REPORT

OF

TASK FORCE FOR THE RENEWAL OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT PROCEDURES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1. Memorandum to Supreme Court of New Hampshire

2. Findings and Recommendations

3. Code of Judicial Conduct

4. Members of Task Force

 

 

TASK FORCE FOR THE RENEWAL

OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT PROCEDURES

Wilfred L. Sanders, Jr., Esq.
(Co-Chair)
Sanders & McDermott, P.L.L.C.
234 Lafayette Road • PO Box 5070
Hampton NH 03843-5070
Tel: 603-926-8926
Fax: 603-926-0564
e-mail: jsanders@samlaw.com

Rev. Jonathan DeFelice, O.S.B.
(Co-Chair)
President, Saint Anselm College

100 Saint Anselm Drive
Manchester NH 03102-1310
Tel: 603-641-7010
Fax: 603-641-7284
e-mail: jdefelic@anselm.edu

January 5, 2001

 

Report to: Supreme Court of New Hampshire

From: Rev. Jonathan DeFelice, O.S.B.
Wilfred L. Sanders, Jr., Esquire
Co-Chairs, Task Force for the Renewal of
Judicial Conduct Procedures

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are pleased to submit the Findings and Recommendations of the Task Force for the Renewal of Judicial Conduct Procedures.

The Task Force was formed in September at the Court’s request. Its assignment was to study and make recommendations for changes in Judicial Conduct Procedures to insure that members of the New Hampshire judiciary conform to the highest standards of conduct.

We should report to the Court that we have encountered a strong interest in this assignment on the part of those we asked to join us. These prominent men and women have been eager to help strengthen the public’s confidence in the integrity of New Hampshire’s justice system. They believe the work on the Task Force can be important in aiding that process. Meeting attendance has been very high, there has been an active and creative exchange of views among members of the Task Force, and the members’ efforts have been fruitful. We hope you will agree that the Findings and Recommendations we are transmitting herewith will help in increasing the effectiveness of the judicial conduct system and enforcing the integrity of New Hampshire’s justice system.

The report is written not only for members of the Supreme Court (who will find much in it that is already familiar) but also for the Executive and Legislative branches of government and the public at large, which should be as fully informed as possible about the workings of the justice system that are in place to serve the public interests.

 

The report of our recommendations is in two parts:

1. New structure of Judicial Conduct Commission

2. Revised Code of Judicial Conduct

The Task Force has a draft of Procedural Rules of the Judicial Conduct Commission which it is still working on and will submit to the Court in the near future.

As discussed at our September meeting, we are submitting a copy of our Report to the Executive and Legislative branches as well as announcing it to the public.

We are honored to have been asked by the Supreme Court to lead this effort and trust that the work of our Task Force will make a contribution to the improvement of the Judicial Conduct Procedures, and assist in improving confidence in our Judicial system.

Respectfully submitted.

 

 

__________________________________ _______________________________________

Rev. Jonathan DeFelice, O.S.B. Wilfred L. Sanders, Jr., Esquire

 

 

INDEX

Findings and Recommendations

Page

I. Background 1

II. Membership and Organization of the Task Force 1

III. Recommended Judicial Conduct Commission Structure 2

IV. Immediate Implementation 2

V. New Structure of the Judicial Conduct Commission 3

1. Membership 3

2. Terms of Office 4

3. Reappointments 4

4. Vacancies 4

5. Disqualification 5

6. Numbers for Quorum and Action 5

7. Election of Chair and Vice Chair 5

8. Subpoena Power 5

9. Removal 5

10. Funding 5

11. Staffing and Facilities 6

VI. Recommended Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics 6

VII. Revised Code of Judicial Conduct 6

VIII. Conclusion 7

 

 

TASK FORCE FOR THE RENEWAL OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT PROCEDURES

Findings and Recommendations

I. Background

Three months ago, justices on the Supreme Court of New Hampshire asked Rev. Jonathan DeFelice, O.S.B., President of Saint Anselm College, and Wilfred L. Sanders, Jr., Esquire, of the Hampton, New Hampshire law firm of Sanders & McDermott, P.L.L.C., to create a "task force" that would undertake an independent study and analysis of the Court’s Judicial Conduct Committee (JCC). The Co-Chairmen were charged with selecting the Task Force members, working totally independently from the Supreme Court, with setting the procedures and timetable for completing the work of the Task Force, and submitting its report to the Court, the other branches of government, and the public.

The Judicial Conduct Committee was organized in 1977 as a committee of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. As such, it has served the people of New Hampshire very well - even when, as in the last two years, the Committee has been called upon to consider questions relating to the conduct of members of the Supreme Court itself (in these instances, a separate panel of Superior Court justices has been able to consider and act upon the Committee's recommendations).

In order to consider possible improvements to the Committee’s makeup, and its processes, as well as the Code of Judicial Conduct itself, in order to strengthen the system, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded that an independent investigation by this "Task Force" should a) take a fresh look at the ways in which judicial conduct is reviewed and enforced today in New Hampshire, and b) make a Report of its work including any Findings and Recommendations.

This report contains the recommendations for an independent, reconstituted, and reorganized Judicial Conduct Commission, and for changes in the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Task Force has a draft of suggestions for operating rules of the Commission which it is still working on and will be submitting shortly.

II. Membership and Organization of the Task Force

The Task Force for the Renewal of Judicial Conduct Procedures consists of twenty members (complete list attached), including:

former Governor Walter Peterson;

two state representatives (Sheila Francoeur and Deputy Speaker Donnalee Lozeau);

one state senator (recent Senate President Beverly Hollingworth);

the president of the New Hampshire Bar Association (Gregory Robbins);

a member of the New Hampshire Supreme Court (Justice Joseph Nadeau);

the Chief Justice of the Superior Court system (Justice Walter Murphy);

a part-time district court judge (Judge Douglas Hatfield);

business, educational, and religious leaders.

A majority of its members were neither lawyers nor judges.

The Task Force was divided into two subcommittees, each responsible for an essential part of the Task Force’s investigation:

1. Subcommittee on the Structure of the Judicial Conduct Commission (chair: former Governor Walter Peterson). This group studied the mechanism that is in place to enforce the Code of Judicial Conduct – how should this Commission be constituted, who should select its members, how long should they serve, what rules should apply to their work, should they report to a higher authority, and, if so, to whom?

2. Subcommittee on the Code of Judicial Conduct (chair: Senator Beverly Hollingworth). The purpose of this subcommittee was to reexamine New Hampshire’s Code of Judicial Conduct itself – the standards of behavior that apply to members of the state’s judiciary, suggesting, if need be, changes and additions to the Code

The Task Force as a whole met in an initial public session on October 23 and held a public hearing on November 9, 2000. The subcommittees and Task Force have held several meetings in the Legislative Office Building, for which public notice was posted.

