|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||||
NCPE Town Hall Meeting Join us on June 28, 2008 for the Third NCPE Town Hall Meeting. NCPE in the News: 2008 "Given $50,000 He Decides to Run" (Las Vegas Sun) Acting President Julie Tousa on Jon Ralston's "Face to Face: Ethics Complaint" Meet the Acting President of NCPE, Julie Tousa "New Watchdog of Public Ethics Continues Enforcing Vital Unwritten Law" (Las Vegas Review Journal) "Partying Away As Taxpayers Pay and Pay" (Las Vegas Sun) Ethics Legislation 2007 NCPE at the 2007 Nevada State Legislature: Summary and Details "Article 6 Commission" to study and recommend improvements in the Nevada judiciary NCPE statement about the danger of big donors contributing to Supreme Court justice election campaigns. Judicial Ethics & the Complaint Processes Craig Walton's letter, to the Las Vegas Business Journal in favor of the new plan for judicial selection
Email NCPE Treasurer |
Dr. Craig Walton's Presentation to the May 24th meeting of the Article 6 Commission The ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, Feb. 2007 After nearly four years of work, the ABA’s Joint Commission to Evaluate the [1990] Model Code of Judicial Conduct submitted its work to the ABA House of Delegates on Feb. 12, 2007, where the draft was unanimously approved. It has also been approved by the Conference of Chief Justices, the ABA Standing Committee on Judicial Independence, and the American Judicature Society (among others). The new Model Code changes the earlier five Canons to four, and develops 39 binding rules. It also includes a glossary of terms, a Reporters’ Commentary to illustrate why and how each rule came to be framed as it was, and a table comparing each section of the 1990 Model Code to the 2007 edition. Over the four years, the Joint Commission held over 20 public hearings, kept open a website receiving proposals and argument, and held almost 40 conference calls, in order to proceed carefully and to consider a wide variety of approaches to the issues. For the first time, the moral principles of integrity, independence and impartiality are positioned as the “over-arching” principles of the entire Model Code, and are defined in the glossary and in accord with recent US Supreme Court rulings. Canon 1 articulates these three principles as interlocking, and also links them to the judge’s duty to avoid impropriety and to both act in such a way, and to reach out to the community in such a way as to promote the public’s belief in the integrity, independence and impartiality of the court. Though there were some objections raised to the vagueness or unenforceability of a rule forbidding the appearance of impropriety, overwhelmingly judges asked that this rule be embedded in Canon 1 for its aspirational meaning and the guidance which attendant commentary and discussion provide. Also, as a separate rule (Canon 1.2), this rule stands (as do all 39 rules) as an independent basis for discipline. In this same line of reasoning, Canon 1.3 now sets off abuse of one’s office as a new, stand-along basis for discipline. Some selected rules deserve special note: At Canon 2.2, impartiality is detailed in accord with the USSC ruling in Republican Party of Wisconsin v. White, as both the lack of bias toward a participant in the judicial process, and also as open-mindedness. At Canon 2.5, competence AND diligence in performance of one’s duties are required, and are explained as including the duty to cooperate with others within the system of judicial administration. Canon 2.7 details the circumstances under which a judge should disqualify him- or herself from a case, but qualifies disqualification by a stricture not to use it as a way to avoid unpopular or hard cases. Canon 2.8 spells out the duty of courtesy, to be extended by a judge to court staff. Canon 2.14 sets and explains the judge’s duty to report a colleague’s impairment to the appropriate authority. Canon 2.15 spells out the circumstances under which a judge is obligated to report misconduct by a fellow judge. Canon 3.15A details the rules for reporting gifts, compensation and reimbursements. Canon 4.1A spells out the rule for participation in an election campaign while forbidding any endorsement by, or speaking out on behalf of a political party. Broadly, the new Model Code adapts the 1990 version to current circumstances, improves wording where confusion or lack of clarity could be remedied, and most importantly places judicial ethics within the workplace and community moral culture, rather than allowing the appearance of being a stand-alone could for ‘just judges’ by themselves. These 39 rules link each action and consideration not only to the “over-arching” principles of integrity of the person’s own moral character, the independence of judgment, and the impartiality of open-mindedness and disciplined avoidance of bias, but sets these necessary qualities within the courtroom, the administrative system, all formal and informal contacts and relationships, and most importantly within the community’s moral culture. Without public belief in these principles as controlling in the thoughts and actions of judges, the judiciary loses respect for itself and for the laws it would uphold. The Model Code provides rules to guide public outreach efforts by judges, distinguishing between needed and valuable outreach to civic, non-profit and business groups in ways consistent with the principles of the Code, on the one hand, from kinds of involvement which would violate them and bring discredit on the judiciary. Duties to the law, to one’s self, to one’s colleagues, to one’s staff and other justice system professionals, to jurors, attorneys, litigants and the broader public are consciously kept in one large but organized whole approach, integrated around the core principles. The new Model Code will require study and discussion as we seek to adapt it for Nevada’s needs and implementation. Nationally and also locally, its Canons and their rules will raise the standards for individual judges, for their cooperation with each other, for their self-regulation through judicial discipline, and for their respectability in the eyes of Nevadans. Issues currently discussed in the 8th District (Clark County), relating to judicial ethics: EMAIL FROM MARK HARRISON, CHAIR, JOINT COMMISSION TO EVALUATE THE MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, RELEASING THE CODE AND REQUESTING THAT EACH STATE SUPREME COURT BEGIN THE PROCESS OF POSSIBLE REVISIONS IN STATE CODES: In February 2007, the American Bar Association House of Delegates approved significant substantive additions and revisions to the Model Code of Judicial Conduct. These revisions were the culmination of three and a half years of work by the Joint Commission to Evaluate the Model Code of Judicial Conduct. The Code is now in a Model Rules format and has been updated in light of societal changes and changes in the role of the judiciary since the Code was last updated in 1990. The revised Code and related judicial ethics resources are available on-line at http://www.abanet.org/cpr/judicial/home.html. We urge state supreme courts, judicial regulators and bar associations to review their codes of judicial conduct in light of the revisions to the ABA Model Code. We know that some of you have already begun this process. We will be mailing a printed copy of the new Code to you shortly but invite you to form review committees as soon as possible. The Center for Professional Responsibility Policy Implementation Committee is available to assist states with the review process. The Committee’s website, http://www.abanet.org/cpr/jclr/home.html, includes links to Reporters’ Explanations’ of Changes memoranda on the changes to the Code and other materials related to the Commission’s work. Members of the Committee, including several members of the Joint Commission, are available to meet in person with review committees. The Committee will also be creating an email listserve for those involved in the review process to share ideas, comments and progress. If you are interested in any materials on the revised Code or would like to join the listserve, please contact Sue Campbell at suecampbell@staff.abanet.org or 312-988-5328. Additionally, when your state forms a committee, we would appreciate it if you would provide Ms. Campbell with contact information for the Chair and staff person. The Policy Implementation Committee will be acting as a clearinghouse for information on review committee proposals, hearings and reports. Sincerely, Mark Harrison, Chair Joint Commission to Evaluate the Model Code of Judicial Conduct Stephen Gillers, Chair Center for Professional Responsibility Policy Implementation Committee
|
|
|
||||||||
