Canon 3. Judges should perform the duties of their office impartially
and diligently
The judicial duties of judges take precedence over all their other activities.
Their judicial duties include all the duties of their office prescribed by law.
In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply:
A. Adjudicative responsibilities.
(1) Judges should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence
in it. They should be unswayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of
criticism.
(2) Judges should maintain order and decorum in proceedings before them.
(3) Judges should be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors,
witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom they deal in their official capacity,
and should require similar conduct of lawyers, and of their staff, court
officials, and others subject to their direction and control.
Note: 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.
Courts can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate.
(4) Judges should accord to all persons who are legally interested in a
proceeding, or their lawyers, full right to be heard according to law, and,
except as authorized by law, must not consider ex parte communications
concerning a pending proceeding.
(5) Judges should dispose promptly of the business of the court.
Note: Prompt disposition of the court's business requires judges to devote
adequate time to their 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 them to that end.
(6) Judges should abstain from public comment about a pending proceeding in any
court, and should require similar abstention on the part of court personnel
subject to their direction and control. This subsection 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.
Note: "Court personnel" does not include the lawyers in a
proceeding before a judge. The conduct of lawyers is governed by DR7-107 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
(7) Unless otherwise provided by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, judges should prohibit broadcasting, televising, recording or taking photographs in the courtroom and areas immediately adjacent thereto during
sessions of court or recesses between sessions, except that a judge may authorize:
(a) the use of electronic or photographic means for the presentation of evidence, for the perpetuation of a record or for other purposes of judicial
administration;
(b) the broadcasting, televising, recording, or photographing of investitive, ceremonial, or naturalization proceedings;
(c) the photographic or electronic recording and reproduction of appropriate court proceedings under the following conditions:
(i) the means of recording will not distract participants or impair the dignity of the proceedings; and
(ii) the parties have consented; and the consent to being depicted or recorded has been obtained from each witness appearing in the recording and
reproductions; and
(iii) the reproduction will not be exhibited until after the proceeding has been concluded and all direct appeals have been exhausted; and
(iv) the reproduction will be exhibited only for instructional purposes in educational institutions.
(d) the use of electronic broadcasting, televising, recording and taking
photographs in the courtroom and areas immediately adjacent thereto during
sessions of court or recesses between sessions of any trial court nonjury civil
proceeding, however, for the purposes of this subsection 'civil proceedings'
shall not be construed to mean a support, custody or divorce proceeding.
Subsection (iii) and (iv) shall not apply to nonjury civil proceedings as
heretofore defined. No witness or party who expresses any prior objection to
the judge shall be photographed nor shall the testimony of such witness or
party be broadcast or telecast. Permission for the broadcasting, televising,
recording and photographing of any civil nonjury proceeding shall have first
been expressly granted by the judge, and under such conditions as the judge may
prescribe in accordance with the guidelines contained in this Order.
Note: Temperate conduct of judicial proceedings is essential to the fair
administration of justice. The recording and reproduction of a proceeding
should not distort or dramatize the proceeding. See the Internal Operating Procedures of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania regarding broadcasting of proceedings by the Pennsylvania Cable Network
B. Administrative responsibilities.
(1) Judges should diligently discharge their administrative responsibilities,
maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and facilitate the
performance of the administrative responsibilities of other judges and court
officials.
(2) Judges should require their staff and court officials subject to their
direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that
apply to judges.
(3) Judges should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against a
judge or lawyer for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may become aware.
Note: Disciplinary measures may include reporting a judge's or lawyer's
misconduct to an appropriate disciplinary body.
(4) Judges should not make unnecessary appointments. They should exercise their
power of appointment only on the basis of merit, avoiding favoritism. They
should not approve compensation of appointees beyond the fair value of services
rendered.
Note: Appointees of the judge include officials such as referees,
commissioners, special masters, receivers, 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 this subsection.
C. Disqualification.
(1) Judges should disqualify themselves in a proceeding in which their
impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to
instances where:
(a) they have a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge
of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(b) they served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom
they previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer
concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness
concerning it;
Note: A lawyer in a governmental agency does not necessarily have an
association with other lawyers employed by that agency within the meaning of
this subsection; judges formerly employed by a governmental agency, however,
should disqualify themselves in a proceeding if their impartiality might
reasonably be questioned because of such association.
