Supreme Judicial Court Rules
Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon 1

Supreme Judicial Court Rules  Rule 1.3 Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office

Effective Date: 01/01/2016
Updates: Adopted October 8, 2015, effective January 1, 2016

Canon 1: A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

Rule 1.3

A judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so.

Comment

[1]

It is improper for a judge to use or attempt to use the judge's position to gain personal advantage or preferential treatment of any kind. For example, a judge must not refer to the judge's judicial status to gain favorable treatment in encounters with traffic officials. Similarly, a judge must not use judicial letterhead to gain an advantage in conducting personal business.

[2]

A judge may provide an educational or employment reference or recommendation for an individual based on the judge's personal knowledge. The judge may use official letterhead and sign the recommendation using the judicial title if the judge's knowledge of the applicant's qualifications arises from observations made in the judge's judicial capacity. The recommendation may not be accompanied by conduct that reasonably would be perceived as an attempt to exert pressure on the recipient to hire or admit the applicant. Where a judge's knowledge of the applicant's qualifications does not arise from observations made in the judge's judicial capacity, the judge may not use official letterhead, court email, or the judicial title, but the judge may send a private letter stating the judge's personal recommendation. The judge may refer to the judge's current position and title in the body of the private letter only if it is relevant to some substantive aspect of the recommendation.

Court hiring policies may impose additional restrictions on recommendations for employment in the judicial branch, and the law may impose additional restrictions on recommendations for employment in state government. See, e.g., G. L. c. 66, § 3AG. L. c. 276, § 83G. L. c. 211B, § 10(D). See also Trial Court Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual, § 4.000, et seq. See Rule 3.3 for instances when a judge is asked to provide a character reference on behalf of a bar applicant or provide information for a background investigation in connection with an application for public employment or for security clearance.

[3]

Judges may participate in the process of judicial selection by cooperating with screening, nominating, appointing, and confirming authorities. Judges may make recommendations to and respond to inquiries from such entities concerning the professional qualifications of a person being considered for judicial office. Judges also may testify at confirmation hearings.

[4]

Special considerations arise when judges write or contribute to publications of for-profit entities, whether related or unrelated to the law. A judge should not permit anyone associated with the publication of such materials to exploit the judge's office in a manner that violates this Rule or other applicable law.  In contracts for publication of a judge's writing, the judge should retain sufficient control over the advertising to avoid such exploitation.

Downloads

Contact

Updates: Adopted October 8, 2015, effective January 1, 2016

Help Us Improve Mass.gov  with your feedback

Please do not include personal or contact information.
Feedback