1. law, govt and politics

ARIZONA CODE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
Proposal Cover Sheet
Section 1-303: Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees
Effect of the Proposal:
The current version of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees was last adopted by
administrative order on June 9, 1997. This code of conduct sets forth ethical rules to govern
the conduct of all persons serving the judicial department other than judges. The pending
proposal would incorporate the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees into the Arizona
Code of Judicial Administration as new section 1-303. In order to assure that where the
same standards of conduct apply to judges and judicial employees substantially the same
language is used to define and describe those standards, the proposed code of conduct (1)
matches the current provisions of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees to the new
Code of Judicial Conduct so canon and rule numbers correspond as much as possible (See
the attached Table of Contents with Cross References), (2) blends the comparable language
of the current employee code (text in standard font) with the language of the new judicial
code (text italicized), (3) adds language from the new judicial code that reasonably should
apply to employees as well as judges (underlining in italicized text). The pending proposal
also includes amendments to the current employee code originally proposed in 2008 and
other changes made in response to comments during the circulation of this proposal
(strikethrough and underlining).
Significant New or Changed Provisions:
The proposal contains new provisions imported from the Code of Judicial Conduct
concerning job performance and disability and impairment and major amendments
concerning two subjects, court staff assistance to court users and employees seeking judicial
department elective office and other elective office. During the review process the need was
recognized for additional clarifying amendments concerning the definition of “court
manager”, the definition of “courtroom clerk”, the provision concerning contracting with
former employees, the application of the code to part time employees, volunteers and
employee volunteer activities, and the distinction between a personal interest and a financial
conflict of interest.
Committee Actions and Comments:
This proposed ACJA section was presented to the presiding judges and court administrators
in the summer and the Clerks, probation chiefs and directors, and juvenile presiding judges
in the Fall. Versions of the proposal were considered and approved by the Committee on
Limited Jurisdiction Courts on September 16 and October 28. The Committee on Superior
Court considered and tabled the proposal on September 25 and adopted the proposal on
November 6, with the exception of Rule 2.6, Assistance to Litigants for reasons stated in
comments received from judges of the superior court in Pima County. The proposal has
been circulated for comment several times and was available for comment on the ACJA Web
Forum during the month of November. Comments submitted have been incorporated into
1
the attached version of the proposal. Comments suggesting substantive changes and the
response to those comments are contained in the attached Comments and Response chart.
Controversial Issues:
In the course of the review and comment regarding this revised Code of Conduct for
Judicial Employees, four major issues emerged which require resolution by AJC.
Alternative language regarding these issues is provided below for adoption.
1.
Rule 2.6 Assistance to Litigants
Whether a judicial employee should be required (“shall”) or just permitted (“may”) to
provide the authorized assistance listed in paragraphs A through I?
In March, 2007 the AJC approved the report of the Legal Advice – Legal Information
Task Force, including the recommendation that the guidelines concerning provision of
legal information be implemented by incorporating them in the Code of Conduct for
judicial Employees and by displaying them on signage in every court. The specific
contents of the signage provided by Administrative Order 2007-28 (attached) includes a
commitment to provide the assistance court staff is able to provide.
Choices presented for the introductory paragraph of this rule are the language contained
in the proposal or one of the alternatives below. Further discussion of these choices is
contained in the comment and responses chart.
Alternative 1 (By Judge Harrington and Superior Court, Pima County
Commenters)
A judicial employee shall assist litigants to access the courts by providing prompt
and courteous customer service and accurate information while remaining neutral
and impartial and avoiding the unauthorized practice of law. A judicial employee
shall may provide authorized assistance, consistent with the employee’s
responsibilities and knowledge and the court’s resources and procedures. An
employee who is unable to provide authorized assistance shall may refer the litigant
to an available court resource to assist the litigant. Employees are authorized to
provide the following assistance:
Alternative 2 (By editor in response to comments)
A judicial employee shall assist litigants to access the courts by providing prompt
and courteous customer service and accurate information while remaining neutral
and impartial and avoiding the unauthorized practice of law. A judicial employee
must provide the assistance authorized below, when such assistance is consistent
with the employee’s assigned duties and established court policies and within of
the employee’s knowledge and experience. An employee who cannot provide
assistance authorized below shall refer the litigant to another court employee, if
appropriate, or a legal professional, as provided in paragraph H below.
Employees are authorized to provide the following assistance:
2
2.
Rule 4.3 Elected Judicial Department Office
Whether judicial employees should be permitted to continue their employment while
campaigning for elected judicial department office (judge of the superior court, justice of
the peace, or clerk of superior court) under the conditions provided in this rule?
Under the current code of conduct court managers and judges’ personal staff must resign
and other employees must take an approved leave of absence in order to campaign for
any partisan elective office. Allowing all employees to campaign for judicial department
office without resigning or taking a leave of absence (1) eliminates restrictions not
necessary to the separation of the courts from politics, (2) allows highly qualified court
employees who cannot currently afford to do so to campaign for judicial department
office, (3) eliminates harsher restrictions on court employees than apply to judges and
clarifies restrictions on court managers, and (4) can provide statewide consistency
concerning the right of judicial employees to campaign for judicial department office.
Some clerks of superior court have raised concerns about this change as indicated in the
comment and responses chart. An amendment may be offered on behalf of the Clerks
Association.
3.
Relationship of Canon 4 to local personnel rules.
Should the adopted provisions of Canon 4:
(1) supersede all conflicting provisions of local personnel rules to provide court employees
statewide the same right to campaign for judicial department office,
(2) yield to local personnel rules to maintain consistency within each county regarding
employees campaigning for any elective office, or
(3) supersede only less restrictive local personnel rules as the current code provides which
maintains a minimum standard but results in inconsistency within counties and between
counties.
4.
Rule 4.5 Comment - Bumper Stickers in Court Parking Lot
Should the following comment in Rule 4.5 be retained or deleted.
A personal vehicle parked in a space or a parking lot reserved for court employees is
covered by these work place limitations. Where such reserved parking exists,
displaying political materials on vehicles brings political advocacy to the workplace
because the parking lot is part of the workplace.
Rule 4.1of the judicial code states that a judge shall not “(8) use court staff,
facilities, or other court resources in a campaign for judicial office” or “(3) publicly
endorse or oppose another candidate for any public office.” Rule 4.5 of the employee
code states, “During scheduled work hours or at the workplace, judicial
employees shall not engage in political campaign activities and shall not display
3
literature, badges, stickers, signs, or other political advertisements…” The
comment in question is a logical extension of these rules designed to avoid
association of the court with political candidates and causes due to the activities
of any judicial employee. Further discussion of this issue is contained in the
attached comment and responses chart.
Recommendation: Approve the code section as proposed or if the alternatives or other
changes are approved, with amendments.
4
Comments and Responses to
ACJA Section 1-303: Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees
SECTION
General Comment
General Comment
Purpose and Intent
COMMENTER
Billie Grobe
Adult Probation
Superior Court
Yavapai County
Margaret Maxwell
Superior Court
Pima County
Kent Batty
Superior Court
Pima County
Lori Ash
Superior Court
Maricopa County
COMMENT
RESPONSE
Seems too wordy and it doesn’t seem that
the extensive comments are necessary. Most
of it seems to be common sense.”
Comments were expanded in the revision
of the Code of Judicial Conduct to
provide clearer guidance.
Refer to judge as judicial officer, and thus The definition of “judge” covers this
avoid any confusion regarding court concern.
commissioners, hearing officers, special
commissioners, full time judges pro tem, etc.
Third paragraph add “merit rules” to
Included.
personnel policies and general or special
ethical standards.
Judicial employees should maintain the
dignity of the judiciary at all times, and avoid
both impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in their professional and personal
lives. . . . The struck portion should remain in
the text. Many of the code provisions impact
conduct in employees’ personal lives and the
preamble should correctly reflect that.
Not included. The Code of Judicial
Conduct reaches broadly into the
personal lives of judges. This is
generally not the case with judicial
employees so this broad statement
implies too much. As noted, this code
specifically impacts employee’s
personal lives where necessary.
The next paragraph in Section A of the
preamble notes the code “establishes uniform
standards for the ethical conduct of judicial
department officials not covered by the Code
of Judicial Conduct and judicial employees.”
Not included. This would be redundant
and by implication not include other
components of the judicial department.
The term “judicial employee” is defined
to include “any person other than a
1
We propose changing the last portion of this
sentence to be “judicial branch employees
including adult and juvenile probation
employees.”
Terminology
judge who performs duties in the
judicial department of this state, as
defined in Az. Const. Art. 6 § 1. This
constitutional provision states the
judicial department includes a superior
court. By statute the superior court in
each county includes a probation
department.
Add a Rule 5 that establishes enforcement
George Logan
Surprise Municipal Court language such as: “An employee who is found
to be in violation of this code is subject to
Maricopa County
disciplinary action that may result in a fine,
suspension, dismissal, or termination of
appointment.”
Not included. The last sentence of the
purpose and intent section already
reads: “Violations of this code shall be
enforced locally and in the same manner
as violations of local personnel rules
that apply to judicial employees.”
Kip Anderson
Superior Court
Mohave County
“Canon” it still mentions there are – five –
canons.
Corrected.
Kent Batty
Superior Court
Pima County
“Court managers” replace “the official acts” Not included – since “official acts” is a
legal term.
with “representative acts”
“Economic interest” Insert “or insignificant” Included.
after de minimis; insert “court manager or
judicial employee” following “Except for
situations in which the judge…”; and insert at
the end of (4) “court manager or judicial
employee.”
“Impartial,”
“impartially”
“impartiality,”
2
and
Changed to read: “means absence of
bias or prejudice in favor of, or against,
particular parties or classes of parties,
in communication or conduct as well as
maintenance of neutrality concerning
issues that may come before a judge.”
