The California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions issued a formal ethics opinion about the duties of a presiding judge or other judge with supervisory duties when investigating a complaint filed against a trial judge.
Draft opinion provides guidance to judges on advising family members on matters that implicate legal issues. Deadline to comment is March 22.
A state Supreme Court committee issued expedited advice regarding whether an appellate court justice may accept the services of an attorney, who is an employee and incoming associate of a law firm, to temporarily work in the justice’s chambers.
A state Supreme Court committee issued an expedited opinion providing guidance for judges who wish to exchange gifts with staff to celebrate holidays, birthdays, or other occasions.
A state Supreme Court committee issued an advisory opinion explaining when a judge may accept campaign contributions from a political action committee when the contribution includes funds from another political action committee organized and funded by court employees.
The Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye's Civic Learning Initiative took center stage at the Annual California Lawyers Association in Monterey.
A look back at highlights of the court's 2018-2019 year.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye participated in a panel discussion called, "Undermining the Courts and Media: The Consequences of American Democracy" at the National Judicial College Judges and Journalists Symposium.
In 2016, the Judicial Council continued focusing on efforts to better stabilize branch funding, improve branch governance, and to address concerns about fairness raised by the public, our sister branches of government, and stakeholders throughout the state.
The Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) issued oral advice that judges must follow a new law prohibiting compensation for solemnizing a marriage--legislation effective January 1, 2017, changes the law.
The Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) issued oral advice that a judge may administer the oath of office to a newly elected district attorney. CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2016-018 concludes that because judges are authorized by law to administer the oath of office that all public office holders are required to take under the California Constitution, doing so is an official function of judicial office.
Recent U.S. Supreme Court's Williams v. Pennsylvania case applies a disqualification standard for former prosecutors similar to earlier California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) advice—CJEO extends its advice to service in a prior conviction.