Model Code of Conduct for Court Professionals with Commentary

Table of Contents

Terminology

The Model Code
For brevity, the “Model Code of Conduct for Court Professionals” is referred to either as “this Code” or the “Model Code.”

Canons
Different ethics codes contain varying descriptions of their subsections including terms such as, “tenets, articles, principles, or sections.” For brevity and continuity this commentary refers to all such subsections as “canons.”

Court
For brevity in the commentary, the term “court” is used to refer to trial courts, appellate courts, state or local court systems as appropriate.

Appropriate Authority
The Model Code intentionally leaves the definition of “appropriate authority” up to each local court or state court system, but the committee urges courts to define the term as a component to accepting this or any ethics code. Courts and court systems are complicated organizations with varying lines of authority. It is imperative that each court determine the organizational reporting structure and reporting circumstances necessary to achieve the Code’s underlying intent, that of full disclosure and appropriate notification.

Family
The Model Code intentionally leaves the definition of “family,” and “family member” up to each local court or state court system. Likewise the Code does not use the term “immediate family” for fear that it will further complicate the term “family.” As community sensibilities may differ, the committee urges courts to define the term as a component to accepting this or any ethics code.

Top of page

Preliminary Comments

An Aspirational Code
This Code is intended to be aspirational and prescriptive. It promotes positive behaviors essential to respecting the values inherent to an independent judiciary and values innate to court staff who consider themselves professionals. These are behaviors court professionals should aspire to emulate and to which they must be committed.

Ethics codes are used in a variety of ways in the schema of court organizations. Often they are incorporated into personnel rules or policies. Tactically the committee recommends courts not incorporate the Model Code into personnel rules; rather it should live outside the rules even if the substance of the Model Code is replicated as part of the rules. There are three reasons for this:

• Personnel rules span a variety of topics from profound principles to routine regulations. It would be inappropriate to persuade staff to uphold the independence of the judiciary immediately after letting them know what the normal per diem rate is on travel days.
• Personnel rules must state types of sanctions for various categories of violations. Discussing sanctions logically turns the motivation to adhere to the Code from a commitment to values to a strategy for avoiding punishment.
• Personnel rules must cover due process, opportunities to respond, and levels of proof necessary before sanctions can be imposed. What a travesty to have an ethical canon violated, yet because of a due process failure, the offending party can claim not to have violated the Code? Even more abhorrent would be if acknowledgement of a canon violation became a “negotiating chip” in a proposed settlement.

Ethics Review Boards
Many courts have instituted boards that review ethical questions and issue opinions on their code. An ethics review board can be powerful tool to raise awareness of the need to adhere to ethical principles. Review boards can be particularly valuable in handing down advisory opinions on ethical situations and recommending needed revisions to the code. The committee recommends that courts avoid charging a review board with acting as an appeals Page 3 Model Code of Conduct for Court Professional with Commentary body for ethics complaints as such a role transforms a board from an advisory group to a personnel rules component.

Top of page