American Judicature Society. In addition to the input from members of the public, the Task Force has been provided with a wealth of information from the American Judicature Society consisting of materials outlining the composition of judicial conduct commissions in the other 49 states and the manner in which their members are appointed.

III. Recommended Judicial Conduct Commission Structure

As can be seen from the recommended structure set forth below, the Task Force recommends a newly constituted commission that would be independent, with the following changes in structure:

members of the new JCC - the Judicial Conduct Commission - will no longer be appointed solely by the Supreme Court;

the Judicial Conduct Commission will have its own office and will not meet on court premises;

the new JCC will not be staffed by Supreme Court personnel;

the new JCC will seek separate funding, and will not rely upon the Supreme Court for its budgetary needs.

IV. Immediate Implementation

While the Task Force understands that a truly independent Judicial Conduct Commission would best be established through a constitutional amendment, the Task Force believes that steps need to be taken immediately to set up an independent judicial conduct monitoring process.

In recommending these steps, the Task Force recognizes the importance of preserving fundamental principles of state government in maintaining a separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, and, just as important, the public accountability of the judiciary.

V. New Structure of the Judicial Conduct Commission

The Task Force subcommittee on the JCC’s structure promptly arrived at three principles that it believes should guide the reorganization of the Committee:

The Judicial Conduct Committee should be completely independent of the New Hampshire court system and the other branches of government, and should be renamed the Judicial Conduct Commission;

Members of the new Commission should be appointed by several authorities: the Governor, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, and the President of the New Hampshire Bar Association;

In keeping with its independent status and an accompanying need for vigorous professionalism in the management of its work, the new Commission must be free to hire staff and maintain its separate office.

 

1. MEMBERSHIP

The Task Force recommends that the Judicial Conduct Commission be established consisting of eleven members appointed as follows:

- by the Supreme Court, three judges (one judge or retired judge from each of the superior court, district court, and probate court systems);

3

- by the president of the New Hampshire Bar Association, two attorneys from among its members;

2

- by the Governor, three public members who should not be judges, attorneys, or elected or appointed public officials;

3

- by the President of the Senate, one public member who should not be a judge or an attorney;

1

- by the Speaker of the House, one public member who should not be a judge or an attorney;

1

- by the Supreme Court, one public member who should not be a judge, an attorney, or an elected or appointed public official.

1

Total

11

Thus, there would be six public members (a majority) on the new Commission.

2. TERMS OF OFFICE

The initial term of each member should be as follows:

Supreme Court appointments:

- one member for two years

- one member for three years

- one member for four years

N.H. Bar appointments

- one member for three years

- one member for four years

Governor appointments

- one member for two years

- one member for three years

- one member for four years

Senate President appointment

- one member for two years

Speaker appointment

- one member for four years

Supreme Court Public Member appointment

- one member for three years

3. REAPPOINTMENTS

After the initial appointment, a member may be reappointed for an additional term of four years. Initial members may not be appointed thereafter until they have not sat on the Commission for a period of four years.

4. VACANCIES

A vacancy in the office of the Commission should occur:

i. At the expiration of a member’s term;

ii. When a member ceases to hold the office, by submitting his or her resignation to the Commission, or for some other reason;

iii. When a non-attorney or non-judge member becomes an attorney or judge;

iv. When an attorney member ceases to be a member of the bar of this state, becomes inactive, is elected or appointed to public office, or is appointed a judge;

v. When a member ceases to be domiciled in New Hampshire;

vi. When removed by the Commission as provided in Section 9.

A vacancy should be filled by the same appointing authority. The successor should have the same qualifications as the person who is being replaced. If the vacancy results from other than expiration of the term, the successor should hold office for the unexpired term.

5. DISQUALIFICATION

No member should participate in any proceeding before the Commission involving their conduct or in which they are witnesses or are otherwise involved;

No member should participate in any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned;

Whenever a member is unable to participate in a particular proceeding because of disqualification, prolonged absence, or physical or mental incapacity, or any other reason, the Commission may designate a former member of the Commission or its predecessor, the Judicial Conduct Committee, to replace the member for such period as the disqualification or disability continues. If no such member is available, the Commission may request the appointing authority of the absent member to appoint a substitute member.

6. NUMBERS FOR QUORUM AND ACTION

A quorum for a meeting should be a simple majority (6 members). Similarly, a simple majority of the Commission (6 members) should be necessary to take routine action. A super majority of two-thirds (8 members) should be required for a public hearing and to sanction any judge.

7. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR

The members of the Judicial Conduct Commission should elect their own Chair and Vice Chair.

8. SUBPOENA POWER

The Judicial Conduct Commission should also have the powers of subpoena.

9. REMOVAL

The Chair of the Commission should be given the authority to require attendance at meetings except for rare absences, and to discuss with members whether continued service on the Commission is justified when meetings are frequently missed. The Chair, with the concurrence of the Commission, should be authorized to remove a member for cause, including unexcused absences, or serious Commission rule violations.

10. FUNDING

The Commission should prepare and administer its own budget including funding for such items as staff, office space and operating expenses. Funding should be authorized by the Legislature from sources other than those appropriated for the judicial branch.

11. STAFF AND FACILITIES

The Judicial Conduct Commission should hire its own staff and select its own office space, which should not be in the facilities of any branch of government.

VI. Recommended Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics

The Task Force also suggests the establishment, by the Court, of an Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, separate from the Judicial Conduct Commission. The role of the Advisory Committee would be to advise judges on questions that may raise under the Code of Judicial Conduct. The membership of the Committee could be as constituted in some states, with retired judges and perhaps an ethics professional.

VII. Revised Code of Judicial Conduct

1. Current Code of Judicial Conduct.

The current Code of Judicial Conduct is based on a model created in 1972. Although the American Bar Association had designed an improved model code in 1990, this new model was never adopted in New Hampshire. The Task Force subcommittee began its review of the current code by reexamining the 1990 proposals, which form the basis for improvements it is now recommending to the Code. These improvements are designed, more fundamentally, to make the Code more "user-friendly" and comprehensible – to judges as well as to laypersons.

2. Suggested Task Force Amendments or Changes to the Code Include:

A preamble that describes a "rule of reason" – a statement of the Code’s objectives and principles to insure that the independence of the judiciary is not abridged;

Commentaries and clarifying examples accompanying each Canon of the Code to aid comprehension and implementation;

Changes in language to make the code gender-neutral;

Standards for determining the appearance of impropriety in judicial conduct;

Changes to reduce the isolation of judges and enable broader judicial participation in community development and improvement activities;

A glossary with definitions of technical terms found in the Code.

