California Ethics Committee Issues Opinion on Disclosure and Disqualification for Former California Judicial Mentor Program Mentors

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.