https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/ en https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-ethics-committee-issues-opinion-disclosure-and-disqualification-former-california California Ethics Committee Issues Opinion on Disclosure and Disqualification for Former California Judicial Mentor Program MentorsBalassone, Merrill Mon, 03/02/2026 - 09:30 News Release A California judicial ethics committee on Monday issued a formal opinion providing guidance on whether disqualification and/or disclosure may be required when a former mentee in the California Judicial Mentor Program (CJMP) appears before their former judicial mentor. The guidance was issued by the California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO)—a body which is appointed and authorized by, but works independently of, the California Supreme Court. In CJEO Formal Opinion 2026-031, the committee advises that judges and appellate justices who previously served as CJMP mentors should first determine whether to disqualify when a former mentee appears before them. Disqualification may be necessary, for example, if the mentorship created bias or resulted in a close friendship. The committee further notes that in circumstances likely to require disqualification, judges should not seek or accept a waiver of the disqualification. If disqualification is not required, the committee advises judges to consider whether disclosure of the prior mentorship is appropriate. The opinion provides examples of when disclosure may be necessary and recommends a disclosure period of six months to two years, depending on the circumstances. The committee also recommends that disclosure should be tailored to preserve the CJMP’s confidentiality protections. “For the expectedly rare instances in which a conflict of interest arises from participation in the CJMP, this opinion provides a careful analysis of whether, and how, former CJMP mentors should disqualify or disclose,” said Committee member Judge Robert J. Trentacosta. “The substance of the mentorship and the level of familiarity reached among the participants will naturally depend upon the individual mentors and mentees. This opinion seeks to provide practical advice that, across the many possible iterations of CJMP engagement, former mentors can apply to answer the important question of whether to disqualify or disclose based on a prior CJMP mentorship.” CJEO issued the opinion after circulating a draft for public comment in November 2025. About the Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions is a 12-member advisory committee that includes appellate justices, trial court judges, two retired judges, and a commissioner. The committee is appointed and authorized by the California Supreme Court, but its work is independent of the court, the Judicial Council, and all other entities. Its opinions are advisory and do not necessarily reflect the views of the California Supreme Court or any other entity.  The committee issues formal, informal, and expedited advisory opinions on proper judicial conduct pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics and other authorities. CJEO’s website includes advisory opinions, resources dedicated to specific judicial assignments and issues, and extensive judicial ethics tools and resource materials for the benefit of the bench and the public.  https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/judicial-ethics-committee-issues-expedited-opinion-campaign-contributions-and-endorsements-0 Judicial Ethics Committee Issues Expedited Opinion on Campaign Contributions and Endorsements Among Court CommissionersBalassone, Merrill Thu, 02/26/2026 - 09:55 News Release A California judicial ethics committee on Thursday issued an expedited opinion addressing whether a state court commissioner running for judge may solicit campaign contributions or endorsements from fellow commissioners. The guidance was issued by the California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO)—a body which is appointed and authorized by, but works independently of, the California Supreme Court. In CJEO Expedited Opinion 2026-053, the committee advises that canon 5B(4) of the California Code of Judicial Ethics prohibits judges from soliciting campaign contributions or endorsements from subordinate judicial officers and court personnel due to the risk of coercion arising from a hierarchical relationship. However, the committee explains that these concerns do not apply when a state court commissioner seeks contributions from fellow commissioners, since they have no supervisory or disciplinary authority over one another.  “Because there is no disparate power dynamic between fellow commissioners, the concerns regarding actual or perceived coercion do not arise,” said committee vice-chair Justice Douglas P. Miller. “Accordingly, a state court commissioner running for judicial office may solicit campaign contributions and endorsements from other commissioners, provided that the candidate otherwise complies with all applicable canons governing judicial campaign conduct.” CJEO issues expedited opinions to judicial officers who request them, following a discretionary decision by CJEO to address the ethical issues raised in an expedited process that does not include posting draft opinions for public comment (as is required for CJEO formal opinions). Expedited opinions are published in full, without identifying information regarding the requesting judicial officer, to provide guidance to the bench and the public regarding judicial ethics. About the Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions is a 12-member advisory committee that includes appellate justices, trial court judges, two retired judges, and a commissioner. The committee is appointed and authorized by the California Supreme Court, but its work is independent of the court, the Judicial Council, and all other entities. Its opinions are advisory and do not necessarily reflect the views of the California Supreme Court or any other entity.  