3. A draft of a proposed new Code of Judicial Conduct for New Hampshire with commentary and examples is attached.

 

VIII. Conclusion

When the Co-chairs and members of the Task force began their work it was

with the intention of accomplishing in a relatively short amount of time the

important work of assessing the current situation and proposing improvements

for the future. This task was approached with the goal of not only assisting

the branches of government, but also to clearly contribute to the positive public

perception of this necessary and significant Code and Commission for our judicial system in New Hampshire.

 

 

 

Amend Supreme Court Rule 38 by striking out said rule and replacing it with the following:

 

RULE 38. CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Page

 

PREAMBLE 1

TERMINOLOGY 2

CANON 1 A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY 3

CANON 2 A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL OF THE JUDGE’S ACTIVITIES 4

CANON 3 A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY 6

CANON 4 A JUDGE SHALL SO CONDUCT THE JUDGE’S EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES AS TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH JUDICIAL OBLIGATIONS 12

CANON 5 A JUDGE SHALL REFRAIN FROM POLITICAL ACTIVITIES INAPPROPRIATE TO THE JUDGE’S JUDICIAL OFFICE 21

APPLICATION OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT 21

 

PREAMBLE

Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us. The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of justice and the rule of law. Intrinsic to all sections of this Code are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a system. The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes and a highly visible symbol of government under the rule of law.

The Code of Judicial Conduct is intended to establish standards for ethical conduct of judges. It consists of broad statements called Canons, specific rules set forth in Sections under each Canon, a Terminology Section, an Application Section and Commentary. The text of the Canons and the Sections, including the Terminology and Application Sections, is authoritative. The Commentary, by explanation and example, provides guidance with respect to the purpose and meaning of the Canons and Sections. The Commentary is not intended as a statement of additional rules. When the text uses "shall" or "shall not," it is intended to impose binding obligations the violation of which can result in disciplinary action. When "should" or "should not" is used, the text is intended as hortatory and as a statement of what is or is not appropriate conduct but not as a binding rule under which a judge may be disciplined. When "may" is used, it denotes permissible discretion or, depending on the context, it refers to action that is not covered by specific proscriptions.

The Code is designed to provide guidance to judges and to provide a structure for regulating conduct through disciplinary agencies. It is not designed or intended as a basis for civil liability or criminal prosecution. Furthermore, the purpose of the Code would be subverted if the Code were invoked by lawyers for mere tactical advantage in a proceeding.

The text of the Canons and Sections is intended to govern conduct of judges and to be binding upon them. It is not intended, however, that every transgression will result in disciplinary action. Whether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the degree of discipline to be imposed, should be determined through a reasonable and reasoned application of the text and should depend on such factors as the seriousness of the transgression, whether there is a pattern of improper activity and the effect of the improper activity on others or on the judicial system.

The Code of Judicial Conduct is not intended as an exhaustive guide for the conduct of judges. They should also be governed in their judicial and personal conduct by general ethical standards. The Code is intended, however, to state basic standards which should govern the conduct of all judges and to provide guidance to assist judges in establishing and maintaining high standards of judicial and personal conduct.

TERMINOLOGY

"Compensation" denotes remuneration for personal services."

"Court personnel" does not include the lawyers in a proceeding before a judge.

"Economic interest" denotes ownership of a legal or equitable interest, or a relationship as officer, director, advisor or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:

(i) ownership of an interest in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not an economic interest in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund or a proceeding pending or impending before the judge could substantially affect the value of the interest;

(ii) service by a judge as an officer, director, advisor or other active participant in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic organization, or service by a judge's spouse, parent or child as an officer, director, advisor or other active participant in any organization does not create an economic interest in securities held by that organization;

(iii) a deposit in a financial institution, the proprietary interest of a policy holder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association or of a member in a credit union, or a similar proprietary interest, is not an economic interest in the organization unless a proceeding pending or impending before the judge could substantially affect the value of the interest;

(iv) ownership of government securities is not an economic interest in the issuer unless a proceeding pending or impending before the judge could substantially affect the value of the securities.

"Fiduciary" includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian.

"Judge pro tempore." A judge pro tempore is a person who is appointed to act temporarily as a judge.

"Knowingly," "knowledge," "known" or "knows" denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person's knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.

"Law" denotes court rules as well as statutes, constitutional provisions and decisional law.

"Member of the judge's family" denotes a spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, or other relative or person with whom the judge maintains a close familial relationship.

"Member of the judge's family residing in the judge's household" denotes any relative of a judge by blood or marriage, or a person treated by a judge as a member of the judge's family, who resides in the judge's household.

"Nonpublic information" denotes information that, by law, is not available to the public. Nonpublic information may include but is not limited to: information that is sealed by statute or court order, impounded or communicated in camera; and information offered in grand jury proceedings, presentencing reports, dependency cases or psychiatric reports.

"Part-time judge." A part-time judge is a judge who serves on a continuing or periodic basis, but is permitted by law to devote time to some other profession or occupation and whose compensation for that reason is less than that of a full-time judge.

"Political organization" denotes a political party or other group, the principal purpose of which is to further the election or appointment of candidates to political office.

"Require." The rules prescribing that a judge "require" certain conduct of others are, like all of the rules in this Code, rules of reason. The use of the term "require" in that context means a judge is to exercise reasonable direction and control over the conduct of those persons subject to the judge's direction and control.

"Third degree of relationship." The following persons are relatives within the third degree of relationship: great-grandparent, grandparent, parent, uncle, aunt, brother, sister, child, grandchild, great-grandchild, nephew or niece.

 

CANON 1

A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE

OF THE JUDICIARY

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

Commentary:

Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depends in turn upon their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law, including the provisions of this Code. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law.

 

CANON 2

A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF

IMPROPRIETY IN ALL OF THE JUDGE'S ACTIVITIES

A. A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Commentary:

Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on the judge's conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.

The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the proscription is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules or other specific provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.

B. A judge should not allow his family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment. A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge shall not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

Commentary:

Maintaining the prestige of judicial office is essential to a system of government in which the judiciary functions independently of the executive and legislative branches. Respect for the judicial office facilitates the orderly conduct of legitimate judicial functions. Judges should distinguish between proper and improper use of the prestige of office in all of their activities. For example, it would be improper for a judge to allude to his or her judgeship to gain a personal advantage such as deferential treatment when stopped by a police officer for a traffic offense. Similarly, judicial letterhead must not be used for conducting a judge's personal business.

A judge must avoid lending the prestige of judicial office for the advancement of the private interests of others. For example, a judge must not use the judge's judicial position to gain advantage in a civil suit involving a member of the judge's family. In contracts for publication of a judge's writings, a judge should retain control over the advertising to avoid exploitation of the judge's office. As to the acceptance of awards, see Section 4D(5)(a) and Commentary.