Debi Schaefer
Superior Court
Yavapai County
“Impropriety” Insert “merit rules” after court
rules.
Included.
Nancy Swetnam
Certification &
Licensing
AOC
The word “volunteer” should be defined in the
draft code. In addition, some provisions of the
draft code may be problematic for volunteers,
i.e., a volunteer who is also an attorney and
the gift limitation provision.
Added definition: “Volunteer” is a
person appointed or assigned under the
authority of a court official to perform
specified duties on behalf of the court.
Added to end of judicial employee
definition: “and except Rule 3.4 shall
apply only to a gift from a person with
whom a part time employee or a
volunteer has been involved while
performing court duties.”
The Clerks assert that the problem with the
definition of “Judicial Employee” is that all
regular employees (full or part-time) should be
subject to the elective office provisions of
sections 4.3 and 4.4. Also elected Clerks of
Court should be added to the list of approving
authorities with presiding judges, chief judges
and the chief justice.
Rewrote “Judicial Employee” definition
and moved part time and volunteer
exceptions to the rules for which the
exceptions are made, Rules 3.1, 3.4 and
4.4 and added 3.5. Limited Rule 4.4
exception to volunteers as recommended.
Deleted the Rule 3.1 (B) (2) exception as
unnecessary due to clarifying change in
that subsection. In each rule clarified the
requirement for approval of each activity
by chief justice, each chief judge, or each
presiding judge and, additionally, each
Patricia Noland
Superior Court
Pima County
3
clerk of superior court subject to other
provisions of the employee and judicial
codes. Also added clerks of superior
court as an approving authority in the
“Court Manager” definition.
Kent Batty
Superior Court
Pima County
“Member of a judicial employee’s family
residing in the employee’s household”
change to read as follows: means any relative
of a judge or judicial employee by blood,
marriage or domestic partnership, or a person
treated by a judge or judicial employee as a
member of the judge’s or judicial employee’s
family, who resides in the judge’s or judicial
employee’s household.
Changed to read: “relative of judicial
employee”.Did not include “or domestic
partnership” due to inconsistency with
judicial code.
Changed to read: “treated by the judicial
employee”
Deleted all references to “judge’s”.
“Nonpublic information” Insert at the end of Added “and any information contained in
the paragraph “and any information withheld records that are closed under Arizona
from public inspection pursuant to Rule 123 of Supreme Court Rule 123.”
the Arizona Supreme Court.”
Add this section “Third degree of
relationship” – The following persons are
relatives within the third degree of
relationship: great-grandparent, grandparent,
parent, uncle, aunt, brother, sister, child,
grandchild, great-grandchild, nephew or niece.
Patricia Noland
Superior Court
Pima County
Not included as new definition. Instead
the relations were inserted in Rule
2.11(A)(2), replacing the term “third
degree of relationship”.
“Courtroom clerks” suggested new Included.
language: “means staff of the elected clerk of
court, the chief clerk or a judge of a justice or
municipal court, who works regularly in the
4
courtroom with a judge.
“Judicial employee” remove “full-time” and Included by rewriting definition of
replace with “regular employee (full or part- “Judicial Employee” to be inclusive.
time) or volunteer”.
Moved part time employee and
volunteer exceptions to the rules (3.1,
I don’t understand why any employee (full- 3.4, 3.5 and 4.4) to which they apply.
time or part-time) would not be subject to Clarified the need for approval of these
3.1(B) (1), (2), and (4) and Rule 4.4 unless exceptions and added Clerk of Court as
granted permission by the Presiding Judge or an approving authority.
Clerk of Court.
4.4 Should apply to any employee, but not a Included change.
volunteer.
After presiding judge in the 6th line, add “clerk Included.
of court,”
Lori Ash
Superior Court
Maricopa County
Karen Ferrara
Superior Court
Cochise County
“Nonpublic information” there is no mention
of probation information that is nonpublic.
We propose expanding the definition to
include work product of the probation
departments. This definition should also refer
to closed and confidential documents, as both
closed and confidential are terms used in
statutes regarding court files.
Probation officer work product is closed
under Rule 123(d)(2)(A) so the
reference to Rule 123 covers this.
Added references to “confidential” and
law other than Rule 123.
“Court managers” references trial courts and Included names of the three types of
appellate courts, but not limited jurisdiction trial courts. Chief clerk of a limited
jurisdiction court could be designated a
courts (add chief clerk?).
manager by the judge. Do all LJ courts
have a “chief clerk”?
5
George Logan
Surprise Municipal Court
Maricopa County
“Economic interest” Anticipate questions –
“de minimis” can be tough to define.
Added “or insignificant”.
Comment. It is mentioned that each judge
can determine which staff are considered to be
court managers. This could prompt questions
– and are we suggesting that judges do
determine who may or may not be a court
manager? What if there are inconsistent
interpretations or determinations – and in two
very similar courts, certain staff are holding
virtually the same jobs but held to different
conduct standards.
Any additional management staff
positions that exist across all or most
courts of a particular type should be
identified and included. The authority
to designate is for management
positions unique to particular courts.
“Economic interest” amend the definition of The existing language is verbatim from
as follows: “means income or ownership …” the Code of Judicial Conduct already
Explanation: adding this language broadens approved by the Supreme Court.
the definition to include income which is not
addressed directly.
“Volunteer” amend the definition as follows:
Volunteer is a person appointed or assigned by Included.
an authorized court official or an appointing
authority to perform specified duties on behalf
of the court.” Explanation: this language
would ensure that volunteers appointed by
other than a court official, such as, members
of judicial advisory boards who are appointed
by mayors, city councils, the governor, or
other public officials, are include within the
6
coverage of the code.
CANON 1
Rule 1.1(C)
Compliance with the
Law
Kent Batty
Superior Court
Pima County
(C) Insert “on behalf of the court” after shall Included.
not do business.
Lori Ash
Superior Court
Maricopa County
This provision on former employees is
confusing and switches the usually assumed
burden from the former employee to the
current employee not to do business with a
former employee. The criteria are almost
impossible to comply with since it requires the
current employee to 1) know he or she is
working with a former employee who
separated within the last 12 months, 2) that
whatever they are working on is something the
former employee had previously worked on,
and 3) that the former employee had
substantial discretion over the operation. The
current employee is unlikely to know the three
above items. The former employee seems to
be in a better position to know.
The employee code of conduct can only
govern the actions of court employees.
Added the condition that the former
employee be known.
Rachelle Resnick
Supreme Court
I agree with Lori Ash’s comment. Adding
the condition that the former employee be
known only eliminates one of the three
troubling criteria. I suggest deleting
“known” from the first line and adding “if
this information is known to the judicial
employee”.
Instead reworded and added a new
Comment 2 with the following language:.
“A judicial employee who knows a
person who seeks to do business with the
court is a former employee must
determine whether the former employee
is disqualified under paragraph (C).”
Jeffry Viemont
This section appears to be too restrictive.
In the example provided Bob would not
7
Rule 1.1 Comments
Compliance with the
Law
be precluded from contracting with the
court unless Bob had substantial and
material administrative authority over the
function for which he now wants to
contract.
Added
the
word
“administrative” to clarify and match the
statute.
Admin. Office of Courts
Does this mean that a Judicial Employee
cannot conduct court business with someone
who recently left the employ of the court?
For example: Bob left court employment on
1/1/2010. Bob stats a consulting business
that could benefit the court in the same way
he was employed with the court. According
to this, the court cannot ‘hire’ Bob until
1/1/2011.
Kent Batty
Superior Court
Pima County
Comments Delete “under A.R.S. §13-1802” Not included.
and replace “A.R.S. § 13-2310” with “Arizona Statutes are self explanatory.
statutes”.
Editor’s note regarding the last sentence –
This phrase needs clarification or perhaps the
whole sentence could be deleted.
Rachelle Resnick
Supreme Court
Criminal penalties and ARS sections can
change. Are the citations necessary? If so,
someone will need to monitor. (This applies
to other ARS sections that are cited in these
rules as well.)
The criminal statutes are cited to
provide the basis of some of the
provisions and to allow reference for
clarity. They have not changed since
the original adoption of the code and
will be checked.
The public’s trust in the judiciary can be
eroded by misconduct/appearance of
impropriety by any employee, regardless of
their position. The “position of the
employee” language is not necessary and
gives rise to an argument that the same
conduct is acceptable for some employees
but not others.
Deleted from comment 2 “due to the
position of the employee or the
circumstances” and from comment 3
“that apply to the judicial employee’s
position.”
8
Rule 1.2 Comment 2.
Promoting Confidence
in the Judiciary
Kent Batty
Superior Court
Pima County
Karen Ferrara
Superior Court
Cochise County
Comment 2. Delete “, depending on the Deleted but added to end: “that affects the
position of the judicial employee and the public perception of the court due to the
position of the employee or the
circumstances,”
circumstances.”
Needs clarification.
Depending on the Addressed as indicated above.
position of the judicial employee and the
circumstances this could suggest that there
may be certain positions or circumstances
where an activity that creates the appearance
of impropriety may be okay.
Comment 3. Replace “the code” with “this Not deleted. The restrictions are different
code” and delete “that apply to the judicial depending on the position of the
employee.
employee’s position.”
Rule 1.2 Comment 3.
Promoting Confidence
in the Judiciary
Kent Batty
Superior Court
Pima County
Rule 1.2 Comment 4.
Promoting Confidence
in the Judiciary
Rule 1.2 Comment 5.
Promoting Confidence
in the Judiciary
Kent Batty
Superior Court
Pima County
Kent Batty
Superior Court
Pima County
Comment 4. Insert “the judiciary or of” after Included.
“impartiality of” in the first sentence.
