].

[6] ABA Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3, Rule 3.1 (E).