Although a judge should be sensitive to possible abuse of the prestige of office, a judge may, based on the judge's personal knowledge, serve as a reference or provide a letter of recommendation. However, a judge must not initiate the communication of information to a sentencing judge or a probation or corrections officer but may provide to such persons information for the record in response to a formal request.

Judges may participate in the process of judicial selection by cooperating with appointing authorities and screening committees seeking names for consideration, and by responding to official inquiries concerning a person being considered for a judgeship. See also Canon 5 regarding political activities.

A judge must not testify voluntarily as a character witness because to do so may lend the prestige of the judicial office in support of the party for whom the judge testifies. Moreover, when a judge testifies as a witness, a lawyer who regularly appears before the judge may be placed in the awkward position of cross-examining the judge. A judge may, however, testify when properly summoned. Except in unusual circumstances where the demands of justice require, a judge should discourage a party from requiring the judge to testify as a character witness.

C. A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Commentary:

Membership of a judge in an organization that practices invidious discrimination gives rise to perceptions that the judge's impartiality is impaired. Section 2C refers to the current practices of the organization. Whether an organization practices invidious discrimination is often a complex question to which judges should be sensitive. The answer cannot be determined from a mere examination of an organization's current membership rolls but rather depends on how the organization selects members and other relevant factors, such as that the organization is dedicated to the preservation of religious, ethnic or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members, or that it is in fact and effect an intimate, purely private organization whose membership limitations could not be constitutionally prohibited. Absent such factors, an organization is generally said to discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from membership on the basis of race, religion, sex or national origin persons who would otherwise be admitted to membership. See New York State Club Ass'n. Inc. v. City of New York, 108 S. Ct. 2225, 101 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1988); Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537, 107 S. Ct. 1940, 95 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1987); Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S. Ct. 3244, 82 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1984).

Although Section 2C relates only to membership in organizations that invidiously discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin, a judge's membership in an organization that engages in any discriminatory membership practices prohibited by the law of the jurisdiction also violates Canon 2 and Section 2A and gives the appearance of impropriety. In addition, it would be a violation of Canon 2 and Section 2A for a judge to arrange a meeting at a club that the judge knows practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin in its membership or other policies, or for the judge to regularly use such a club. Moreover, public manifestation by a judge of the judge's knowing approval of invidious discrimination on any basis gives the appearance of impropriety under Canon 2 and diminishes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, in violation of Section 2A.

When a person who is a judge on the date this Code becomes effective learns that an organization to which the judge belongs engages in invidious discrimination that would preclude membership under Section 2C or under Canon 2 and Section 2A, the judge is permitted, in lieu of resigning, to make immediate efforts to have the organization discontinue its invidiously discriminatory practices, but is required to suspend participation in any other activities of the organization. If the organization fails to discontinue its invidiously discriminatory practices as promptly as possible (and in all events within a year of the judge's first learning of the practices), the judge is required to resign immediately from the organization.

 

CANON 3

A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE

IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY

A. Judicial Duties in General. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge's other activities. The judge's judicial duties include all the duties of the judge's office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply.

B. Adjudicative Responsibilities.

(1) A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge except those in which disqualification is required.

(2) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism.

(3) A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the judge.

(4) A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, and of staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control.

 

Commentary:

The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not inconsistent with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Judges can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate.

(5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and shall not permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so.

Commentary:

A judge must refrain from speech, gestures or other conduct that could reasonably be perceived as sexual harassment and must require the same standard of conduct of others subject to the judge's direction and control.

A judge must perform judicial duties impartially and fairly. A judge who manifests bias on any basis in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute. Facial expression and body language, in additional to oral communication, can give to parties or lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media and others an appearance of judicial bias. A judge must be alert to avoid behavior that may be perceived as prejudicial.

(6) A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the judge to refrain from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, against parties, witnesses, counsel or others. This Section 3B(6) does not preclude legitimate advocacy when race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, or other similar factors, are issues in the proceeding.

(7) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding except that:

(a) Where circumstances require, ex parte communications for scheduling, administrative purposes or emergencies that do not deal with substantive matters or issues on the merits are authorized; provided:

(i) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication, and

(ii) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of the substance of the ex parte communication and allows an opportunity to respond.

(b) A judge may consult with court personnel whose function is to aid the judge in carrying out the judge's adjudicative responsibilities or with other judges.

(c) A judge may, with the consent of the parties, confer separately with the parties and their lawyers in an effort to mediate or settle matters pending before the judge.

(d) A judge may initiate or consider any ex parte communications when authorized by law to do so.

Commentary:

The proscription against communications concerning a proceeding includes communications from lawyers, law teachers, and other persons who are not participants in the proceeding, except to the limited extent permitted.

To the extent reasonably possible, all parties or their lawyers shall be included in communications with a judge.

Whenever presence of a party or notice to a party is required by Section 3B(7), it is the party's lawyer, or if the party is unrepresented the party, who is to be present or to whom notice is to be given.

Certain ex parte communication is approved by Section 3B(7) to facilitate scheduling and other administrative purposes and to accommodate emergencies. In general, however, a judge must discourage ex parte communication and allow it only if all the criteria stated in Section 3B(7) are clearly met. A judge must disclose to all parties all ex parte communications described in Section 3B(7)(a) regarding a proceeding pending or impending before the judge.

A judge must not independently investigate facts in a case and must consider only the evidence presented.

A judge may request a party to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, so long as the other parties are apprised of the request and are given an opportunity to respond to the proposed findings and conclusions.

A judge must make reasonable efforts, including the provision of appropriate supervision, to ensure that Section 3B(7) is not violated through law clerks or other personnel on the judge's staff.

(8) A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently and fairly.

Commentary:

In disposing of matters promptly, efficiently and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without unnecessary cost or delay. Containing costs while preserving fundamental rights of parties also protects the interests of witnesses and the general public. A judge should monitor and supervise cases so as to reduce or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays and unnecessary costs. A judge should encourage and seek to facilitate settlement, but parties should not feel coerced into surrendering the right to have their controversy resolved by the courts.

Prompt disposition of the court's business requires a judge to devote adequate time to judicial duties, to be punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters under submission, and to insist that court officials, litigants and their lawyers cooperate with the judge to that end.

(9) A judge shall abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court, and shall require similar abstention on the part of court personnel subject to the judge's direction and control. This Section does not prohibit judges from making public statements in the course of their official duties or from explaining for public information the procedures of the court. This Section does not apply to proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity.