(c) they know that they, individually or as a fiduciary, or their spouse or
minor child residing in their household, have a substantial financial interest
in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any
other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the
proceeding;
(d) they or their 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;
Note: The fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law
firm with which a lawyer-relative of the judge is affiliated does not of itself
disqualify the judge. Under appropriate circumstances, the fact that
"their impartiality might reasonably be questioned" under Canon 3C(1),
or that the lawyer-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 Canon 3C(1)(d)(iii) may require the judge's
disqualification.
(iii) is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding;
(2) Judges should inform themselves about their personal and fiduciary
financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform themselves about
the personal financial interests of their spouse and minor children residing in
their household.
(3) For the purposes of this section:
(a) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
Note: According to the civil law system, the third degree of
relationship test would, for example, disqualify judges if their or their
spouse's parents, grandparents, aunts or uncles, siblings, nieces or nephews or
their spouses were a party or lawyer in the proceeding, but would not
disqualify them if a cousin were a party or lawyer in the proceeding.
(b) "fiduciary" includes such relationships as executor,
administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(c) "financial interest" means ownership of a legal or equitable
interest, if substantial, or a relationship as director, advisor, or other
active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i) ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a "financial interest" in such securities unless the judge
participates in the management of the fund;
(ii) an office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a "financial interest" in securities held by the
organization;
(iii) the proprietary interest of a policy holder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a substantial "financial interest" in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv) ownership of securities is a "financial interest" in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of
securities.
CREDIT(S)
Adopted Nov. 21, 1973, effective Jan. 1, 1974. Amended Sept. 20, 1979,
effective Oct. 1, 1979; Oct. 1, 1980, imd. effective; Nov. 21, 2005, imd.
effective; August 15, 2011, effective August 27, 2011.
Canon 4. Judges may engage in activities to improve the law, the legal
system, and the administration of justice
Judges, subject to the proper performance of their judicial duties, may engage
in the following quasi-judicial activities, if in doing so they do not cast
doubt on their capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before
them:
A. They may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in other activities
concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.
B. They 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 they may otherwise consult with an executive or
legislative body or official, but only on matters concerning the administration
of justice.
C. They may serve as a member, officer, or director of an organization or governmental
agency devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the
administration of justice. They may assist such an organization in raising
funds and may participate in their management and investment, but should not
personally participate in public fund raising activities. They may make
recommendations to public and private fund-granting agencies on projects and
programs concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of
justice.
Note: As a judicial officer and person specially learned in the law,
judges are in a unique position to contribute to the improvement of the law,
the legal system, and the administration of justice. To the extent that their
time permits, they are encouraged to do so, either independently or through a bar
association, judicial conference, or other organization dedicated to the
improvement of the law.
Extra-judicial activities are governed by Canon 5.
CREDIT(S)
Adopted Nov. 21, 1973, effective Jan. 1, 1974. Amended Nov. 21, 2005, imd.
effective.
Canon 5. Judges should regulate their extra-judicial activities to
minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties
A. Avocational activities. Judges may write, lecture, teach, and speak
on non- legal subjects, and engage in the arts, sports, and other social and
recreational activities, if such avocational activities do not detract from the
dignity of their office or interfere with the performance of their judicial
duties.
Note: Complete separation of judges from extra-judicial activities is
neither possible nor wise; they should not become isolated from the society in
which they live.
B. Civic and Charitable Activities. Judges may participate in civic and
charitable activities that do not reflect adversely upon their impartiality or
interfere with the performance of their judicial duties. Judges may serve as an
officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of an educational, religious,
charitable, fraternal, or civic organization not conducted for the economic or
political advantage of its members, subject to the following limitations:
(1) Judges should not serve if it is likely that the organization will be
engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before them or will be
regularly engaged in adversary proceedings in any court.
Note: The changing nature of some organizations and of their
relationship to the law makes it necessary for judges regularly to reexamine
the activities of each organization with which they are affiliated to determine
if it is proper for them to continue their relationship with it. 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.
(2) Judges should not solicit funds for any educational, religious, charitable,
fraternal, or civic organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of
their office for that purpose, but they may be listed as an officer, director,
or trustee of such an organization. They should not be a speaker or the guest
of honor at an organization's fund raising events, but they may attend such
events.
(3) Judges should not give investment advice to such an organization, but they
may serve on its board of directors or trustees even though it has the
responsibility for approving investment decisions.
Note: A judge's participation in an organization devoted to
quasi-judicial activities is governed by Canon 4.