The committee issues formal, informal, and expedited advisory opinions on proper judicial conduct pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics and other authorities. CJEO’s website includes advisory opinions, resources dedicated to specific judicial assignments and issues, and extensive judicial ethics tools and resource materials for the benefit of the bench and the public.  https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-supreme-court-appoints-member-committee-judicial-ethics-opinions California Supreme Court Appoints Member to Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions natalie.l.ston… Thu, 01/22/2026 - 16:25 News Release The California Supreme Court today appointed Judge Frederick S. Chung of the Santa Clara County Superior Court to serve as a member of the Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO). CJEO is an independent committee that helps inform the judiciary and the public on judicial ethics topics.   Judge Chung will serve the remainder of Judge Erica Yew’s term, Feb. 1 through Dec. 31, 2026, due to her retirement after 24 years of service on the Santa Clara County Superior Court.  About the Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO)   The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions is a 12-member advisory committee that includes appellate justices, trial court judges and commissioners. The committee is appointed and authorized by the California Supreme Court, but its work is independent of the court, the Judicial Council, and all other entities. Its opinions are advisory and do not necessarily reflect the views of the California Supreme Court or any other entity.  The committee issues formal opinions, informal opinions, and oral advice on proper judicial conduct pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics and other authorities.   https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/invitation-comment-disclosure-and-disqualification-considerations-regarding-former-judicial Invitation to Comment: Disclosure and Disqualification Considerations Regarding Former Judicial Mentees in the California Judicial Mentor ProgramBalassone, Merrill Fri, 11/21/2025 - 14:01 News Release The California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) invites public comment on a draft formal opinion addressing when former mentors in the California Judicial Mentor Program (CJMP) must disclose a past mentorship or disqualify themselves if a former mentee appears before them. In CJEO Draft Formal Opinion 2025-031, the committee advises that former CJMP mentors should first evaluate whether they are required to disqualify themselves. Disqualification may be necessary if the CJMP mentorship fostered an actual bias or resulted in a close friendship. If a former mentor judge determines disqualification is not required, the committee advises next considering whether disclosure is necessary. When disclosure is warranted, it should be made for a period of six months to two years and be tailored to preserve the CJMP’s assurance of the program’s confidentiality. “Determinations of whether to disqualify or disclose based on former CJMP mentorships will require careful consideration by the judicial officers serving in this important program,” said committee member Judge Robert J. Trentacosta. “This draft opinion builds upon the guidance provided in CJEO Expedited Opinion 2022-045 (regarding active CJMP mentorships) and provides a nuanced analysis of whether to disqualify or disclose, and how, following the conclusion of a CJMP mentorship.” The committee’s Invitation to Comment is posted on CJEO’s website. Comments are due by Jan. 5, and may be submitted by CJEO’s online comment form, by email to Judicial.Ethics@jud.ca.gov, or by mail to: Jennifer CaballeroStaff CounselCalifornia Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions350 McAllister StreetSan Francisco, California 94102 All comments submitted to CJEO may be posted on CJEO’s website for public review unless clearly marked as confidential.  Public comments are an important part of CJEO’s process. These comments provide useful insight and help ensure that the committee considers all potential solutions, consequences, and points of view, which serves to improve the final opinion. About the Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO)The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions is a 12-member advisory committee that includes appellate justices, trial court judges, two retired judges, and a commissioner. The Committee is appointed and authorized by the California Supreme Court, but its work is independent of the court, the Judicial Council, and all other entities. Its opinions are advisory and do not necessarily reflect the views of the California Supreme Court or any other entity.  The Committee issues formal, informal, and expedited advisory opinions on proper judicial conduct pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics and other authorities. CJEO’s website includes advisory opinions, resources dedicated to specific judicial assignments and issues, and extensive judicial ethics tools and resource materials for the benefit of the bench and the public.  