Commentary:

The requirement that judges abstain from public comment regarding a pending or impending proceeding continues during any appellate process and until final disposition. This Section recognizes the appropriateness of public comment by judges of an informational and educational nature concerning the administration of justice, and to dispel public misconceptions and misinformation about the operation of the court system. This Section does not prohibit a judge from commenting on proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity, but in cases such as a writ of mandamus where the judge is a litigant in an official capacity, the judge must not comment publicly. The conduct of lawyers relating to trial publicity is governed by Rule 3.6 of the N.H. Rules of Professional Conduct.

(10) A judge shall not commend or criticize jurors for their verdict other than in a court order or opinion in a proceeding, but may express appreciation to jurors for their service to the judicial system and the community.

Commentary:

Commending or criticizing jurors for their verdict may imply a judicial expectation in future cases and may impair a juror's ability to be fair and impartial in a subsequent case.

(11) A judge shall not disclose or use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity.

C. Administrative Responsibilities.

(1) A judge shall diligently discharge his administrative responsibilities without bias or prejudice and maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and should cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business.

(2) A judge shall require staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge and to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice in the performance of their official duties.

(3) A judge with supervisory authority for the judicial performance of other judges shall take reasonable measures to assure the prompt disposition of matters before them and the proper performance of their other judicial responsibilities.

(4) A judge shall not make unnecessary appointments. A judge shall exercise the power of appointment impartially and on the basis of merit. A judge shall avoid nepotism and favoritism. A judge shall not approve compensation of appointees beyond the fair value of services rendered.

 

Commentary:

Appointees of a judge include assigned counsel, officials such as referees, commissioners, special masters, receivers and guardians and personnel such as clerks, secretaries and bailiffs. Consent by the parties to an appointment or an award of compensation does not relieve the judge of the obligation prescribed by Section 3C(4).

D. Disciplinary Responsibilities.

(1) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of this Code should take appropriate action. A judge having knowledge that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial question as to the other judge's fitness for office shall inform the committee on judicial conduct.

(2) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct should take appropriate action. A judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the committee on professional conduct.

(3) Acts of a judge, in the discharge of disciplinary responsibilities, required or permitted by Sections 3D(1) and 3D(2) are part of a judge's judicial duties and shall be absolutely privileged, and no civil action predicated thereon may be instituted against the judge.

Commentary:

Appropriate action may include direct communication with the judge or lawyer who has committed the violation, other direct action if available, and reporting the violation to the appropriate authority or other agency or body.

E. Disqualification.

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:

Commentary:

Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply. For example, if a judge were in the process of negotiating for employment with a law firm, the judge would be disqualified from any matters in which that law firm appeared, unless the disqualification was waived by the parties after disclosure by judge.

A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification.

By decisional law, the rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification. For example, a judge might be required to participate in judicial review of a judicial salary statute, or might be the only judge available in a matter requiring immediate judicial action, such as a hearing on probable cause or a temporary restraining order. In the latter case, the judge must disclose on the record the basis for possible disqualification and use reasonable efforts to transfer the matter to another judge as soon as practicable.

(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(b) the judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge has been a material witness concerning it;

Commentary:

A lawyer in a government agency does not ordinarily have an association with other lawyers employed by that agency within the meaning of Section 3E(1)(b); a judge formerly employed by a government agency, however, should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding if the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of such association.

(c) the judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge's spouse, parent or child wherever residing, or any other member of the judge's family residing in the judge's household, has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding that could be substantially affected by the proceeding;

(d) the judge or the judge's spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(i) is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

(ii) is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii) is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding;

(iv) is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

Commentary:

The fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law firm with which a relative of the judge is affiliated does not of itself disqualify the judge. Under appropriate circumstances, the fact that "the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned" under Section 3E(1), or that the relative is known by the judge to have an interest in the law firm that could be "substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding" under Section 3E(1)(d)(iii) may require the judge's disqualification.

(2) A judge shall keep informed about the judge's personal and fiduciary economic interests, and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal economic interests of the judge's spouse and minor children residing in the judge's household.

F. Remittal of Disqualification.

A judge disqualified by the terms of Canon 3E may, instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on the record the basis of the judge's disqualification. If the parties and their lawyers after such disclosure and an opportunity to confer outside of the presence of the judge, all agree on the record that the judge should not be disqualified, and the judge is then willing to participate, the judge may participate in the proceeding.

Commentary:

A remittal procedure provides the parties an opportunity to proceed without delay if they wish to waive the disqualification. To assure that consideration of the question of remittal is made independently of the judge, a judge must not solicit, seek or hear comment on possible remittal or waiver of the disqualification unless the lawyers jointly propose remittal after consultation as provided in the rule. A party may act through counsel if counsel represents on the record that the party has been consulted and consents. As a practical matter, a judge may wish to have all parties and their lawyers sign the remittal agreement.

 

CANON 4

A JUDGE SHALL SO CONDUCT THE JUDGE'S EXTRA-JUDICIAL

ACTIVITIES AS TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT

WITH JUDICIAL OBLIGATIONS

A. Extra-judicial Activities in General. A judge shall conduct all of the judge's extra-judicial activities so that they do not:

(1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge;

(2) demean the judicial office; or

(3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.

Commentary:

Complete separation of a judge from extra-judicial activities is neither possible nor wise; a judge should not become isolated from the community in which the judge lives.

Expressions of bias or prejudice by a judge, even outside the judge's judicial activities, may cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge. Expressions which may do so include jokes or other remarks demeaning individuals on the basis of their race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status. See Section 2C and accompanying Commentary.

B. A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.

(1) A judge who intends to enter into a teaching contract shall obtain written approval, in advance, from the chief justice of the supreme court.

(2) A judge who is otherwise in compliance with the provisions of Canon 3 relating to the precedence of his or her judicial duties and the timely and competent disposition of the business of the court may, in any calendar year, derive income from such activities not to exceed 15% of the judge’s salary. For good cause shown and in extraordinary circumstances, exceptions to this limitation may be approved, in advance, by formal and unanimous vote of the supreme court. Such approval shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for and terms of the exception.

Commentary:

As a judicial officer and person specially learned in the law, a judge is in a unique position to contribute to the improvement of the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, including revision of substantive and procedural law and improvement of criminal and juvenile justice. To the extent that time permits, a judge is encouraged to do so, either independently or through a bar association, judicial conference or other organization dedicated to the improvement of the law. Judges may participate in efforts to promote the fair administration of justice, the independence of the judiciary and the integrity of the legal profession and may express opposition to the persecution of lawyers and judges in other countries because of their professional activities.

The 15% income limitation is consistent with Title VI of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. app. 4, 501-505, which limits the income that federal judges may receive from quasi-judicial activities.

