The Judicial Ethics Forum (JEF)

An Academic Discussion of Judicial Ethics, Discipline & Disqualification

Archive for January 9th, 2009

Drug Court Judges Are Not Above the New Ethics Rules

Posted by judicialethicsforum on Friday, January, 9, 2009

To defend himself from disciplinary charges based on his orders requiring over 120 drug court defendants to make payments to organizations not authorized by statute, a Louisiana judge recently argued that “the ABA Canon Model Code of Conduct now says if there’s a conflict . . . , you don’t use the standard Canon of Conduct . . . .  It says you defer to the drug court practice and rules.”  That argument was misplaced because the revised ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct adopted in 2007 does not give unbridled discretion to drug court judges.  (The Judiciary Commission rejected the judge’s argument; its recommendation that the judge be censured for this and other misconduct is pending before the Louisiana Supreme Court.)

 

A new Comment 4 added to the prohibition on ex parte communications (Rule 2.9A) in the 2007 ABA Model Code states:

A judge may initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications expressly authorized by law, such as when serving on therapeutic or problem-solving courts, mental health courts, or drug courts.  In this capacity, judges may assume a more interactive role with parties, treatment providers, probation officers, social workers, and others.

Thus, the only special ethical rule for problem-solving judges in the model code relates to ex parte communications and then only insofar as “expressly authorized” by the rules or policies of the court.

 

So far five states have adopted revised codes of judicial conduct based on the 2007 model code.  Delaware has not adopted a provision similar to Comment 4 to Rule 2.9A.  Indiana and Montana have adopted the comment.  (The syntax is a little different in the Montana version, which also adds “water court” as an example of a problem-solving court.)  Hawaii has greatly expanded the exception by deleting the phrase “expressly authorized by law” so that the Hawaii allows a judge to “initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications when serving on therapeutic or problem-solving courts, such as mental health courts or drug courts,” apparently without limitation.  In the revised Ohio code, effective March 1, 2009, an exception for judges presiding over “specialized dockets” is in the text of the rule, not the comment, and states “a judge may initiate, receive, permit, or consider an ex parte communication when administering a specialized docket, provided the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage while in the specialized docket program as a result of the ex parte communication.”

by: Cindy Gray, Director, Center for Judicial Ethics, American Judicature Society

Advertisements

Posted in Canon 2 | 1 Comment »

Communications Crossing Lines

Posted by judicialethicsforum on Friday, January, 9, 2009

Coincidentally on the same day, in two public reprimands, the Florida Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that two judges crossed the line between acceptable and unacceptable communications.  The Florida court found that Court of Appeal Judge Michael Allen “crossed the line” between the use of “intemperate or colorful language” in evaluating another judge’s opinion and a personal attack motivated by animus when he wrote a concurring opinion accusing the other judge of corruption.  Inquiry Concerning Allen, 2008 WL 5245846, 33 Fla. L. Weekly S984 (Dec. 18, 2008).  The Massachusetts court found that former judge Ernest Murphy “plainly crossed the line” with the content and emphasis of two letters he sent on judicial stationery to the publisher of the Boston Herald in pursuit of settlement in a person libel suit the judge had filed against the paper.  Inquiry Concerning Murphy, 52 Mass. 796, 2008 WL 5235634 (Dec. 18, 2008).

by: Cindy Gray, Director, Center for Judicial Ethics, American Judicature Society

 

Posted in Canon 2, Judicial Ethics Generally | 1 Comment »