Rule 1.3
Abuse of Position
CANON 2
Rule 2.1
Giving Priority to
Judicial Employment
Kent Batty
Superior Court
Pima County
Change to read “A judicial employee, at all
times when at work and at other times when
requested, shall give priority to court duties
over all other activities to the extent possible.”
Comment 5. replace “personal and” with Not included, due to inconsistency with
judicial code.
“family”.
Editor’s note regarding the last sentenceEven with the suggested change, this last
sentence is too vague, making it hard to
interpret.
9
Not included. Instead, changed title to
read: “Giving Priority to Ethical Duties”
and changed rule to read: “A court
employee shall regard the ethical duties
provided in this code of conduct as
having the highest priority.”
Rule 2.1
Giving Priority to
Judicial Employment
Kent Batty
Superior Court
Pima County
Comment Delete “that would result in Not included. Instead, changed last
frequent disqualification from” and replace phrase to read: “the risk of conflict with
the performance of court duties.”
“with the effective”.
Rule 2.2
Impartiality and
Fairness - Comment
Billie Grobe
Adult Probation
Superior Court
Yavapai County
How likely is it that “opposing parties and
counsel,” “involved in a proceeding,” would
know the details of their opponents life,
finances, capabilities or legitimate
limitations? Is “fair” defined as equal? Or
is fair defined as “according to specific
circumstances? I’m not sure what corrective
recommendation would be appropriate, but
“fair” should not (I believe), be defined as:
how opposing parties and counsel who are
involved in the proceeding are likely to view
the situation.”
Rule 2.2
Impartiality and
Fairness
Kent Batty
Superior Court
Pima County
Comment change “should” to “shall” in first Change in first sentence not included.
sentence and insert “who are involved in the Instead changed first sentence to read:
“Judicial employees may appear to be
proceeding” after counsel in last sentence.
treating litigants, counsel or other persons
who do business with the court
preferentially if they discuss the merits of
a case pending before the court or behave
in a particularly friendly manner.”
Included change in second sentence.
Rule 2.3
Bias, Prejudice, and
Harassment
Kent Batty
Superior Court
Pima County
Delete “in the performance of court duties,”
10
The comment concerns the perception of
the fairness and impartiality a party can
expect to receive as indicated by the
judicial employee’s behavior rather than
the actual fairness of the court
employee’s actions, which is based upon
adherence to the rules and the law.
Accordingly the term “action” is replaced
by “behavior.”
Not included in the interest
consistency with the judicial code.
of
Wouldn’t any manifestation of bias or
prejudice impair "the perception of fairness of
the court proceeding" rather than the actual
fairness of the proceeding? Judges are
certainly able to ignore an employee's bias or
prejudice and still be fair, and we should not
inadvertently convey otherwise, but the
public's perception of the impact of employee
bias may be different. Also, the comment
refers only to court proceedings: perhaps it
should also reference "the execution of the
employee's court duties" to cover functions
outside the courtroom. Change to read
“…impairs the perception of the fairness of
the court proceeding…”
Comment 1
Comment 2
Billie Grobe
Adult Probation
Superior Court
Yavapai County
Changed to read: “A judicial employee
who manifests bias or prejudice in the
conduct of court business impairs the
fairness of the judicial process and brings
the judiciary into disrepute.” As noted
bias or prejudice by an employee in the
performance of court duties outside of the
judicial proceeding implicates fairness,
but actually not just as a matter of
perception
since
such
behavior
potentially
impedes
a
litigant’s
opportunity to present the litigant’s case.
Because facial expressions and body language
can be interpreted as the same, and both seem
to fall under the umbrella of Kinesics, it may
be appropriate to use the term “nonverbal
communication.” One benefit of using this
term is that it does not exclude other areas of
nonverbal communication to where there may
be suspected or perceived bias, such as
Vocalics. For example, the manner in which
someone says something can certainly color
the content of what was said. Therefore, a Added “and other forms of nonverbal
Judiciary employee should be consistent in communication”
what is spoken, and in the manner to which it
is delivered. By using the term “nonverbal
communication,” instead of facial expressions,
and body language, I feel we cover more
11
Rule 2.3 Comment 4.
Bias, Prejudice, and
Harassment
Susan Edwards
Rule 2.4
External Influences on
Court Duties
Gary Krcmarik
Superior Court
Coconino County
Kent Batty
Superior Court
Pima County
Jeffry Viemont
Admin. Office of Courts
Rule 2.5
Competence,
Diligence, and
Cooperation
Kent Batty
Superior Court
Pima County
Comment 2
Jeffry Viemont
Admin. Office of Courts
Rule 2.6
Assistance to
Kent Batty
Superior Court
bases, and heighten employee expectancies,
with respect to personal demeanor, through
the application of that term.
Reword rule to clarify.
Included.
Comment 4. Change last sentence to read
“See the relevant Arizona Supreme Court,
Administrative Order for the judiciary’s
sexual harassment policy.”
Rule 2.4 (B) is a little too harsh. In regards to
not letting family affect your performance of
duties—this is sometimes very difficult. Take
a court employee with a spouse that is going
through medical issues. If that does not affect
ones work performance then I would argue
that person is not normal.
Not included, due to inconsistency with
judicial code.
Judges have influence over others. Should
employees be responsible for the directing
the conduct of fellow employees?
(D) Change to read: A judicial employee,
when authorized, shall furnish to those who
request it accurate, timely information
…according to established procedures.
Deleted “or permit others to convey” as
an inappropriate requirement for
employees.
Not included since procedures may
require provision of information routinely
rather than on request.
Does not require a court manager ‘seek and
find’, just an attempt?
Changed “affected” to “influenced” in
section A and “affect” to “influence” in
section B.
Yes. The ultimate authority for provision
of resources to the court is a legislative
body that exercises discretion though a
court manager may seek a judicial
remedy if the discretion is abused.
Insert as first sentence “A judicial employee Reworded and incorporated in part. In
shall assist litigants, consistent with the response to this comment changed first
12
Litigants
Pima County
court’s resources, with matters within the paragraph to read “A judicial employee
scope of his/her responsibilities and shall assist litigants to access the courts
by providing prompt and courteous
knowledge.”
customer
service
and
accurate
Delete last sentence and replace with information while remaining neutral and
“Employees are expected to provide the impartial and avoiding the unauthorized
practice of law. A judicial employee
following assistance:”
shall provide authorized assistance,
with
the
employee’s
Insert at end of this section: “In the event the consistent
employee is incapable of providing this responsibilities and knowledge and the
assistance, the employee should refer the court’s resources and procedures. An
litigant to the most appropriate court resource employee who is unable to provide
authorized assistance shall refer the
available to assist the litigant.”
litigant to an available court resource to
assist the litigant.
Employees are
authorized to provide the following
assistance:”
Change (G). to read as follows: Cite statutes,
court rules, policies or ordinances that the
employee knows to be accurate, in order to
perform the employee’s job without
performing legal research for court customers;
Lori Ash
Superior Court
Maricopa County
Not included.
This language was
approved by the AJC in its acceptance of
the Legal Information, Legal Advice
Task Force report.
(B) This should refer to Rule 3.2, rather than
Correction made.
Cannon 3(d).
(C) This is unclear. This provides little
guidance as to what assistance a judicial Added semicolons for phrasing
Added
comment
employee can provide. Examples may be clarification.
referencing the task force work product
helpful in clearing up any confusion.
on which this rule is based: Guide to Court
Customer Assistance: Legal Advice - Legal
13
Information Guidelines for Arizona Court
Personnel
Judge Charles Harrington Motion made at 9/25/09 COSC meeting: Provision of the authorized assistance
Superior Court
Change to read “A judicial employee may cannot be made completely discretionary
Pima County
shall provide authorized assistance…”
by use of the term “may” consistent with
the Legal Advice – Legal Assistance task
force report which concluded the
KC Stanford
In the first paragraph of Rule 2.6 it says that authorized legal assistance should be
Superior Court
judicial employees “shall provide authorized provided whenever possible.
Pima County
assistance…” to court customers or if the
employee is unable to do so, then they “shall In light comments changed the opening
refer the litigant to available court resources paragraph to read: “A judicial employee
to assist the litigant.”
shall assist litigants to access the courts
I recommend you change the word from
by providing prompt and courteous
“shall” to “may”. The choice would then be customer service and accurate
discretionary not mandatory. I have worked
information while remaining neutral
12 years in family law and would not want
and impartial and avoiding the
my staff mandated to provide assistance
unauthorized practice of law.
A
when discretion is a much sounder
judicial employee must provide the
management approach to the many folks
assistance authorized below, when such
calling their offices seeking legal guidance.
assistance is consistent with the
employee’s assigned duties and
established court policies and within of
Deborah Bernini, Pima I am writing to express my concerns about
the employee’s knowledge and
County Superior Court
the language of proposed Rule 6.2 regarding experience. An employee who cannot
judicial employees. I have been a Superior
provide assistance authorized below
Court Judge for 16 years and have served
shall refer the litigant to another court
multiple rotations on various benches. I have employee, if appropriate, or a legal
listened to the phone calls that my Judicial
professional, as provided in paragraph
Assistant has fielded in that time and while I H below. Employees are authorized to
have been impressed with her civility,
provide the following assistance:”
courtesy, professionalism and knowledge, I
14
C. Harrington, Superior
have been shocked at the types of calls and
callers with which she had had to deal.
Individuals have no reservations about
calling a judge's chambers directly to
demand information that we cannot provide.
