The Code of Judicial Conduct
The United States justice system was founded on the principles of fair treatment and due process for all citizens, regardless of their personal beliefs or financial status. The equitable and judicious rendering of the law falls to the judges who preside over the many jurisdictions within the court system. Oversight of these powers that affect the life and liberty of the people is the purpose of what is known as the code of judicial conduct.
Other People Are Reading
-
Original Code of Conduct Model
-
The Canons of Judicial Ethics were the first formal set of rules to be adopted by a body of legal professionals to address the need for judicial oversight. These canons, written by United States Supreme Court Chief Justice William Taft in 1924 as chair of a committee formed by the American Bar Association (ABA), were revised by the ABA in 1972 and became what is the current Code of Judicial Conduct.
Current Canons of Judicial Ethics and Conduct
-
The state of New Jersey is typical of how the original rules governing judicial conduct have been revised and amended. The New Jersey Supreme Court adopted the ABA's Code of Judicial Conduct, with some amendments, to institute what are now seven canons of ethics. The newer code covers all aspects of how a sitting judge handles the serious responsibility of deciding the fate of those who appear before the bench. The issues addressed include upholding the integrity of the position, avoiding impropriety or perceived impropriety by personal actions or associations, impartiality and due diligence, and engaging in activities to improve the judicial system and its components.
-
Application of Codes of Conduct
-
How a state or other political subdivision applies the Code of Judicial Conduct defines the individuality that is part of the democratic foundation of all rules governing ethical behavior in the United States. The state of Tennessee outlines the application of their judicial conduct code by explaining that although the canons of the code are to be taken seriously, they may not always include disciplinary actions if violated. Impropriety is also open to interpretation, due to the need for judges to be independent yet allowing for the reality that judges have many personal associations. These may include belonging to organizations that may present the possibility of perceived influence or having relationships with others that may not necessarily lead to a conflict of interest, but that may be perceived as doing so.
Examples of Recusal and Disqualification
-
A judge is expected to use discretion and reason as to whether their personal interests are in conflict with cases they hear. Other than personal associations or memberships, this includes previous court proceedings involving those who are appearing in their court in the present. One example of this would be when judge is given a case and was either an attorney representing a party, was a material witness in that case, or was the presiding judge in the case when it was heard in a lower court. In these cases, a judge must either disqualify themselves or declare on record the factors that could be perceived as a basis for disqualification.
Judicial Oversight
-
Although all 50 states have adopted their own set of codes regarding judicial conduct, the oversight of judges within the various jurisdictions is generally handled in the same manner. The state of Florida relies on their Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee to oversee and administer issues of impropriety and misconduct that may arise. The state also has what is known as the Judicial Qualifications Commission that is the entity directly responsible for looking into any claims that are brought to the attention of the Florida judiciary.
-
References
- Photo Credit gavel image by Cora Reed from Fotolia.com