https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/ethics-committee-issues-advice-ceremonial-swearing-new-attorneys Ethics Committee Issues Advice on Ceremonial Swearing-In of New AttorneysBalassone, Merrill Fri, 09/12/2025 - 10:00 News Release A California judicial ethics committee on Friday issued an expedited opinion addressing whether a judge may perform a ceremonial swearing-in for new admittees to the State Bar who have already taken their official oath of admission and submitted their oath cards. The guidance was issued by the California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO)—a body which is appointed and authorized by, but works independently of, the California Supreme Court. In CJEO Expedited Opinion 2025-052, the committee advises that a judicial officer may conduct a ceremonial swearing-in provided the judge clearly informs participants and observers the event is a reaffirmation of the attorney’s oath and not the official act of admission. The committee explains a ceremonial oath under those circumstances “upholds public confidence in the judiciary while allowing new admittees to be recognized in an appropriately celebratory fashion,” and is permissible under the Code of Judicial Ethics. Judges are authorized to administer oaths under statute, and swearing-in new attorneys is an important public function. Once admittees have already taken the official oath, a subsequent ceremony is purely symbolic. However, as long as the judge makes clear that the ceremony is a reaffirmation of the oath, they may ethically participate in this celebratory tradition,” said committee chair Justice Ronald B. Robie. CJEO issues expedited opinions to judicial officers who request them, following a discretionary decision by CJEO to address the ethical issues raised in an expedited process that does not include posting draft opinions for public comment (as is required for CJEO formal opinions). Expedited opinions are published in full, without identifying information regarding the requesting judicial officer, to provide guidance to the bench and the public regarding judicial ethics. About the Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO)The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions is a 12-member advisory committee that includes appellate justices, trial court judges, two retired judges, and a commissioner. The committee is appointed and authorized by the California Supreme Court, but its work is independent of the court, the Judicial Council, and all other entities. Its opinions are advisory and do not necessarily reflect the views of the California Supreme Court or any other entity.  The committee issues formal, informal, and expedited advisory opinions on proper judicial conduct pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics and other authorities. CJEO’s website includes advisory opinions, resources dedicated to specific judicial assignments and issues, and extensive judicial ethics tools and resource materials for the benefit of the bench and the public.  https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-ethics-committee-issues-opinion-judicial-participation-inns-court California Ethics Committee Issues Opinion on Judicial Participation in Inns of CourtBalassone, Merrill Wed, 08/20/2025 - 09:43 News Release A California judicial ethics committee on Tuesday issued a formal opinion advising that judicial participation in Inns of Court is not only permitted but encouraged as an important form of judicial engagement. The guidance was issued by the California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO)—a body which is appointed and authorized by, but works independently of, the California Supreme Court. In CJEO Formal Opinion 2025-030, the committee advises that membership, serving on pupilage teams, and performing leadership roles in Inns of Court are all appropriate extrajudicial activities under the California Code of Judicial Ethics. The committee emphasizes that such participation promotes professionalism, integrity, ethics, and civility within the legal community, and is a laudable form of judicial engagement. While participation is encouraged, the committee notes that judges must remain mindful of ethical considerations. For example, should a professional mentorship evolve into a close personal friendship, disqualification or disclosure may be required. As always, judges must conduct themselves in such a manner that upholds the integrity, independence, and impartiality of the judiciary. “Judges have a unique perspective and much to offer other members of Inns of Court,” said Justice Douglas P. Miller, vice-chair of CJEO. “This opinion makes clear that judicial participation in Inns of Court is a desirable outlet for judges to contribute to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, as encouraged by the Code of Judicial Ethics.” CJEO issued the opinion after circulating a draft for public comment in May of this year. About the Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO)The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions is a 12-member advisory committee that includes appellate justices, trial court judges, two retired judges, and a commissioner. The committee is appointed and authorized by the California Supreme Court, but its work is independent of the court, the Judicial Council, and all other entities. Its opinions are advisory and do not necessarily reflect the views of the California Supreme Court or any other entity.  The committee issues formal, informal, and expedited advisory opinions on proper judicial conduct pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics and other authorities. CJEO’s website includes advisory opinions, resources dedicated to specific judicial assignments and issues, and extensive judicial ethics tools and resource materials for the benefit of the bench and the public.  