Callers are often rude, random and push for
legal advice that our judicial assistants
cannot give. Many individuals call multiple
times and take out the frustrations caused by
their legal situations on my staff. While I
agree that it is important to provide access to
the courts, the language of this rule suggests
that it is job of the judges and their staff to
provide far more assistance than is
appropriate. Individuals often do not
understand that they are seeking legal
advice. Comments by staff are often
misunderstood, misinterpreted, or outright
distorted. The drafters of this rule meant
well, but did not take into consideration the
realities of what the rule would mean for
members of our staff. Judge Harrington of
our bench suggested a simple change,
switching the word "may" for "shall",
that would alleviate many of our
concerns. I agree wholeheartedly. It would
prevent the rewriting of the rule, address the
very substantial concerns of myself and most
of my colleagues on the Superior Court
bench and would not negatively affect the
intent of the drafters. Please consider
making this simple change.
15
The language above clearly limits the
obligation to provide assistance to
matters that are consistent with an
employee’s assigned duties, knowledge
and experience. It allows for court
management to define employee duties
and adopt policies concerning who should
provide authorized assistance and the
manner of providing that assistance. It
provides for a judicial employee to refer a
litigant to another judicial employee who
is able to provide the requested assistance
or to a legal professional.
Court, Pima County.
Karen Adam
The reason for Rule 2.6 (per Mr. Withey at
the recent COSC meeting) is to protect
employees who provide assistance to
litigants. That is a good thing. However the
language "shall provide authorized
assistance..." and "shall refer the
litigant..." in the first paragraph of the rule
appears to do just the opposite. If an attorney
or self represented litigant made an ethical
complaint that an employee did not cite
statutes or court rules when asked for
assistance, even though the employee knew
the appropriate law, the committee would
have no choice but to discipline the
employee.
We get many calls from both attorneys
(somewhat surprisingly, it is often) and self
represented litigants on how to bring a case
or a motion or some other legal proceedings.
Some of my law clerks are experienced
lawyers who know how to do these things.
Some requests require answers that are very
complicated both substantively and
procedurally. If my clerk doesn't share her
knowledge, she has violated the above rule.
That is not just in too many real world
situations.
This unintended consequence can be
avoided by substituting the word "may"
for "shall" in the portions of the rule
quoted above.
16
Unlike the Code of Judicial Conduct, this
code is enforced by local hiring
authorities and supervisors rather than a
disciplinary commission. Any complaint
concerning failure of an employee to
provide assistance and any action taken
will be the responsibility of the
management of the employee’s court.
Any action taken must be consistent with
the employee’s duties and court policies
as well as this code. This provision
would provide the basis for such action
where an employee’s duties and training
and court policies require assistance and
the employee fails to provide it without a
valid reason. The suggested discretionary
language would not provide the basis for
such action.
Juvenile Court
Pima County
Arizona has long been a leader in providing
equal access to justice, especially in the
challenging area of self-representation. We
have one of the few Codes of Conduct for
Judicial Employee and it mirrors, where
appropriate, the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Our on-line resources, self-service centers,
and kiosks are national models.
The Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct was
recently amended to allow judges to make
reasonable accommodations to ensure due
process to self-represented litigants.
However, the proposed changes to the
Employee Code of Conduct provide great
detail what is only broadly described as
"reasonable accommodations" in the judicial
code. These proposed changes closely
mirror, in content, the mandatory signage
prescribed by the Administrative Order
which derived from the Advice-Information
Task Force.
This topic--Advice vs. Information--is being
addressed nationally, as more and more
litigants self-represent. I support the
additional detailed guidance provided by the
proposed change to the Code. Case law and
ethics opinions have established that the
specific examples listed are in the nature of
advice rather than information, also
described as procedural vs. substantive.
Whether the rule is made mandatory (which
17
Ted Borek
Superior Court
Pima County
would help ensure equal treatment for all) or
discretionary (which takes pressure off of
staff who are not comfortable with subject
matter areas), I would urge the inclusion of
the language defining and thereby limiting,
that which is INFORMATION.
I share the concerns of all my judicial
colleagues who express concerns about the
proposed rule. Nearly every paragraph is
fraught with possible conflict,
miscommunication, or misunderstanding. I
believe paragraphs A, B, C, E, F, and G are
particularly troublesome because
information provided by an employee may
be based on incomplete information
provided by a caller. Responses could be
misleading or misinterpreted. All but
paragraph G of the rule could be interpreted
to require research or investigation by the
employee. Already I have heard of a
particularly demanding unrepresented
litigant reporting that “the Court said …,”
totally misrepresenting what the litigant was
told. The potential for conflict is rampant.
In addition, we are getting more and more
calls not just from unrepresented litigants
but also from the staff of attorneys asking
questions they should resolve themselves,
such as counting days before a pleading is
due and seeking interpretation of rules. I
fear a mandatory Rule 2.6 will result in
18
In addition to supporting the suggested
change from mandatory to discretionary
language, this comment questions the
recommendations of the Legal Advice –
Legal Information task force which the
code of conduct is simply a means of
implementing. If there is a need to
reconsider these recommendations this
should be done apart from consideration
of this code of conduct proposal.
conflicts, not just between the unrepresented
and the court but also between judges and
judicial employees. “May” would be
better, but I think it preferable to identify
the communication as aspirational, not
mandatory, and with fewer examples of
what could be discussed. I agree that
judicial employees should be helpful to the
public, but it seems to me this rule opens the
door to requiring services beyond what time
may permit and beyond what can be done
accurately and competently by some
employees.
Rule 2.8
Professionalism
Rule 2.9
Communication with
Judges
Jeffry Viemont
Admin. Office of Courts
(A) The only manner of communication
accepted by the court is the ‘filing’ process. If
a judicial employee has ‘personal knowledge’
they wish to communicate, it may be
communicated to proper channels – not
prohibit. Define term “party”. If a judicial
employee becomes a party to the case, what
then?
The facts of a case may only be received
by the court as evidence presented on the
record. A judicial employee with persona
knowledge may have to be disqualified
from participating, especially if the
employee is a party.
Kent Batty
Superior Court
Pima County
(B) Change to read: Based upon general
direction by a judge, a judicial employee may
communicate information which does not
address substantive matters from a party to
the judge for scheduling, administrative, or
emergency purposes,.
Italicized language not included since
judge’s direction should be sufficient to
avoid the need to have employees
distinguish between substantive and
procedural matters.
Rule 2.10
Statements on
19
Pending and
Impending Cases
Rule 2.11
Personal Interest
Kent Batty
Superior Court
Pima County
Rachelle Resnick
Supreme Court
(A) Change to read: “A judicial employee
shall inform the appropriate supervisor of any
potential conflict (or the appearance of a
conflict) between an economic interest of the
employee individually or as a fiduciary or of
the employee’s spouse, domestic partner,
parent, or child, or any other member of the
judicial employee’s family residing in the
judicial employee’s household and the judicial
employee’s performance of his/her court
duties.”
Did not include“(or the appearance of a
conflict)” due to vagueness. Other
changes were included in part and
reworded.
(B)(3) Clarify de minimis
Added “(insignificant)”
(E) I propose that the language of Section (E)
be broadened as follows: "A judicial employee
shall withdraw...due to a personal relationship,
personal bias or prejudice...."
Not included. Personal relationships for
which withdrawal is mandated are
covered in paragraph (D) and withdrawal
on this ground may be waived under (F).
Paragraph (E) is specifically concerned
with withdrawal due to bias or prejudice
which may not be waived under
paragraph (F). The citation in Paragraph
F was corrected.
(C) This paragraph is difficult to understand. Reworded to clarify.
For example, does “either of them” apply to
the nephew or niece, or to the employee and
spouse/domestic partner? Also, does the
provision apply to the spouse/domestic partner
of relatives listed of the spouse/spouse’s
20
domestic partner? I believe this is the intent
but it is not clear. Perhaps if this sentence was
broken into 2 or more sentences, it would be
easier to understand.
Rule 2.13
Employment of
Relatives
Rule 2.14
Disability and
Impairment
Jeffry Viemont
Admin. Office of Courts
(D) Does “court business” mean court
employment?
It means the employee must withdraw
from performing any duties that would
involve the persons in whom the
employee has a personal interest.
Rachelle Resnick
Supreme Court
(F) The judge/court clerk has to participate in
order to disclose the conflict and to put the
agreement into the record. I suggest changing
“participation” to “influence”.
Changed to read: “the parties and
lawyers agree, without participation by
the judge or court personnel in this
decision, that the court employee need
not withdraw.
Billie Grobe
Adult Probation
Superior Court
Yavapai County
seems to infer that it is ok not to report the
suspicion to a supervisor when a judicial
employee suspects that a coworker is
impaired. Whereas Rule 2.15 “Duty to
Report” it states that the employee “shall”
report….From my perspective if impairment is
suspected it must be reported. The rest of it
looks fine.
Changed to require immediate report.
Rule 2.14 is different than Rule 2.15 in
that it requires reporting impairment
regardless of whether a violation of the
code or the law has yet occurred which is
the trigger for the Rule 2.15 duty to
report.
Kent Batty
Superior Court
Pima County
The reference to "the Human Resources Included.
Office" should be modified slightly to "the
appropriate human resources office," to
remove the inference that there is a single HR
office to which such conduct should be
21
Rule 2.14
Disability and
Impairment
Lori Ash
Superior Court
Maricopa County
Karen Ferrara
Superior Court
Cochise County
reported.
This section concerns the Superior Court in
Maricopa County. The rule is vague,
inconsistent, and open to a variety of
interpretations. In most cases, it would not be
advisable to speak directly with an impaired Deleted option of speaking with the
person, and supervisory and/or HR impaired person and added immediate
notification should be mandatory, for report requirement.
consistency, the safety of the impaired person
and others, and the potential liability from not
taking reasonable action. Telling an obviously
impaired person to get help or referring them
to a treatment program is not a reasonable
action if the person leaves the premises and
kills or injures himself/herself or someone else
in traffic or other accident. It is also
problematic to give discretion to the employee
who notices the impairment. It will create
differences
between
court
agencies,
supervisors, and managers as to how these
matters are handled. These rule and its
comments should be phrased on concrete
requirements to provide guidance to judicial
employees, and to promote the integrity of the
judiciary through accountability and
consistency.