C. Financial activities.
(1) Judges should refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to
reflect adversely on their impartiality, interfere with the proper performance
of their judicial duties, exploit their judicial position, or involve them in
frequent transactions with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court
on which they serve.
(2) Subject to the requirement of subsection (1), judges may hold and manage
investments, including real estate, and engage in other remunerative activity
including the operation of a family business.
Note: The Effective Date of Compliance provision of this Code qualifies
this subsection with regard to a judge engaged in a family business at the time
this Code becomes effective.
(3) Judges should manage their investments and other financial interests to
minimize the number of cases in which they are disqualified. As soon as they
can do so without serious financial detriment, they should divest themselves of
investments and other financial interests that might require frequent
disqualification.
(4) Information acquired by judges in their judicial capacity should not be
used or disclosed by them in financial dealings or for any other purpose not
related to their judicial duties.
D. Fiduciary Activities. Judges should not serve as the executor,
administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary, except for the estate,
trust, or person of a member of their family, and then only if such service
will not interfere with the proper performance of their judicial duties.
"Member of their family" includes a spouse, child, grandchild,
parent, grandparent, or other relative or person with whom the judge maintains
a close familial relationship. As a family fiduciary judges are subject to the
following restrictions:
(1) They should not serve if it is likely that as a fiduciary they will be
engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before them, or if the
estate, trust, or ward becomes involved in adversary proceedings in the court
on which they serve or one under its appellate jurisdiction.
Note: The Effective Date of Compliance provision of this Code qualifies
this subsection with regard to a judge who is an executor, administrator,
trustee, or other fiduciary at the time this Code becomes effective.
(2) While acting as a fiduciary judges are subject to the same restrictions on
financial activities that apply to them in their personal capacity.
Note: Judges' obligations under this Canon and their obligations as a
fiduciary may come into conflict. For example, a judge should resign as trustee
if it would result in detriment to the trust to divest it of holdings whose
retention would place the judge in violation of Canon 5C(3).
E. Arbitration. Judges should not act as an arbitrator or mediator.
F. Practice of law. Judges should not practice law.
G. Extra-judicial appointments. Judges should not accept appointment to
a governmental committee, commission, or other 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. Judges, however, may represent
their country, state, or locality on ceremonial occasions or in connection with
historical, educational, and cultural activities.
Note: Valuable services have been rendered in the past to the states and
the nation by judges appointed by the executive to undertake important
extra-judicial assignments. The appropriateness of conferring these assignments
on judges must be reassessed, however, in light of the demands on judges
created by today's crowded dockets and the need to protect the courts from
involvement in extra-judicial matters that may prove to be controversial.
Judges should not be expected or permitted to accept governmental appointments
that could interfere with the effectiveness and independence of the judiciary.
CREDIT(S)
Adopted Nov. 21, 1973, effective Jan. 1, 1974. Amended Nov. 21, 2005, imd.
effective.
Canon 6. Compensation received for quasi-judicial and extra-judicial
activities permitted by this code
Judges may receive compensation and reimbursement of expenses for the
quasi-judicial and extra-judicial activities permitted by this Code, if the
source of such payments does not give the appearance of influencing judges in
their judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety, subject
to the following restrictions:
A. Compensation. Compensation should 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. Expense reimbursement should be limited to the
actual cost of travel, food, and lodging reasonably incurred by judges and,
where appropriate to the occasion, by their spouses.
CREDIT(S)
Adopted Nov. 21, 1973, effective Jan. 1, 1974. Amended Nov. 21, 2005, imd.
effective.
Canon 7. Judges should refrain from political activity inappropriate
to their judicial office
A. Political conduct in general.
(1) A judge or a candidate for election to judicial office should 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; except as authorized in subsection A(2);
Note: Candidates do not publicly endorse another candidate for public
office by having their name on the same ticket.
(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, except as authorized
in subsection A(2);
(2) Judges holding an office filled by public election between competing
candidates, or a candidate for such office, may, only insofar as permitted by
law, attend political gatherings, speak to such gatherings on their own behalf
when they are a candidate for election or reelection, or speak on behalf of any
judicial candidate for the same office, identify themselves as a member of a
political party, and contribute to a political party or organization.
(3) Judges should resign their office when they become a candidate either in a
party primary or in a general election for a non-judicial office, except that
they may continue to hold their judicial office while being a candidate for
election to or serving as a delegate in a state constitutional convention, if
they are otherwise permitted by law to do so.
(4) Judges should not engage in any other political activity except on behalf
of measures to improve the law, the legal system, or the administration of
justice.
