The New Hampshire Supreme Court has approved a revision of the Code of Judicial Conduct that sets out detailed ethical standards and provides specific guidance to judges for maintaining those standards in their personal and professional lives.

The code, with commentary underlined, is published in a pullout supplement to this issue of Bar News and is also available on the court’s Web site at http://www.state.nh.us/courts/supreme/orders.htm.

The updated code, which takes effect October 1, is largely based on the American Bar Association’s 1990 "Model Code of Judicial Conduct" that is the standard used by many court systems around the country. In developing the revised code, the justices also considered New Hampshire’s existing code of judicial conduct and recommendations made in January by the Supreme Court’s Task Force for the Renewal of Judicial Conduct Procedures.

Gregory D. Robbins, immediate past president of the NH Bar and a member of the court-appointed task force that worked on the JCC recommendations, said the new canons benefitted from a broad group of citizens and legal professionals discussing them in their development. "The task force was made up of a wide cross-section of public members, legislators, judges, academics and lawyers," said Robbins. "While discussing issues fully, the group was able to find common ground on its recommendations because all members recognized that the guiding principles had to balance fairness with the need to ensure public confidence in both the process and the conduct rules themselves."

Supreme Court Chief Justice David A. Brock said the court’s adoption of the revised code is in keeping with its longstanding responsibility to oversee the conduct of judges. He said the updated rules recognize that the role of judges has changed since the Supreme Court first adopted the code in 1973.

"Judges are expected to be more active in court administration, in the Legislature and in public education about the judicial system," Brock said. "The revised code gives judges clear guidelines to follow as they meet their responsibilities in the courtroom and in their communities and it provides reasonable standards for evaluating their conduct when complaints are filed," he added, speaking for the full court.

Efforts to revise the code began in 1993 with the court’s rules committee and included gathering comment from the public on proposed changes. The newly adopted code includes five "canons," which set out broad standards for judicial conduct, followed by specific rules. The court has also adopted relevant portions of the ABA commentary on the canons and rules, which uses detailed examples to explain their purpose and meaning.

The task force recommended a structure for an independent Judicial Conduct Commission and the creation of a Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee. Members are now be ing appointed to a Judicial Conduct Commission that incorporates some of the task force’s suggestions. The court has also authorized the creation of a disciplinary commission through a court rule and has indicated that it plans to form an ethics advisory group.

The new canons address the continuing tensions implicit in the judge’s evolving role in his or her community. A commentary accompanying the code notes that judges must expect to be "the subject of constant public scrutiny" and must be willing to accept restrictions on their behavior that ordinary citizens might find "burdensome."’ At the same time, the revised code and commentary note that judges should not be "isolated" from their community and should be encouraged to participate in efforts to promote the fair administration of justice.

The revised code:

• Requires a judge to disqualify himself or herself from a case if the judge’s impartiality might be questioned by a reasonable, disinterested person fully informed of the facts.
• Allows a judge to remain on a case if the judge’s economic interest in the case is "insignificant" and would not cause a reasonable, disinterested person, fully informed of the facts, to question the judge’s impartiality.
• Specifies that judges cannot join clubs that discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin.
• Specifies that judges shall not manifest any bias or prejudice based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status. A judge must require lawyers, staff and court officials and others under their control to refrain from demonstrating any such bias.
• Retains a requirement recently added to the existing code, which says that a full-time judge who teaches must get written approval in advance from the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Calendar year earnings are limited to 15 percent of the judge’s salary unless the Supreme Court unanimously approves an exception.
• Requires appropriate action if a judge has knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood that another judge or a lawyer has violated the applicable rules of conduct. The ABA commentary states that appropriate action may include direct communication, other direct action if available, or reporting the violation to the appropriate authority.
• Conduct codes for judges and lawyers require reporting to the Judicial Conduct Committee if a judge or lawyer has knowledge that a judge has violated the judicial conduct code in such a way that it raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office.
• Prohibits judges from commenting on a pending matter if comments might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of a case. This provision does not prohibit a judge from making comments that are of an educational or instructional nature.

Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store
Lawyer Referral Service | Law-Related Education | NHBA•CLE | NHBA Insurance Agency | NHMCLE
Search | Calendar

New Hampshire Bar Association
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord NH 03301
phone: (603) 224-6942 fax: (603) 224-2910
email: NHBAinfo@nhbar.org
© NH Bar Association Disclaimer