How far does an employee need to go to have
done due diligence? If they take it to a
supervisor, have they done their job? If the
supervisor does nothing, is the employee
required to take it to a higher source? Or is
22
Clarified to require employee who
observes behavior to report to
management and to require management
employee to take appropriate action.
Accordingly, the observing employee is
the employee required to report that the only responsible for the initial report.
supervisor has not taken action?
Kim Cantoni
Human Resources
AOC
Rule 2.15
Duty to Report
Kim Cantoni
Human Resources
AOC
Change to read “A judicial employee who has
a reasonable belief that the performance of
another judicial employee or a judge is acting
in an impaired manner impaired by drugs or
alcohol, or by a mental, emotional, or physical
condition, shall immediately report the alleged
impaired behavior to their supervisor,
administrator, Human Resources, appropriate
authority or body take appropriate action,
which may include a confidential referral to an
appropriate assistance program.”
Changed to require immediate report.
A judicial employee should only be reporting
the alleged behavior or activity of another
employee or judge – not addressing it
themselves. There are a number of reasons for
this, such as, the employee has no business or
authority to take any kind of action over
another employee; and it can hide a problem
from management and hinder efforts to
properly and promptly addressing an issue
because the employee may not report the
alleged impairment to management. Since
management has responsibility for addressing
issues of impairment in the workplace, they
should be the only ones addressing it.
Change to read “the applicable code of
conduct” and delete “another” in first
paragraph.
Deleted option of speaking with the
impaired person and added immediate
report requirement.
23
Clarified that the impaired employee
must agree to contact the assistance
program since such programs only
provide services requested by the person
receiving the services.
Changed to read: “…any violation of the
law or the applicable code of conduct by
a judge, another judicial employee or the
reporting employee.”
Kim Cantoni
Human Resources
AOC
Change to read “…if such report is made in Added “shall cooperate and be candid
good faith and shall fully cooperate and be and honest”
candid and honest in any investigation and
disciplinary proceeding.”
Kent Batty
Superior Court
Pima County
Delete “a judge or” and insert as second
sentence: “Violations of the law or this code
by a judge shall be reported to the supervisor
and the presiding judge.”
Not included, due to need for multiple
reporting options. The supervisor can
report to the presiding judge as provided
by policy, if necessary.
Rachelle Resnick
Supreme Court
This provision seems overly broad. (a judicial
employee shall report…any violation of the
law…” (emphasis added)) Does an employee
have a duty to report minor moving violations
committed in their personal vehicle on
personal time if driving is not one of their jobrelated duties?
Changed to read “A judicial employee
shall report to a supervisor, administrator
or judge within the judicial department
any violation of the law in the course of
court employment or that may affect the
violator’s ability to perform court
duties…”
Lori Ash
Superior Court
Maricopa County
Comment 3. Reflects a possibility of Deleted Comment 3.
inconsistent handling of instances of possible
misconduct. If a court employee receives
information indicating a “substantial
likelihood” that misconduct has occurred, the
information should be immediately reported to
the appropriate authority. To allow individual
employees to make a decision whether or not
to report the misconduct is inconsistent with
the “duty to report,” promotes inconsistency,
and interferes with the concept of an
24
“independent, fair, and impartial judiciary.”
CANON 3
Rule 3.1
Outside Activities in
General
Marla Randall
Superior Court
Navajo County
A court reporter employed full time by the
court owns a freelance court reporting
business with which the court contracts to
cover divisions of the Court during the
absence of regularly employed court reporters
(including the owner). This practice appears
to be inconsistent with this provision.
Changed Rule 3.1(B)(1) to read:
“Involves an organization or private
employer whose officers, employees or
agents are regularly involved as a litigant,
an attorney, or a witness in cases filed
with the court in which the judicial
employee is employed;”
Lori Ash
Superior Court
Maricopa County
Comment 1. Should provide more examples.
Judicial employees have a hard time
distinguishing what constitutes a conflict of
interest for these purposes. Examples should
include the types of employment that would
be considered a conflict of interest. For
example, adding performing security work or
services, work as a private investigator, or
other similar work would create a conflict of
interest. What about working in adult
establishments, such as such as strip clubs or
adult bookstores? Would this be considered a
conflict? An expansion of the examples
would provide consistency between courts and
departments. A more comprehensive list of
unsuitable employment and volunteer work
for judicial employees, including probation
employees, would help guide both employees
and the managers who must approve or deny
these secondary employment requests.
No change.
Work for an employer that regularly
appears in court as a private security
officer or private investigator or that
requires the employee to appear in court
would be prohibited under the current
language of Rule 3.1 (B) (1) and (4). The
employee could avoid PI jobs that
involve any probationer. Work for adult
establishments that is legal should be
addressed by outside employment
policies that require approval of all
outside employment in order to avoid
embarrassment of the court employer.
This code does not preclude the adoption
of more restrictive outside employment
policies.
25
Jeffrey Schrade
Education Services
AOC
Debi Schaefer
Superior Court
Yavapai County
Jeffry Viemont
Admin. Office of Courts
Justice Hurwitz
Supreme Court
Rule 3.2
Use of Nonpublic
Information
Rule 3.3
Solicitation for
Outside Activities
Kent Batty
Superior Court
Pima County
(B)(2) add to end of sentence “unless
approved leave is taken;” In some cases
people will take a vacation day to do
consulting or other work so that it is not on
court time. Normal working hours could be
interpreted more broadly to mean any
weekday between 8-5 (or whatever the
established normal working hours are of the
individual).
Given the neutral role of a part time court
interpreter (not advising or taking action on
behalf of the court or anyone else – simply
repeating what is said), I don’t feel there is a
real or potential conflict of interest and I’m
unaware of any negative impression
employment of the interpreter by parties who
appear before the court may have given.
Not included. Instead, changed “normal”
to “scheduled” to provide flexibility for
occasional outside work that does not
conflict with a full time employee’s court
duties and for the schedules of part time
employees and volunteers.
Provided an exception with approval for a
part time employee or volunteer to
engage in an outside business activity that
involves an entity that regularly does
business with the court or may appear in
court.
Included
(B) Add “judicial” before “employee in each
subsection.
Included
Remove approval requirement for paragraph
(C) volunteer exception to paragraphs B (2)
and (4)
(A) Delete “the court” and place with Not included, but changed to read:
“his/her” and delete “in connection with” and “…shall not use the employee’s…”
replace “activities” with “the workplace.”
Solicitation of funds in the workplace is
not generally prohibited.
26
Rule 3.4
Gifts and Extra
Compensation
Lori Ash
Superior Court
Maricopa County
(A) Change to read “A judicial employee
should not personally request, or by action or
inference, solicit subordinates to contribute
funds to any organization or activity but may
provide…”
Karen Ferrara
Superior Court
Cochise County
Kent Batty
Superior Court
Pima County
(A) Should this read “a judicial employee Included
shall not use their court position…”?
(A) The language of the first two lines of (A)
can be read to imply that soliciting gifts or
favors from the list in (B) is authorized. That
is not what we want. For those items in (B),
the concepts of solicitation and acceptance
should be separated. Replace “or” with
“others, and shall not”.
Included
Changed to read: “A judicial employees
shall not solicit gifts or favors nor accept
gifts or favors, other than those listed in
paragraph B …”
(B)(2) Replace “disqualification of” with Included due to the fact that 2.11 uses the
“withdrawal from participation”.
term withdrawal.
(B)(8) Change to read “gifts, awards or Included but reworded.
benefits associated with the business,
profession, or other separate activity of a
spouse, a domestic partner, or other family
member of a judicial employee residing in the
judge’s (sic) judicial employee’s household,
but that incidentally benefit the judicial
employee;”
Nancy Swetnam
Certification &
Comment 1. Add “or a judicial employee’s
action” after “judge’s decision”.
27
Included.
Licensing
AOC
Comment 2. Delete “disqualification” and Included. Deleted last sentence as
inapplicable to judicial employees.
replace with “withdrawal”.
In addition, some provisions of the draft code Added exception allowing volunteer to
may be problematic for volunteers, i.e., a receive a gift outside the context of court
volunteer who is also an attorney and the gift duties.
limitation provision.
Lori Ash
Superior Court
Maricopa County
Karen Ferrara
Superior Court
Cochise County
Rule 3.5
Reimbursement of
Expenses and Waivers
of Fees for Charges
CANON 4
Rule 4.1
General Activities
Rule 4.2
Personal Staff,
Courtroom Clerks,
and Managers
Clerks Association
(B)(3) Fails to define social hospitality. This Added to Comment 3 explanatory
leaves a lot of room for interpretation. It language from JEAC Opinion 95-13.
should be defined.
(B)(9) Needs clarification. What does “gifts Added “or other event honoring the
incident to a public testimonial” mean? Is this recipient.”
like a honorarium for speaking to school kids?
The Clerks assert that allowing a judge’s
personal staff to run for an elective office,
according to the restrictions of the judicial
canons, should be allowed under principles of
fairness. Like judges, judicial staff, courtroom
clerks and managers should have to resign to
run for an elective office outside the court. To
run for an elective judicial office within the
28
This provision as proposed requires
resignation to campaign for office outside
the judicial branch and defers to Rule 4.3
concerning judicial department office.
These employees can be authorized to
take a leave of absence to campaign for
judicial department office by amending
Rule 4.3. The last phrase prohibits a
Rule 4.3
Elective Judicial
Department Office
Patricia Noland
Superior Court
Pima County
Clerks Association
same court, the judge’s personal staff should
take a leave of absence, as required in
proposed Rule 4.3. To take office, the
individual must resign from court employment
prior to assuming office. Delete “and may not
hold any elective office.”