https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-ethics-committee-issues-opinion-disqualification-and-disclosure-requirements-under California Ethics Committee Issues Opinion on Disqualification and Disclosure Requirements under the Racial Justice ActBalassone, Merrill Thu, 08/07/2025 - 13:05 News Release A California judicial ethics committee on Tuesday issued a formal opinion addressing whether a judge who formerly served as a prosecutor must disqualify from a case involving a discovery motion under the Racial Justice Act The guidance was issued by the California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO)—a body which is appointed and authorized by, but works independently of, the California Supreme Court. In CJEO Formal Opinion 2025-028, the committee advised that a judge is not automatically required to recuse themselves simply because, as a former district attorney, they handled cases that may be subject to discovery under a Racial Justice Act motion. However, disqualification is required where the judge participated in the prosecution of the current case or a prior case against the defendant, or where circumstances raise reasonable doubt about the judge’s impartiality. When a judge decides not to disqualify from a case, they must disclose on the record any facts reasonably relevant to the determination of disqualification. This includes any facts the judge considered when deciding not to disqualify.  CJEO issued the opinion after circulating a draft opinion for public comment in May. “This opinion provides timely and practical guidance for judges navigating the complexities of Racial Justice Act claims,” said committee member Judge Samantha Jessner. “It protects public confidence in the judiciary while ensuring that judges are not unduly excluded from cases based solely on their past prosecutorial experience.” About the Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO)The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions is a 12-member advisory committee that includes appellate justices, trial court judges, two retired judges, and a commissioner. The committee is appointed and authorized by the California Supreme Court, but its work is independent of the court, the Judicial Council, and all other entities. Its opinions are advisory and do not necessarily reflect the views of the California Supreme Court or any other entity.  The committee issues formal, informal, and expedited advisory opinions on proper judicial conduct pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics and other authorities. CJEO’s website includes advisory opinions, resources dedicated to specific judicial assignments and issues, and extensive judicial ethics tools and resource materials for the benefit of the bench and the public.  https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/invitation-comment-disqualification-and-disclosure-requirements-under-racial-justice-act Invitation to Comment: Disqualification and Disclosure Requirements Under the Racial Justice ActBalassone, Merrill Tue, 05/27/2025 - 10:23 News Release The California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) invites public comment on a draft formal opinion addressing disclosure and disqualification requirements in cases involving Racial Justice Act claims. In CJEO Draft Formal Opinion 2025-028, the committee advises that a judge is not automatically required to recuse themselves solely because, as a former deputy district attorney, they handled cases involving elements that might be subject to discovery under a Racial Justice Act motion or used to demonstrate a violation of the Act in a case now before them. “Requiring disqualification in this scenario is neither practical nor necessary,” said committee member Judge Samantha P. Jessner. “This opinion delves into the ethical underpinnings of the committee’s conclusion.” The committee’s Invitation to Comment is posted on CJEO’s website. Comments are due by July 11, and may be submitted by CJEO’s online comment form, by email to Judicial.Ethics@jud.ca.gov, or by mail to: Jody VakiliChief CounselCalifornia Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions350 McAllister StreetSan Francisco, California 94102 All comments submitted to CJEO may be posted on CJEO’s website for public review unless clearly marked as confidential.  Public comments are an important part of CJEO’s process. These comments provide useful insight and help ensure that the committee considers all potential solutions, consequences, and points of view, which serves to improve the final opinion. About the Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO)The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions is a 12-member advisory committee that includes appellate justices, trial court judges, two retired judges, and a commissioner. The committee is appointed and authorized by the California Supreme Court, but its work is independent of the court, the Judicial Council, and all other entities. Its opinions are advisory and do not necessarily reflect the views of the California Supreme Court or any other entity.  The committee issues formal, informal, and expedited advisory opinions on proper judicial conduct pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics and other authorities. CJEO’s website includes advisory opinions, resources dedicated to specific judicial assignments and issues, and extensive judicial ethics tools and resource materials for the benefit of the bench and the public.  