New Ethics Opinion about Judicial Ethics from the American Bar Association
ABA Formal Op. 26-521 The
Judicial Canons of Ethics Applicability to the Administrative and Supervisory
Role of a Judge
From the Executive Summary:
This opinion examines the ethical obligations of judges under the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct when exercising administrative, employment, and supervisory authority. The Canons and Rules governing impartiality, integrity, and independence - particularly Canons 1 and 2 and associated rules require judges to administer chambers and court staff with the same fairness and neutrality that guide adjudication. The opinion explains that ethical duties extend beyond the courtroom to include merit-based appointments, the prevention of bias and harassment, and the avoidance of favoritism or the appearance of impropriety in all administrative decisions. Judges fulfill these obligations by ensuring that their use of administrative authority promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s independence and integrity.
Judges occupy a unique public trust: they must decide controversies impartially and must also administer the courts in a manner that sustains the public’s confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary. The Model Code of Judicial Conduct makes plain that those obligations reach beyond adjudication to embrace the full scope of judicial administration. Canon 1 and Rule 1.2 require judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; Canon 2 and Rule 2.3 require that judges perform all duties of office—adjudicative, administrative, and supervisory—without bias or prejudice; Rule 2.12 imposes affirmative supervisory duties; and Rule 2.13 requires that appointments be made impartially and on the basis of merit. Together, these provisions create an affirmative, institutionally focused ethical mandate: judges must ensure that both their own conduct and the conduct of those they supervise preserve the fairness and legitimacy of the courts. Applied here, that mandate means (1) avoiding administrative actions that convey favoritism, partiality, or the use of judicial prestige for private ends; (2) making hiring, appointment, and personnel decisions on objective, merit-based criteria; and (3) actively supervising and correcting discriminatory, harassing, or retaliatory conduct within chambers. The illustrations in this opinion demonstrate how apparently discrete administrative acts (or the failure to act)—when motivated by nepotism, ideology, or personal loyalty—can produce precisely the appearance of partiality that the Code forbids, and how patterns of such conduct can erode institutional integrity even where no single act violates a particular rule.
Note for other law professors and law students: This opinion contains SIX "Illustrations," that is, hypothetical fact patterns with explanations of what issues are involved and what the judge should do. These are GREAT FOR EXAM QUESTIONS!