I do not believe it is proper to allow a judicial
employee to run for a position in their own
court – even for an open position – and not
take a leave of absence or resign. This can and
will lead to real problems. The problem
mentioned was multiple employees from the
same court running for the same office in
another court or in the same court if the
incumbent is not seeking reelection.
person from simultaneously holding a
position close to the judge and any
elective office, including a nonpartisan
office. Therefore, it should not be deleted
as recommended.
The apparent choice between resignation or a
leave of absence in section 4.3 differs from
section 4.4 and should reference only a leave
of absence, as in 4.4. All employees are free to
resign from any position at any time.
This language covers the different
circumstances employees who work with
judges who otherwise must resign under
Rule 4.2 and other court employees who
otherwise must take a leave of absence
under Rule 4.4. The first sentence was
reworded for clarification.
The restriction on campaigning for
judicial office seems unnecessary since
an elected judicial department office is
necessarily political. A court employee
running for such office does not involve
the courts in politics to a significantly
greater degree. The purpose of not losing
the services of qualified court employees
while they are running for office may
outweigh
potential
problems.
Competition among clerk’s employees for
an open position will cause political
division within the office whether or not
the candidates are employed.
Add new second sentence, “A leave of Not included since a leave of absence is
absence must be approved by the judicial not required by this rule.
employee’s appointing authority, i.e. presiding
29
judge, chief judge, chief justice or elected
clerk of court.”
Rule 4.4
Elective Office in
General
Clerks Association
Athia Hardt
Rule 4.5
Workplace Activity
Jeffrey Schrade
Education Services
Change 4.3 to read, “If elected or appointed,
the judicial employee shall resign from court
employment prior to assuming office.
In Rules 4.3 and 4.4, the Clerks assert that
appointment to a partisan elective office (as
opposed to candidacy for office) should not
require a judicial employee to take a leave of
absence during the appointment process. A
judicial employee might be nominated for
appointment to an elective office when, for
example, the incumbent is impeached, resigns,
retires or dies before the natural expiration of
their elected term and the employee has not
publicly announced their desire for
appointment to the vacant office.
Included.
Clarify who approves a leave of absence.
Added to 4.4 A: “A leave of absence
must be approved by the judicial
employee’s appointing authority, i.e.
presiding judge, chief judge, chief justice
or elected clerk of court.”
Included by deleting references to
appointment.
Consideration
for
appointment to elective office does not
involve the public political campaigning
that might be associated with the court.
Clarify that paragraph (C) volunteer exception Rule 4.4(C) added to allow an exception
provides for approval of continued service with approval for volunteers from the
political activity limitations of this rule.
rather than approval of a candidacy.
Clarified approval is needed for
continued volunteer service.
Add language “ballot measure,” after “… Included. Though a court employee is
political committee,…”. Although organized entitled to state a personal opinion by
30
AOC
Lori Ash
Superior Court
Maricopa County
advocacy for many ballot measures would
likely fall under the “political committee”
definition, should judicial employees refrain
from wearing a button like “yes on 101”?
What if there is a referred measure or initiative
with no formal political committee but is
nevertheless a divisive issue? Would/should
this rule limit this sort of issue advocacy in the
workplace as well?
displaying materials for or against a
ballot measure, bringing those materials
into the workplace associates the court
with that opinion, thus compromising the
impartiality of the court on that issue.
The comment is concerning. Understand, and
agree with, the need to prohibit political
activity while at work. However, the comment
affects an employee while he/she is away from
work. The vehicle is the employee’s personal
property, and the parking lot is removed from
the actual work environment. This prohibition
raises some First Amendment issues and the
rule and comment do not appear to provide a
clear rational basis for extending the
prohibition to an employee’s car in a parking
lot. In addition, how far do we take this?
What happens if an employee’s car will not
start and the employee has to drive a relative’s
car or a friend’s car? Can we discipline the
employee because the car he/she happened to
drive that day had a political bumper sticker?
Propose revising the comment to read: “A
personal vehicle parked in a parking lot
reserved for court employees or used for court
business is covered by these workplace
limitations.”
Not included. Added the following
explanation to the comment: “Where
such reserved parking exists, displaying
political materials on vehicles brings
political advocacy to the workplace
because the parking lot is part of the
workplace.” Some federal courts in
Missouri have upheld similar
restrictions in the face of constitutional
challengers. See International Broth. Of
Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO v. St. Louis
County, 117 F.Supp.2d 922, 932
(E.D. Mo. 2000) (guideline forbidding
merit system employees from placing
bumper sticker on vehicles parked in
county-owned or county-leased
property constitutional); Connealy v.
Walsh,
412 F. Supp. 146, 152-154 (W.D. Mo.
1976) (state interest in promoting nonpartisan appearance of juvenile court
outweighed plaintiff’s First Amendment
31
interest in displaying bumper sticker
on her vehicle parked in juvenile court
lot); cf. Goodman v. City of Kansas
City, Mo. 906 F.Supp. 537, 543-44
(W.D. Mo. 1995) (City did not
articulate “actual harm” sufficient to
justify restriction on bumper stickers in
city lot–restriction on city employees, in
the interest of showing city government
functioned as single apolitical unit).
Karen Ferrara
Superior Court
Cochise County
Comment. Ensure to receive first amendment
reactions. I can get the reserved parking spot Applies only if the entire court parking
lot is reserved for court staff.
part, but an entire court parking lot?
Rachelle Resnick
Supreme Court
Comment. I agree with the comments made by
Lori Ash and Karen Ferrara. This provision
seems to be unduly burdensome on free
speech. Even if it is technically within the
law, the provision is going to be
unenforceable. Are we really going to
monitor the parking lots for bumper stickers?
Rule 4.6
Political Pressure
Rule 4.7
Judicial Campaign
Activity
Rule 4.8
Political
Discrimination
32
The issue of bumper stickers in parking
lots is raised as an ethical issue almost
every election cycle. Presumably, it is
raised by an opponent of the person the
bumper sticker supports or a supporter of
the opponent who works at or does
business at the court.
Proposed Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees
Table of Contents
With Cross-References to Current Employee Code
A.
B.
Purpose and Intent – Preamble
Terminology – Definition
CANON 1
A JUDICIAL EMPLOYEE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE,
INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY AND SHALL AVOID
IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
Rule 1.1
Rule 1.2
Rule 1.3
Compliance with the Law
Canon 2.A. Compliance with Law
Canon 2.E. Use of Public Property
Canon 2.F. Former Employees
Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
Canon 1.A. Independence
Canon1.B. Integrity
Abuse of Position – Canon 2.C. Abuse of Position
CANON 2
A JUDICIAL EMPLOYEE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL EMPLOYMENT
IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY.
Rule 2.1
Rule 2.2
Rule 2.3
Rule 2.4
Rule 2.5
Rule 2.6
Rule 2.7
Rule 2.8
Rule 2.9
Rule 2.10
Rule 2.11
Rule 2.12
Rule 2.13
Rule 2.14
Rule 2.15
Giving Priority to Ethical Duties
Impartiality and Fairness – Canon 3.B. Impartiality
Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment – Canon 3.C.Prejudice
External Influences on Court Duties - replaces similar language in Canon 3.B.
Impartiality
Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation
Canon 3.F. Education
Canon 3.D. Information and Records
Assistance to Litigants – Canon 3.E. Customer Assistance
Reserved
Professionalism – Canon 3.A.
Communication with Judges – Canon 3.G. Communication with Judges
Statements on Pending and Impending Cases – Canon 3.G. Communication with
Judges
Personal Interests – Canon 4.C. Personal Conflict of Interest
Reserved
Employment of Relatives – Canon 2.D. Employment of Relatives
Disability and Impairment
Duty to Report – Canon 3.H. Duty to Report
CANON 3
A JUDICIAL EMPLOYEE SHALL CONDUCT ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE OF JUDICIAL
EMPLOYMENT TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH THE OBLIGATIONS OF
JUDICIAL EMPLOYMENT.
Rule 3.1
Rule 3.2
Rule 3.3
Rule 3.4
Rule 3.5
Outside Activities in General
Canon 4.A. General Activities
Canon 4.B. Financial Activities
Use of Nonpublic Information – Canon 3.D. Information and Records
Solicitation for Outside Activities – Canon 4.D. Solicitation
Gifts and Extra Compensation – Canon 2.B. Gifts and Extra Compensation
Reimbursement of Expenses and Waivers of Fees or Charges
CANON 4
A JUDICIAL EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE FOR JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT OFFICE SHALL
NOT ENGAGE IN POLITICAL OR CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH
THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, OR IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY.
Rule 4.1
Rule 4.2
Rule 4.3
Rule 4.4
Rule 4.5
Rule 4.6
Rule 4.7
Rule 4.8
General Activities – Canon 5.A. General Activities
Personal Staff, Courtroom Clerks, and Managers – Canon 5.B. Personal Staff,
Courtroom Clerks, and Managers
Elective Judicial Department Office
Elective Office in General – Canon 5.C. Elective Office
Workplace Activity – Canon 5.D. Workplace Activity
Political Pressure – Canon 5.E. Political Pressure
Judicial Campaign Activity – Canon 5.F. Judicial Campaign Activity
Political Discrimination – Canon 5.G. Political Discrimination
ARIZONA CODE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
Part 1: Judicial Branch Administration
Chapter 3: Judicial Officers and Employees
Section 1-303: Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees
A. Contents
Preliminary Sections
A.
B.
C.
D.
Contents
Purpose and Intent
Terminology
Conduct Rules and Comments
Canon 1. A judicial employee shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and
impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety.
