https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/ en https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/supreme-court-names-new-ethics-code-committee-chair Supreme Court Names New Ethics Code Committee ChairBalassone, Merrill Wed, 03/16/2022 - 14:02 News Release The California Supreme Court today announced the appointment of Justice Marla J. Miller of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two (San Francisco) as the new chair of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics. The advisory committee evaluates and proposes amendments to the Canons of the California Code of Judicial Ethics. In her appointment letter, California Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye noted Justice Miller would be the first woman to lead the ethics committee. “The advisory committee has been essential in maintaining the code’s key role in protecting the impartiality, honesty, and integrity of the state’s judicial branch,” Cantil-Sakauye said. Starting April 1, Justice Miller will replace Justice Richard D. Fybel, who chaired the committee since 2004 and will be retiring from the bench this month. Justice Miller was elevated to the appellate bench in 2014, after serving as a San Francisco County Superior Court judge for more than 9 years. Justice Miller is currently a member of the Judicial Council’s Civil Jury Instructions Advisory Committee and the Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions. https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/ethics-committee-issues-disqualification-advice-judges-mentor-program Ethics Committee Issues Disqualification Advice to Judges in Mentor ProgramBalassone, Merrill Tue, 01/04/2022 - 10:41 News Release The California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) has issued advice about whether judges participating in the California Judicial Mentor Program should disqualify from cases in which their mentee attorneys appear.  The program was launched by Gov. Gavin Newsom in July as a statewide undertaking between the executive and judicial branches. It pairs judges with judicial applicants at both the trial and appellate court levels with the goal of broadening judicial diversity and demystifying the application process. In CJEO Expedited Opinion 2022-045, the committee concludes that judges acting as mentors should disqualify from cases involving mentee attorneys because a reasonable observer might doubt a mentor judge’s ability to be impartial. The committee notes the program involves frequent and substantive contact between mentors and mentees, and that mentorship implies a close and influential relationship.  The committee also notes judges may become personally invested in a mentee’s success and question their own capacity to be impartial. For these same reasons, appellate justices who are mentoring trial judges applying to the appellate bench should disqualify from reviewing mentees’ adjudicatory decisions. The California Judicial Mentor Program is an innovative program established by the executive and judicial branches. By issuing this opinion, the committee aims to provide judicial mentors with clear guidance so they can participate as mentors without fear of compromising public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary,” said Justice Douglas Miller, committee vice-chair.       Because the committee advises judicial mentors to disqualify from cases involving their mentees, the committee did not reach the question of whether or to what extent trial judge mentors need to disclose participation in the program on the record. 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, a retired judge, 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 posts its opinions on the CJEO website for the benefit of the bench and the public.  https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/ethics-committee-adopts-opinion-giving-attorney-feedback Ethics Committee Adopts Opinion on Giving Attorney FeedbackBalassone, Merrill Wed, 12/15/2021 - 09:41 News Release The California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) adopted a final opinion after considering public comments about whether judges may provide feedback on courtroom performance when requested by attorneys or their supervisors.      In the formal opinion, the committee concludes the Code of Judicial Ethics does not specifically prohibit providing feedback to appearing attorneys, but judges must keep several restrictions and ethical risks in mind.    In CJEO Formal Opinion 2021-018, the committee advises that judges choosing to provide feedback on courtroom performance must not: • engage in prohibited ex parte communications; •  make a public comment on a pending proceeding or nonpublic comment that may interfere with a fair trial or hearing; • create an appearance of favor or bias; • suggest that anyone is in a special position to influence the judicial officer; or • engage in coaching by advising on tactics or strategies that give one side an advantage in litigation or by providing legal advice. This means judges must not comment on pending matters until final resolution of all possible appeals, the committee said. Judges choosing to provide feedback must also ensure the feedback is neutral, not exhibit favoritism, and make themselves equally available to attorneys representing various interests or viewpoints. The committee strongly cautions judges not to provide feedback in the context of employment evaluations, as it may suggest a special relationship with a particular law office and could make the judge a witness in an employment dispute. Finally, the committee warns against “coaching,” or conduct that would give an attorney an advantage. “By adopting this final opinion, the committee aims to provide clear guidance on the ethical constraints to providing feedback on attorney courtroom performance. The committee is grateful to the members of the public and the bench for their thoughtful comments, which strengthened and enhanced the committee’s opinion,” said committee member Justice Judith Haller of the Fourth District Court of Appeal.  Based on the comments received, the committee modified the draft opinion to more strongly and clearly define the ethical risks involved in providing feedback; address specific concerns when providing feedback to supervisors; provide additional examples of relevant disciplinary decisions; and distinguish situations where judges are permitted to ensure the competency of attorneys, such as in the juvenile court context.   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, a retired judge, 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 posts its opinions on the CJEO website for the benefit of the bench and the public.  https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/ethics-committee-issues-advice-judges-disqualifying-school-district-mask-and-vaccine-mandate-0 Ethics Committee Issues Advice to Judges on Disqualifying from School District Mask and Vaccine Mandate CasesBalassone, Merrill Thu, 10/28/2021 - 14:18 News Release The Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) has issued advice about whether judges participating in civics education programs should disqualify from cases challenging school district mask and vaccine mandates. In CJEO Expedited Opinion 2021-044, the committee concludes involvement in civics education programs does not trigger mandatory disqualification. However, judges should consider whether special facts require disqualification. For instance, if during civics education activities, a judge heard school district representatives discussing relevant information about mask and vaccine policies, the judge may need to disqualify from cases challenging those policies.  The committee further advises that even if there are no mandatory grounds for disqualification, judges may exercise their discretion to disqualify when they believe a member of the public would reasonably doubt the judge’s impartiality. This might happen, for example, if the judge was closely associated or had extensive communications with someone personally named in the lawsuit. However, judges must weigh potential concerns about impartiality against the duty to hear all cases, including those that may be controversial, from which they are not disqualified.     Judicial involvement in civics education serves an important function and is to be encouraged. Judges engaged in these kinds of activities must consider how the public will perceive the judge’s involvement and strike the right balance between the duty to refrain from hearing cases when there is any reasonable doubt about impartiality and the duty to hear cases when there are no reasonable grounds for disqualification,” said Justice Douglas Miller, committee vice-chair.       The committee also notes that even when disqualification is not required, trial judges may need to disclose certain facts on the record if those facts were reasonably relevant to the judge’s decision whether to disqualify in a particular case.     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, a retired judge, 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 posts its opinions on the CJEO website for the benefit of the bench and the public.    https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/document/supreme-court-code-judicial-ethics-order Supreme Court Code of Judicial Ethics OrderBueno, Ivan Wed, 09/09/2020 - 10:09 Administrative Order Tags Ethics Supreme Court Topics Supreme Court