B. Campaign conduct.
(1) Candidates, including an incumbent judge, for a judicial office that is
filled either by public election between competing candidates or on the basis
of a merit system election:
(a) should maintain the dignity appropriate to judicial office, and should
encourage members of their family to adhere to the same standards of political
conduct that apply to them;
(b) should prohibit public officials or employees subject to their direction or
control from doing for them what judges are prohibited from doing under this
Canon; and except to the extent authorized under subsection B(2) or B(3), they
should not allow any other person to do for them what judges are prohibited
from doing under this Canon;
(c) should not make pledges or promises of conduct in office other than the
faithful and impartial performance of the duties of the office; make statements
that commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court; or misrepresent their identity, qualifications, present position, or other fact.
(2) Candidates, including an incumbent judge, for a judicial office that is
filled by public election between competing candidates should not themselves
solicit or accept campaign funds, or solicit publicly stated support, but they
may establish committees of responsible persons to secure and manage the
expenditure of funds for their campaign and to obtain public statements of
support for their candidacy. Such committees are not prohibited from soliciting
campaign contributions and public support from lawyers. Candidates' committees
may solicit funds for their campaign no earlier than thirty days prior to the
first day for filing nominating petitions or the last day for filing a
declaration of intention to seek reelection on a retention basis, and all
fundraising activities in connection with such judicial campaign shall
terminate no later than the last calendar day of the year in which the judicial
election is held. Candidates should not use or permit the use of campaign
contributions for the private benefit of themselves or members of their family.
(3) Incumbent judges who are candidates for retention in or reelection to
office without a competing candidate may campaign and may obtain publicly
stated support and campaign funds in the manner provided in subsection B(2).
CREDIT(S)
Adopted Nov. 21, 1973, effective Jan. 1, 1974. Amended Nov. 9, 1998, effective
Jan. 1, 1999; Nov. 21, 2002, imd. effective; Nov. 21, 2005, imd. effective. Canon 7B(1)(c) amended March 17, 2008 effective March 17, 2008.
Compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct
Anyone, whether or not a lawyer, who is an officer of a judicial system
performing judicial functions, including an officer such as a referee in
bankruptcy, special master, court commissioner, or magistrate, is a judge for
the purpose of this Code. All judges should comply with this Code except as
provided below.
Senior Judge. Senior judges who receive the same compensation as
full-time judges on the court from which they retired and are eligible for
recall to judicial service should comply with all the provisions of this Code
except Canon 5G, but they should refrain from judicial service during the
period of an extra-judicial appointment not sanctioned by Canon 5G. All other
senior judges eligible for recall to judicial service should comply with the
provisions of this Code.
This Code shall not apply to magisterial district judges and judges of the
Traffic Court of the City of Philadelphia.
Note: Specific rules governing standards of conduct of magisterial
district judges, and judges of the Traffic Court of the City of Philadelphia,
are set forth in the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial
District Judges.
CREDIT(S)
Adopted Nov. 21, 1973, effective Jan. 1, 1974. Amended Jan. 22, 1974, imd.
effective; Nov. 21, 2005, imd. effective.
Effective Date of Compliance
Persons to whom this Code becomes applicable should arrange their affairs as
soon as reasonably possible to comply with it. If, however, the demands on
their time and the possibility of conflicts of interest are not substantial,
persons who hold judicial office on the date this Code becomes effective may:
(a) continue to act as an officer, director, or nonlegal advisor of a family
business;
(b) continue to act as an executor, administrator, trustee, or other fiduciary
for the estate or person of one who is not a member of their family.
CREDIT(S)
Adopted Nov. 21, 1973, effective Jan. 1, 1974. Amended Nov. 21, 2005, imd.
effective.
Reliance On Advisory Opinions
The Ethics Committee of the Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges is
designated as the approved body to render advisory opinions regarding ethical
concerns involving judges, justices and other judicial officers subject to the
Code of Judicial Conduct, and, although such opinions are not per se binding
upon the Judicial Conduct Board, the Court of Judicial Discipline or the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, action taken in reliance thereupon and pursuant
thereto shall be taken into account in determining whether discipline should be
recommended or imposed.
Commentary: The United States Supreme Court in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 122 S.Ct. 2528 (2002), concluded that a canon of judicial conduct prohibiting
judicial candidates from "announcing their views on disputed legal or
political issues" is violative of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
CREDIT(S)
Adopted Sept. 9, 1991. Amended Nov. 21, 2005, imd. effective.