Rule 1.1
Rule 1.2
Rule 1.3
Compliance with the Law
Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
Abuse of Position – Canon 2.C. Abuse of Position
Canon 2. A judicial employee shall perform the duties of judicial employment impartially,
competently, and diligently.
Rule 2.1
Rule 2.2
Rule 2.3
Rule 2.4
Rule 2.5
Rule 2.6
Rule 2.7
Rule 2.8
Rule 2.9
Rule 2.10
Rule 2.11
Rule 2.12
Rule 2.13
Rule 2.14
Rule 2.15
Giving Priority to Ethical Duties
Impartiality and Fairness
Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment
External Influences on Court Duties
Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation
Assistance to Litigants
Reserved
Professionalism
Communication with Judges
Statements on Pending and Impending Cases
Personal Interests – Canon 4.C. Personal Conflict of Interest
Reserved
Employment of Relatives
Disability and Impairment
Duty to Report
Canon 3. A judicial employee shall conduct activities outside of judicial employment to minimize
the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial employment.
Rule 3.1
Rule 3.2
Rule 3.3
Outside Activities in General
Use of Nonpublic Information
Solicitation for Outside Activities
-1-
Rule 3.4
Rule 3.5
Gifts and Extra Compensation
Reimbursement of Expenses and Waivers of Fees or Charges
Canon 4. A judicial employee or candidate for judicial department office shall not engage in
political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or
impartiality of the judiciary.
Rule 4.1
Rule 4.2
Rule 4.3
Rule 4.4
Rule 4.5
Rule 4.6
Rule 4.7
Rule 4.8
General Activities
Personal Staff, Courtroom Clerks, and Managers
Elective Judicial Department Office
Elective Office in General
Workplace Activity
Political Pressure
Judicial Campaign Activity
Political Discrimination
B. Purpose and Intent.
PREAMBLE
A fair and independent court system is essential to the administration of justice. Proper
conduct by judicial employees inspires public confidence and trust in the courts. There are
certain principles that should govern the conduct of all judicial employees.
An independent, fair and impartial judiciary is indispensable to our system of justice. The
United States legal system is based upon the principle that an independent, impartial, and
competent judiciary, composed of men and women of integrity, will interpret and apply the law
that governs our society. Thus, the judiciary plays a central role in preserving the principles of
justice and the rule of law. Inherent in all the rules contained in this code are the precepts that
judicial employees, individually and collectively, must respect and honor judicial employment as
a public trust and strive to maintain and enhance confidence in the legal system.
Judicial employees should maintain the dignity of the judiciary at all times, and avoid both
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and personal lives. They
should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in their
independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence.
This code establishes uniform standards for the ethical conduct of judicial department
officials, not covered by the Code of Judicial Conduct, and judicial employees. It is not intended
to be exhaustive as persons governed by this code are also governed in their professional and
personal conduct by personnel policies, merit rules and general or special ethical standards. It
is intended to complement the Code of Judicial Conduct that governs the conduct of judges and
should be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with that code. The minimum standards
contained in this code do not preclude the adoption of more rigorous standards by law, court
order or local rule. Violations of this code shall be enforced locally and in the same manner as
violations of local personnel rules that apply to judicial employees.
-2-
C. Terminology Definitions
"Canon" means a fundamental principle governing the conduct of judicial employees. The
broad statement of principle appearing before each major section of the code is the canon. There
are four five canons in this code.
"Court managers" means high-level administrative staff who work in such close proximity
to judges that their actions, decisions or conduct might be viewed as the official acts or positions
of the judiciary. In the superior, municipal and justice trial courts, court managers include court
administrators, chief probation officers, juvenile court directors, and any other similar staff
designated by the clerk of the superior court, presiding judge, chief judge or chief justice of each
court county, but not except the elected clerks of court themselves. In the appellate courts, court
managers include clerks of the court, chief staff attorneys, the administrative director, deputy
director, division directors and other staff designated by the chief justice or chief judges.
Comment
The actual duties and reporting relationship of a court manager varies considerably from
position to position and from court to court, so the important consideration is what the court
manager does and not just the title of the position. Court managers who do not act as court
administrators and do not speak for the court as a whole may not be subject to the same
limitations as the court’s top administrator. It is the responsibility of the presiding judge,
chief judge or chief justice of each court to determine which local court managers are
included within the definition for their court.
"Courtroom clerks" means a staff person of the elected clerk of court, the chief clerk or a
judge of a justice or municipal court, a clerk who works regularly in staff of the elected clerk of
the court who are assigned to work in the courtroom with the a judge.
Comment
A courtroom clerk is staff of the elected clerk of the superior court or works under the
supervision of the chief clerk or the a judge of a justice or municipal court. The courtroom
clerk works with a particular judge or on a particular calendar as assigned. Due to the close
association with a judge, a courtroom clerk’s actions and comments might be attributed to the
judge.
“Domestic partner” means a person with whom another person maintains a household and
an intimate relationship, other than a person to whom he or she is legally married.
“Economic interest” means ownership of more than a de minimis or insignificant legal or
equitable interest and is further defined, for purposes of compliance with state law, in A.R.S. §
38-502(11). Except for situations in which the judicial employee participates in the management
of such a legal or equitable interest, or the interest could be substantially affected by the
outcome of a proceeding in which the judicial employee participates, it does not include:
-3-
(1) an interest in the individual holdings within a mutual or common investment fund;
(2) an interest in securities held by an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or
civic organization in which the judicial employee or the judicial employee’s
spouse, domestic partner, parent, or child serves as a director, an officer, an
advisor, or other participant;
(3) a deposit in a financial institution or deposits or proprietary interests the judicial
employee may maintain as a member of a mutual savings association or credit
union, or similar proprietary interests; or
(4) an interest in the issuer of government securities held by the judicial employee.
“Fiduciary” includes relationships such as executor, administrator, trustee, or guardian.
“Impartial,” “impartiality,” and “impartially” mean absence of bias or prejudice in favor
of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, in communication or conduct as well as
maintenance of neutrality concerning issues that may come before a judge.
“Impending” is a matter that is imminent or expected to occur in the near future.
“Incumbent” means the person who currently holds an elected office by election or
appointment to that office.
“Impropriety” includes conduct that violates the law, court rules, merit rules or provisions
of this Code, and conduct that undermines a judicial employee’s independence, integrity, or
impartiality.
“Independence” means a judicial employee’s freedom from influence or controls other than
those established by law.
“Integrity” means probity, fairness, honesty, uprightness, and soundness of character.
“Judge” means any person who is authorized to perform judicial functions within the
Arizona judiciary, including a justice or judge of a court of record, a justice of the peace,
magistrate, court commissioner, special master, hearing officer, referee or pro tempore judge.
means any person who serves as an officer and performs judicial functions within the judicial
system.
"Judicial employee" means any person other than a judge who performs duties in the
judicial department of this state, as it is defined in Az. Const. Art. 6 § 1, who directly or
indirectly affects the operation of the judiciary as a full time employee, a part time employee or a
volunteer. working in the judicial department, except Rule 3.1 (B) (1), (2) and (4) and Rule 4.4
of this code do not apply to a part time employee or a volunteer and Rule 4.4 does not apply to a
volunteer if the activity prohibited under these rules continued service to a court is consistent
with other provisions of this code and the Code of Judicial Conduct and approved by the
-4-
respective clerk of court, presiding judge, chief judge, or chief justice and except Rule 3.4
applies only to a gift from a person with whom a part time employee or a volunteer has been
involved in the performance of court duties.
“Law” encompasses court rules as well as ordinances, regulations, statutes, constitutional
provisions, and decisional law.
“Member of a judicial employee’s family residing in the employee’s household” means
any relative of a judicial employee by blood or marriage, or a person treated by the judicial
employee as a member of the family, who resides in the household.
“Nonpublic information” means information that is not available to the public. Nonpublic
information may include, but is not limited to, information that is sealed by statute or court
order or impounded or communicated in camera, and information offered in dependency cases
or psychiatric reports and any information contained in records that are closed or confidential
under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 123 or other law.
“Pending” is a matter that has commenced. A matter continues to be pending through any
appellate process until final disposition.
"Personal staff" means assistants, secretaries, law clerks, bailiffs, and court reporters
appointed employed by, assigned regularly to, or reporting directly to a judge.
Comment
If an employee has part time duties within the court or government in addition to serving
on a judge’s personal staff, as a courtroom clerk, or as a court manager, the employee is still
subject to the limitations of this code. The relationship with the judge exists whether or not
the duties are performed full time.
“Political organization” means a political party or other group sponsored by or affiliated
with a political party or candidate, the principal purpose of which is to further the election or
appointment of candidates for political office. For purposes of this code, the term does not
include a judicial candidate’s campaign committee created as authorized by Rule 4.3.
"Relative" means a spouse, child, grandchild, great-grandchild, parent, grandparent,
sibling, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or other person with whom the judicial employee maintains a
close familial relationship, including any person residing in the employee's household.
“Volunteer” is a person appointed or assigned by an authorized court official or other
appointing authority to perform specified duties on behalf of the court.
-5-
D. Conduct Rules and Comments.
CANON 1
A JUDICIAL EMPLOYEE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE,
INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY AND SHALL AVOID
IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
RULE 1.1
Compliance with the Law
Canon 2
A. Compliance with Law. Judicial employees shall respect and comply with the law and
shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary.
(A) A judicial employee shall comply with the law.
Canon 2
E. Use of Public Property.
(B) A judicial employees shall not use public funds, property or resources wastefully or for
any private purpose not authorized by judicial or other administrative authorities.
