Title
Conflicts of Interest for Judges With Administrative Responsibilities
(amend Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, canon 3C(1))
Summary
This proposed amendment would require judges to discharge their
administrative responsibilities on the basis of merit, without bias and
prejudice, and in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
integrity of the judiciary.
Source
Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics
Staff
Mark Jacobson, 415-865-7898, mark.jacobson@jud.ca.gov
Discussion
As a consequence of state funding of the trial courts, judges have
undertaken administrative and business responsibilities and decisions
that previously were handled by the counties. For example, judges are
sometimes involved in selecting contractors for various purposes on
behalf of the court, such as working on new or renovated courthouses,
or in leasing or acquiring property. Judges also occasionally appear on
behalf of their courts before zoning commissions and boards of
supervisors.
The Political Reform Act (Gov. Code, § 81000 et seq.), which
prohibits public officials from participating in government decisions in
which they have a financial interest, does not apply to judges because
they are not considered “public officials” under the act. (Gov. Code,
§ 82048.) The disqualification provisions in canon 3 are also
inapplicable because they refer exclusively to the duty to disqualify
from a “proceeding,” not from business transactions or administrative
decisions. The only canons that appear to be applicable are canon 1,
which requires judges to uphold the integrity and independence of the
judiciary; canon 2, which states that judges must avoid impropriety
and the appearance of impropriety; and canon 2A, which provides that
judges must act at all times in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
The committee agreed that a canon focusing on administrative and
business conduct would be beneficial in that it would promot