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.
Since April, the state Supreme Court rolled a large screen television into its San Francisco courtroom to conduct oral arguments.
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.
Public comment helps the Supreme Court of California’s Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions draft advisory opinions on ethics issues of importance to California’s judges—it also helps them decide whether to publish an opinion or redraft based on the comments received.
Can a presiding judge disqualify an entire bench? The answer is a decisive “no”, according to the Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions, the ethical rule is that no judge may decide if another judge is disqualified. But they also gave...
A California Supreme Court committee today published guidance for judges who want to attend public demonstrations and rallies, citing a slate of ethical issues for judges to consider before participating.
The Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) this month posted a summary of oral advice stating appellate justices should disqualify themselves from a case if they were removed by peremptory challenge while hearing the case as a trial judge.
A judge can only be reimbursed for expenses incurred during official duties under policies, procedures, and rates approved by the Judicial Council.
Webcasts of the court’s oral arguments have been accessed more than 44,000 times since it began streaming them last year.
Committee says a judge must avoid bias or the appearance of bias and avoid the appearance that the specialty bar association is in a special position to influence the judge.