https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/invitation-comment-participation-inns-court Invitation to Comment: Participation in Inns of CourtBalassone, Merrill Wed, 05/07/2025 - 13:03 News Release The California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) invites public comment on a draft formal opinion about judges participating in Inns of Court—professional groups that bring together judges, lawyers, and law students to improve the practice of law. The draft opinion, CJEO Draft Formal Opinion 2025-030, details the ethical rules judges must follow when they take part in Inns of Court. Of particular note is the mentorship aspect of Inn involvement, as it may in some instances necessitate disclosure or even disqualification. Other ethical considerations include membership solicitation, educational activities, networking, and gifts. When a judicial officer participates in an Inn of Court, it not only benefits the Inn, but the legal community as a whole,” said committee member Justice Douglas P. Miller. "This opinion provides guidelines so that judicial officers can ensure their participation is in line with their ethical obligations.” The committee’s Invitation to Comment is posted on CJEO’s website. Comments are due by June 23 and may be submitted by CJEO’s online comment form, by email to Judicial.Ethics@jud.ca.gov, or by mail to: Jody VakiliChief CounselCalifornia Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions350 McAllister StreetSan Francisco, California 94102 All comments submitted to CJEO may be posted on CJEO’s website for public review unless clearly marked as confidential.  Public comments are an important part of CJEO’s process. These comments provide useful insight and help ensure that the committee considers all potential solutions, consequences, and points of view, which serves to improve the final opinion. About the Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO)The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions is a 12-member advisory committee that includes appellate justices, trial court judges, two retired judges, and a commissioner. The committee is appointed and authorized by the California Supreme Court, but its work is independent of the court, the Judicial Council, and all other entities. Its opinions are advisory and do not necessarily reflect the views of the California Supreme Court or any other entity.  The committee issues formal, informal, and expedited advisory opinions on proper judicial conduct pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics and other authorities. CJEO’s website includes advisory opinions, resources dedicated to specific judicial assignments and issues, and extensive judicial ethics tools and resource materials for the benefit of the bench and the public.  https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/california-ethics-committee-counsel-retire California Ethics Committee Counsel to RetireBalassone, Merrill Fri, 04/11/2025 - 08:51 News Release Nancy Black, counsel to the Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) since it’s inception, will retire on April 23 after 15 years of service. She will be replaced by Jody Vakili, who has served as legal advisor to the committee since 2023. Since it was founded as an independent committee by the California Supreme Court, the committee has issued guidance for judges on a wide and varied range of thorny ethical concerns, from involvement in marijuana-related enterprises; commenting on pending cases during a judicial election or recall campaign; or being involved in public demonstrations and rallies. Said Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero: "Over 15 years of dedicated service, Nancy Black has provided exemplary leadership for the Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions. Her insightful guidance and expertise have helped the committee navigate complex ethical issues, ensuring that California’s judiciary continues to set an example for integrity, transparency, and accountability.”   Said committee chair Justice Ronald B. Robie: “Nancy has been an invaluable leader for the committee, and her contributions over the years have been profound. Despite facing ongoing challenges, Nancy has managed our efforts with exceptional skill and determination. I am incredibly proud of CJEO, and it is a direct result of Nancy’s hard work, inspiration, and leadership. She leaves behind a legacy of excellence.” Said committee vice chair Justice Douglas P. Miller: “I have had the distinct privilege of serving on CJEO from its inception, and had the pleasure of working with Nancy Black, our committee counsel, for this entire time period. We as a judicial branch owe her a deep debt of gratitude for her guidance in the formation of our opinions. Judicial ethics is the bedrock of a judicial officer’s time on the bench. We thank Nancy for her dedication in service to us all–her insight was invaluable in making us all better judicial officers.” About the Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions is a 12-member advisory committee that includes appellate justices, trial court judges, two retired judges, and a commissioner. The committee is appointed and authorized by the California Supreme Court, but its work is independent of the court, the Judicial Council, and all other entities. Its opinions are advisory and do not necessarily reflect the views of the California Supreme Court or any other entity.  The committee issues formal, informal, and expedited advisory opinions on proper judicial conduct pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics and other authorities. CJEO’s website includes advisory opinions, resources dedicated to specific judicial assignments and issues, and extensive judicial ethics tools and resource materials for the benefit of the bench and the public.