In other Sections of Canon 4, the phrase "subject to the requirements of this Code" is used, notably in connection with a judge's governmental, civic or charitable activities. This phrase is included to remind judges that the use of permissive language in various Sections of the Code does not relieve a judge from the other requirements of the Code that apply to the specific conduct.

C. Governmental, Civic or Charitable Activities.

(1) A judge may appear at a public hearing before an executive or legislative body or official on matters concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, and a judge may otherwise consult with an executive or legislative body or official, but only on matters concerning the administration of justice.

Commentary:

See Section 2B regarding the obligation to avoid improper influence.

(2) A judge shall not accept appointment to a governmental committee or commission or other governmental position that is concerned with issues of fact or policy on matters other than the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice. A judge may, however, represent a country, state or locality on ceremonial occasions or in connection with historical, educational or cultural activities.

Commentary:

Section 4C(2) prohibits a judge from accepting any governmental position except one relating to the law, legal system or administration of justice as authorized by Section 4C(3). The appropriateness of accepting extra-judicial assignments must be assessed in light of the demands on judicial resources created by crowded dockets and the need to protect the courts from involvement in extra-judicial matters that may prove to be controversial. Judges should not accept governmental appointments that are likely to interfere with the effectiveness and independence of the judiciary.

Section 4C(2) does not govern a judge's service in a nongovernmental position. See Section 4C(3) permitting service by a judge with organizations devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice and with education, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic organizations not conducted for profit. For example, service on the board of a public educational institution, unless it were a law school, would be prohibited under Section 4C(2), but service on the board of a public law school or any private educational institution would generally be permitted under Section 4C(3).

(3) A judge may serve as an officer, director, trustee or non-legal advisor of an organization or governmental agency devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice or of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic organization not conducted for profit, subject to the following limitations and the other requirements of this Code.

Commentary:

Section 4C(3) does not apply to a judge's service in a governmental position unconnected with the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice; see Section 4C(2).

See Commentary to Section 4B regarding use of the phrase "subject to the following limitations and the other requirements of this Code." As an example of the meaning of the phrase, a judge permitted by Section 4C(3) to serve on the board of a fraternal institution may be prohibited from such service by Sections 2C or 4A if the institution practices invidious discrimination or if service on the board otherwise casts reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge.

Service by a judge on behalf of a civic or charitable organization may be governed by other provisions of Canon 4 in addition to Section 4C. For example, a judge is prohibited by Section 4G from serving as a legal advisor to a civic or charitable organization.

(a) A judge shall not serve as an officer, director, trustee or non-legal advisor if it is likely that the organization

(i) will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge, or

(ii) will be engaged frequently in adversary proceedings in the court of which the judge is a member or in any court subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the court of which the judge is a member.

Commentary:

The changing nature of some organizations and of their relationship to the law makes it necessary for a judge regularly to reexamine the activities of each organization with which the judge is affiliated to determine if it is proper for the judge to continue the affiliation. For example, in many jurisdictions charitable hospitals are now more frequently in court than in the past. Similarly, the boards of some legal aid organizations now make policy decisions that may have political significance or imply commitment to causes that may come before the courts for adjudication.

(b) A judge as an officer, director, trustee or non-legal advisor, or as a member or otherwise:

(i) may assist such an organization in planning fund-raising and may participate in the management and investment of the organization's funds, but shall not personally participate in the solicitation of funds or other fund-raising activities;

(ii) may make recommendations to public and private fund-granting organizations on projects and programs concerning the law, the legal system or the administration of justice;

(iii) shall not personally participate in membership solicitation if the solicitation might reasonably be perceived as coercive or if the membership solicitation is essentially a fund-raising mechanism;

(iv) shall not use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising or membership solicitation.

Commentary:

A judge may solicit membership or endorse or encourage membership efforts for an organization devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice or a nonprofit educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic organization as long as the solicitation cannot reasonably be perceived as coercive and is not essentially a fund-raising mechanism. Solicitation of funds for an organization and solicitation of memberships similarly involve the danger that the person solicited will feel obligated to respond favorably to the solicitor if the solicitor is in a position of influence or control. A judge must not engage in direct, individual solicitation of funds or memberships in person, in writing or by telephone except in the following cases: 1) a judge may solicit other persons for membership in the organizations described above if neither those persons nor persons with whom they are affiliated are likely ever to appear before the court on which the judge serves and 2) a judge who is an officer of such an organization may send a general membership solicitation mailing over the judge's signature.

Use of an organization letterhead for fund-raising or membership solicitation does not violate Section 4C(3)(b) provided the letterhead lists only the judge's name and office or other position in the organization, and, if comparable designations are listed for other persons, the judge's judicial designation. In addition, a judge must also make reasonable efforts to ensure that the judge's staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control do not solicit funds on the judge's behalf for any purpose, charitable or otherwise.

A judge must not be a speaker or a guest of honor at an organization's fund-raising event, but mere attendance at such an event is permissible if otherwise consistent with this Code.

D. Financial Activities.

(1) A judge shall not engage in financial and business dealings that

(a) may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge's judicial position, or

(b) involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with those lawyers or other persons likely to come before the court on which the judge serves.

Commentary:

The Time for Compliance provision of this Code (Application, Section E) postpones the time for compliance with certain provisions of this Section in some cases.

When a judge acquires in a judicial capacity information, such as material contained in filings with the court, that is not yet generally known, the judge must not use the information for private gain. See Section 2B; see also Section 3B(11).

A judge must avoid financial and business dealings that involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with persons likely to come either before the judge personally or before other judges on the judge's court. In addition, a judge should discourage members of the judge's family from engaging in dealings that would reasonably appear to exploit the judge's judicial position. This rule is necessary to avoid creating an appearance of exploitation of office or favoritism and to minimize the potential for disqualification. With respect to affiliation of relatives of a judge with law firms appearing before the judge, see Commentary to Section 3E(1) relating to disqualification.

Participation by a judge in financial and business dealings is subject to the general prohibitions in Section 4A against activities that tend to reflect adversely on impartiality, demean the judicial office, or interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties. Such participation is also subject to the general prohibition in Canon 2 against activities involving impropriety or the appearance of impropriety and the prohibition in Section 2B against the misuse of the prestige of judicial office. In addition, a judge must maintain high standards of conduct in all of the judge's activities, as set forth in Canon 1. See Commentary for Section 4B regarding use of the phrase "subject to the requirements of this Code."

(2) A judge may, subject to the requirements of this Code, hold and manage investments of the judge and members of the judge's family, including real estate, and engage in other remunerative activity.

Commentary:

This Section provides that, subject to the requirements of this Code, a judge may hold and manage investments owned solely by the judge, investments owned solely by a member or members of the judge's family, and investments owned jointly by the judge and members of the judge's family.

(3) A judge shall not serve as an officer, director, manager, general partner, advisor or employee of any business entity except that a judge may, subject to the requirements of this Code, manage and participate in:

(a) a business closely held by the judge or members of the judge's family, or

(b) a business entity primarily engaged in investment of the financial resources of the judge or members of the judge's family.

Commentary:

Subject to the requirements of this Code, a judge may participate in a business that is closely held either by the judge alone, by members of the judge's family, or by the judge and members of the judge's family.

Although participation by a judge in a closely-held family business might otherwise be permitted by Section 4D(3), a judge may be prohibited from participation by other provisions of this Code when, for example, the business entity frequently appears before the judge's court or the participation requires significant time away from judicial duties. Similarly, a judge must avoid participating in a closely-held family business if the judge's participation would involve misuse of the prestige of judicial office.

(4) A judge shall manage the judge's investments and other financial interests to minimize the number of cases in which the judge is disqualified. As soon as the judge can do so without serious financial detriment, the judge shall divest himself or herself of investments and other financial interests that might require frequent disqualification.

(5) A judge shall not accept, and shall urge members of the judge's family residing in the judge's household not to accept a gift, bequest, favor or loan from anyone except for:

Commentary:

Because a gift, bequest, favor or loan to a member of the judge's family residing in the judge's household might be viewed as intended to influence the judge, a judge must inform those members of the relevant ethical constraints upon the judge in this regard and discourage those family members from violating them. A judge cannot, however reasonably be expected to know or control all of the financial or business activities of all family members residing in the judge's household.

(a) a gift incident to a public testimonial, books, tapes and other resource materials supplied by publishers on a complimentary basis for official use, or an invitation to the judge and the judge's spouse or guest to attend a bar-related function or activity devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice;

Commentary:

Acceptance of an invitation to a law-related function is governed by Section 4D(5)(a); acceptance of an invitation paid for by an individual lawyer or group of lawyers is governed by Section 4D(5)(h).

A judge may accept a public testimonial or a gift incident thereto only if the donor organization is not an organization whose members comprise or frequently represent the same side in litigation, and the testimonial and gift are otherwise in compliance with other provisions of this Code. See Sections 4A(1) and 2B.

(b) a gift, award or benefit incident to the business, profession or other separate activity of a spouse or other family member of a judge residing in the judge's household, including gifts, awards and benefits for the use of both the spouse or other family member and the judge (as spouse or family member), provided the gift, award or benefit could not reasonably be perceived as intended to influence the judge in the performance of judicial duties;

(c) ordinary social hospitality;

(d) a gift from a relative or friend, for a special occasion, such as a wedding, anniversary or birthday, if the gift is fairly commensurate with the occasion and the relationship;

Commentary:

A gift to a judge, or to a member of the judge's family living in the judge's household, that is excessive in value raises questions about the judge's impartiality and the integrity of the judicial office and might require disqualification of the judge where disqualification would not otherwise be required. See, however, Section 4D(5)(e).

(e) a gift, bequest, favor or loan from a relative or close personal friend whose appearance or interest in a case would in any event require disqualification under Section 3E;

(f) a loan from a lending institution in its regular course of business on the same terms generally available to persons who are not judges;

(g) a scholarship or fellowship awarded on the same terms and based on the same criteria applied to other applicants; or

(h) any other gift, bequest, favor or loan, only if: the donor is not a party or other person who has come or is likely to come or whose interests have come or are likely to come before the judge; and, if its value exceeds $150, the judge reports it in the same manner as the judge reports compensation in Canon 4H.

Commentary:

Section 4D(5)(h) prohibits judges from accepting gifts, favors, bequests or loans from lawyers or their firms if they have come or are likely to come before the judge; it also prohibits gifts, favors, bequests or loans from clients of lawyers or their firms when the clients' interests have come or are likely to come before the judge.

E. Fiduciary Activities.

(1) A judge shall not serve as the executor, administrator or other personal representative, trustee, guardian, attorney in fact or other fiduciary, except for the estate, trust or person of a member of the judge's family, and then only if such service will not interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.

(2) A judge shall not serve as a fiduciary if it is likely that the judge as a fiduciary will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge, or if the estate, trust or ward becomes involved in adversary proceedings in the court on which the judge serves or one under its appellate jurisdiction.

(3) The same restrictions on financial activities that apply to a judge personally also apply to the judge while acting in a fiduciary capacity.

Commentary:

The Time for Compliance provision of this Code (Application, Section E) postpones the time for compliance with certain provisions of this Section in some cases.

The restrictions imposed by this Canon may conflict with the judge's obligation as a fiduciary. For example, a judge should resign as trustee if detriment to the trust would result from divestiture of holdings the retention of which would place the judge in violation of Section 4D(4).

F. Service as Arbitrator or Mediator. A judge shall not act as an arbitrator or mediator or otherwise perform judicial functions in a private capacity unless expressly authorized by law.

Commentary:

Section 4F does not prohibit a judge from participating in arbitration, mediation or settlement conferences performed as part of judicial duties.

G. Practice of Law. A judge shall not practice law. Notwithstanding this prohibition, a judge may act pro se and may, without compensation, give legal advice to and draft or review documents for a member of the judge's family.

Commentary:

This prohibition refers to the practice of law in a representative capacity and not in a pro se capacity. A judge may act for himself or herself in all legal matters, including matters involving litigation and matters involving appearances before or other dealings with legislative and other governmental bodies. However, in so doing, a judge must not abuse the prestige of office to advance the interests of the judge or the judge's family. See Section 2(B).

The Code allows a judge to give legal advice to and draft legal documents for members of the judge's family, so long as the judge receives no compensation. A judge must not, however, act as an advocate or negotiator for a member of the judge's family in a legal matter.

H. Compensation, Reimbursement and Reporting

(1) Compensation and Reimbursement. A judge may receive compensation and reimbursement of expenses for the extra-judicial activities permitted by this Code, if the source of such payments does not give the appearance of influencing the judge's performance of judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety.

(a) Compensation shall not exceed a reasonable amount nor should it exceed what a person who is not a judge would receive for the same activity.

(b) Expense reimbursement shall be limited to the actual cost of travel, food and lodging reasonably incurred by the judge and, where appropriate to the occasion, by the judge's spouse or guest. Any payment in excess of such an amount is compensation.

(2) Public Reports. A judge shall report on or before April 15 of each year, with respect to the preceding calendar year, whether or not the judge has received any compensation other than judicial salary, and, if so, the nature of the activity for which the compensation was received, the name of the payor and the amount of the compensation so received. The report shall be filed as a public document in the office of the clerk of the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

Commentary:

See Section 4D(5) regarding reporting of gifts, bequests and loans.

The Code does not prohibit a judge from accepting honoraria or speaking fees provided that the compensation is reasonable and commensurate with the task performed. A judge should ensure, however, that no conflicts are created by the arrangement. A judge must not appear to trade on the judicial position for personal advantage. Nor should a judge spend significant time away from court duties to meet speaking or writing commitments for compensation. In addition, the source of the payment must not raise any question of undue influence or the judge's ability or willingness to be impartial.

Financial disclosure forms, as public documents, should be filed and publicly available in a central location.

I. Disclosure of a judge's income, debts, investments or other assets is required only to the extent provided in this Canon and in Sections 3E and 3F, or as otherwise required by law.

Commentary:

Section 3E requires a judge to disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge has an economic interest. See "economic interest" as explained in the Terminology Section. Section 4D requires a judge to refrain from engaging in business and from financial activities that might interfere with the impartial performance of judicial duties; Section 4H requires a judge to report all compensation the judge received for activities outside judicial office. A judge has the rights of any other citizen, including the right to privacy of the judge's financial affairs, except to the extent that limitations established by law are required to safeguard the proper performance of the judge's duties.

CANON 5

A JUDGE SHALL REFRAIN FROM POLITICAL ACTIVITY

INAPPROPRIATE TO THE JUDGE'S JUDICIAL OFFICE

A. Political Conduct in General.

(1) A judge shall not:

(a) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization;

(b) make speeches for a political organization or candidate or publicly endorse a candidate for public office;

(c) solicit funds for or pay an assessment or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, attend political gatherings, or purchase tickets for political party dinners, or other functions.

(2) A judge shall resign from judicial office upon becoming a candidate either in a party primary or in a general election, except that the judge may continue to hold judicial office while being a candidate for election to or serving as a delegate in a state constitutional convention or a moderator of any governmental unit, if the judge is otherwise permitted by law to do so.

(3) A judge shall not engage in any other political activity except on behalf of measures to improve the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.

APPLICATION OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

A. Anyone, whether or not a lawyer, who is an officer of a judicial system and who performs judicial functions, including an officer such as a magistrate, court commissioner, special master or referee, is a judge within the meaning of this Code. All judges shall comply with this Code except as provided below.

B. All retired judges eligible for recall to judicial service shall comply with the provisions of this Code governing part-time judges.

C. Part-time Judge. A part-time judge:

(1) is not required to comply

(a) except while serving as a judge, with Section 3B(9);

(b) at any time, with Sections 4B, 4C(2), 4C(3)(a), 4D(1)(b), 4D(3), 4D(4), 4D(5), 4E, 4F, 4G, and 4H;

(c) at any time, with Section 4C(1) but only to the extent that it prohibits appearances before administrative bodies in adjudicatory proceedings; otherwise, a part-time judge shall comply with Section 4C(1).

(2) shall not practice law in the court on which the judge serves or in any court subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the court on which the judge serves, and shall not act as a lawyer in a proceeding in which the judge has served as a judge or in any other proceeding related thereto.

(3) may serve as counsel to the town wherein the judge's court is located or a town within the judicial district of the judge's court, provided that:

(a) the judge may give no advice to the police of such town and may give no advice to any other officer or employee of the town that could reasonably be expected to influence the exercise of discretion by the police in the performance of their duties;

(b) the judge may give no advice to any officer or employee of the town on a matter that could reasonably be expected to be the subject of any action or suit before the judge's court; and

(c) the judge shall recuse himself from sitting as judge on any case in which the judge's advice to the town is directly called into question or in which a ruling could directly affect the interests of the town.

Commentary:

When a person who has been a part-time judge is no longer a part-time judge (no longer accepts appointments), that person may act as a lawyer in a proceeding in which he or she has served as a judge or in any other proceeding related thereto only with the express consent of all parties pursuant to Rule 1.12(a) of the N.H. Rules of Professional Conduct.

D. Judge Pro Tempore. A judge pro tempore:

(1) is not required to comply

(a) except while serving as a judge, with Sections 2A, 2B, 3B(9) and 4C(1);

(b) at any time, with Sections 2C, 4B, 4C(2), 4C(3)(a), 4C(3)(b), 4D(1)(b), 4D(3), 4D(4), 4D(5), 4E, 4F, 4G, 4H, and 5A.

(2) A person who has been a judge pro tempore shall not act as a lawyer in a proceeding in which the judge has served as a judge or in any other proceeding related thereto except as otherwise permitted by Rule 1.12(a) of the N.H. Rules of Professional Conduct.

E. Clerks, Deputy Clerks, Registers of Probate, Any Persons Performing the Duties of a Clerk or Register, and Court Stenographers and Reporters. Clerks, deputy clerks, registers of probate, any persons performing the duties of a clerk or register, and court stenographers and reporters shall comply with Sections 1; 2; 3A; 3B(2), (3), (4), (5), (8), (9), and (11); 3C(1), (2), and (4); and 3D.

F. Time for Compliance. A person to whom this Code becomes applicable shall comply immediately with all provisions of this Code except Sections 4D(2), 4D(3) and 4E and shall comply with these Sections as soon as reasonably possible and shall do so in any event within the period of one year.

Commentary:

If serving as a fiduciary when selected as judge, a new judge may, notwithstanding the prohibitions in Section 4E, continue to serve as fiduciary but only for that period of time necessary to avoid serious adverse consequences to the beneficiary of the fiduciary relationship and in no event longer than one year.

Similarly, if engaged at the time of judicial selection in a business activity, a new judge may, notwithstanding the prohibitions in Section 4D(3), continue in that activity for a reasonable period but in no event longer than one year.

 

Members of Task Force

 

Wilfred L. Sanders, Jr., Esquire
Sanders & McDermott

Jonathan DeFelice, O.S.B.
Saint Anselm College

Maurice Arel
President
Pennichuck Water Works

Representative Sheila Francoeur

Nina C. Gardner

Evelyn Handler

Hon. Douglas S. Hatfield, Jr.
Hatfield, Moran & Barry

Senator Beverly A. Hollingworth

Donnalee Lozeau, Deputy Speaker
House of Representatives

Joseph M. McDonough, III, Esquire

Kim A. Meader, Chairman, President & CEO
Citizens Bank of New Hampshire

Hon. Walter L. Murphy

Hon. Joseph P. Nadeau

John R. Newsom

Hon. Walter Peterson

Brigette Siff Holmes
Director of Community Lawyering
Franklin Pierce Law Center

Gregory D. Robbins, President
New Hampshire Bar Association

Arpiar G. Saunders, Jr., Esquire
Shaheen & Gordon

Rev. Robert H. Thompson
Phelps Minister for Phillips Church

Frederic K. Upton, Esquire
Upton, Sanders & Smith