Canon 2
F. Former Employees.
(C) A judicial employees shall not do business on behalf of the court with a person known to
be a former judicial employee: who left the court's employment during the preceding twelve
months and who represents a person or business entity for compensation held a position
involving substantial discretion over that aspect of the court's activities; and concerning any
matter in which the former employee Who was directly and personally involved and over which
the former employee exercised substantial and material administrative discretion.
1. Who left the court's employment during the preceding twelve months; and
2. Whose participation could harm the interests of the judiciary or cause a perception of
favoritism.
Comment
[Editor’s note: combination of current code commentary on Canons 2.A., 2.E. and 2.F.]
1. As public servants, judicial employees should not act in any way that would violate
specific laws or the provisions of this code. Public confidence in the judiciary is maintained
by the willingness of each employee to live up to this standard. When faced with conflicting
loyalties, judicial employees should seek first to maintain public trust. Employees should not,
for example, knowingly make false entries on time cards or personnel records; backdate a
court document, falsely claim reimbursement for mileage or expenses; misuse the telephone,
facsimile machine, or copying machine; or take supplies home for private use. This conduct
-6-
may be theft, a class l misdemeanor ranging to a class 3 felony under A.R.S. § 13-1802 or
fraud, a class 2 felony under A.R.S. § 13-2310.
2. A judicial employee who knows a person who seeks to do business with the court is a
former employee must determine whether the former employee is disqualified under
paragraph (C). Abuse of former employment by a former employee may be a class 6 felony
under A.R.S. § 38-504(A).
RULE 1.2
Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
Canon 1
A. Independence. Judicial employees shall maintain high standards of conduct so the
independence of the judiciary is preserved.
B. Integrity. Judicial employees shall maintain and observe the highest standards of integrity,
honesty, and truthfulness in their professional and personal dealings.
A judicial employee shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety.
Comment
1. The fundamental attitudes and work habits of individual judicial employees reflect on
the integrity and independence of the judiciary and are of vital importance in maintaining the
confidence of the public in the judiciary. Honesty and truthfulness are paramount.
2. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct and conduct that
creates the appearance of impropriety. This principle applies to both professional conduct
and, depending on the position of the judicial employee and the circumstances, personal
conduct that affects the public perception of the court due to the position of the employee or
the circumstances.
3. A judicial employee should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might be
viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens, and must accept the restrictions imposed
by the code that apply to the judicial employee’s position.
4. Conduct that compromises or appears to compromise the independence, integrity,
and impartiality of the judiciary or of a judicial employee undermines public confidence in
the judiciary. Because it is not practicable to list all such conduct, this rule is necessarily
cast in general terms.
5. Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules or provisions of this code.
The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable
minds a perception that the judicial employee violated this code or engaged in other conduct
that reflects adversely on the judicial employee’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or
-7-
fitness. A judicial employee’s personal and family circumstances are generally not
appropriate considerations on which to presume an appearance of impropriety.
RULE 1.3
Canon 2.C.
Abuse of Position
Judicial employees shall not use or attempt to use their positions for personal gain or to
secure special privileges or exemptions for themselves or any other person.
Comment
1. It is improper for a judicial employee to use or attempt to use his or her position to
gain personal advantage or deferential treatment of any kind. For example, it would be
improper for a judicial employee should not, for example, to seek or provide special
consideration regarding traffic citations or parking violations; or to provide special treatment
to particular parties or matters, for personal reasons. Similarly, a judicial employee must not
use court letterhead to gain an advantage in conducting his or her personal business.
2. A judicial employee may provide a reference or recommendation for an individual
based upon personal knowledge. The judicial employee may use court letterhead if there is
no likelihood that the use of the letterhead would reasonably be perceived as an attempt to
exert pressure by reason of the court employment.
3. Accepting, agreeing to accept, giving or requesting a gift or favor with an
understanding that any court business or proceeding would be influenced may be bribery, a
class 4 felony under A.R.S. §§ 13-2602(A)(2) and 13-2606.
4. It is improper to use or disclose to others confidential information or records for
personal purposes. Abuse of confidential information by a current or former employee may
be a class 6 felony under A.R.S. § 38-504B.
-8-
CANON 2
A JUDICIAL EMPLOYEE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL
EMPLOYMENT IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY.
RULE 2.1
Giving Priority to Judicial Employment Ethical Duties
A court employee shall regard the ethical duties provided in this code of conduct as having
the highest priority.
Comment
To ensure that judicial employees are able to fulfill their court duties, judicial employees
must conduct their personal and professional activities to minimize the risk of conflicts that
would result in frequent disqualification with the performance of court duties.
RULE 2.2
Impartiality and Fairness
Canon 3
B. Impartiality.
A judicial employee shall perform court duties fairly and impartially.
Comment
Judicial employees may appear to be providing preferential treatment to litigants, counsel
or other persons with whom they discuss the merits of a case pending before the court or
behave in a particularly friendly manner be inappropriately friendly with litigants, counsel or
other persons who do business with the court, and thus give the appearance of preferential
treatment. To gauge the propriety of any behavior an action, employees should consider how
opposing parties and counsel who are involved in the proceeding are likely to view the
situation.
RULE 2.3
Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment
Canon 3
C. Prejudice.
A judicial employee shall perform court duties without bias or prejudice and shall not
manifest by words or conduct bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin,
disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, manifest bias or prejudice by words
or conduct, or engage in harassment in the performance of court duties. This includesing, but is
not limited to bias, prejudice, or harassment based upon race, sex, gender, religion, national
origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or
political affiliation.
-9-
Comment
1. A judicial employee who manifests bias or prejudice in the conduct of court business
impairs the fairness of the court proceeding judicial process and brings the judiciary into
disrepute.
2. Examples of manifestations of bias or prejudice include but are not limited to epithets;
slurs; demeaning nicknames; negative stereotyping; attempted humor based upon
stereotypes; threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts; suggestions of connections between
race, ethnicity, or nationality and crime; and irrelevant references to personal
characteristics. Facial expressions and body language and other forms of nonverbal
communication may convey to parties and lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media, and
others an appearance of bias or prejudice. A judicial employee must avoid conduct that may
reasonably be perceived as prejudiced or biased.
3. Harassment is verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or
aversion toward a person on bases such as race, sex, gender, religion, national origin,
ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socio-economic status, or
political affiliation.
4. Sexual harassment includes but is not limited to sexual advances, requests for sexual
favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that is unwelcome. See
Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Order 92-33 (Oct. 19, 1992), for the judiciary’s
sexual harassment policy.
RULE 2.4
External Influences on Court Duties
(A) A judicial employee shall not be influenced in the performance of court duties by
partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism or reprisal.
[Editor’s note: replaces similar language in Canon 3.B. Impartiality]
(B) A judicial employee shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests
or relationships to influence the performance of court duties.
(C) A judicial employee shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any
person or organization is in a position to influence the outcome of a case.
Comment
1. An independent judiciary requires that judges decide cases according to the law and
facts, without regard to whether particular laws or litigants are popular or unpopular with
the public, the media, government officials, or the judge’s or judicial employee’s friends or
family. Confidence in the judiciary is eroded if judicial process or decision making is
perceived to be subject to inappropriate outside influences.
-10-
2. Employees who think they may be influenced in a particular matter should discuss the
situation with a supervisor, administrator, or judge.
RULE 2.5
Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation
(A) A judicial employee shall perform court duties competently, diligently, and promptly.
(B) A judicial employee shall reasonably cooperate with other judicial employees, judges
and court officials in the conduct of court business.
Canon 3
F. Education.
(C) A judicial employee shall comply with judicial education requirements and maintain
any licensing or certification required for their the judicial employee’s position.
Canon 3
D. Information and Records.
(D) A judicial employee, when authorized, shall furnish accurate, timely information and
shall provide access to public court proceedings and records according to established procedures.
Comment
1. Competence in the performance of court duties requires the knowledge, skill,
thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary to perform the duties of the judicial
employee’s position.
2. Court managers should seek the necessary court staff, expertise, training, and
resources to enable court employees to perform their responsibilities.
3. Prompt disposition of the court’s business requires judicial employees to be punctual
in attending to their duties and cooperative with co-workers, judges, and litigants and their
lawyers. Article 2, § 11 of the Arizona Constitution requires that “Justice in all cases shall
be administered openly, and without unnecessary delay.” Rule 123(f)(2) of the Rules of the
Supreme Court require the custodian to “promptly respond orally or in writing concerning
the availability of the records, and provide the records in a reasonable time…”
RULE 2.6
Assistance to Litigants
A judicial employee shall assist litigants to access the courts by providing prompt and
courteous customer service and accurate information while remaining neutral and impartial and
avoiding the unauthorized practice of law. A judicial employee shallmust provide the assistance
authorized belowassistance, when such assistance is consistent with the employee’s assigned
duties responsibilities and established court policies and within of the employee’s and knowledge
and experiencethe court’s resources and procedures. An employee who cannotis unable to
-11-
provide assistance authorized belowassistance shall refer the litigant to an available another court
employeeresource, if appropriate, or a legal professional, as provided in paragraph H belowto
assist the litigant. Employees are authorized to provide the following assistance:
(A) Explain how to accomplish various actions within the court system and provide
information about court procedures, without recommending a particular course of action;
(B) Answer questions about court policies and procedures, without disclosing confidential or
restricted information as provided in Rule 3.2;
(C) Explain legal terms, without providing legal interpretations by applying legal terms and
concepts to specific facts;
(D) Provide forms and answer procedural questions about how to complete court papers and
forms with factual information by the court customer, without recommending what words to put
on the forms;
(E) Provide public case information, without providing confidential case information as
provided in Rule 2.5;
(F) Provide information on various procedural options, without giving an opinion about
what remedies to seek or which option is best;
(G) Cite statutes, court rules or ordinances a judicial employee knows in order to perform
the employee’s job, without performing legal research for court customers;
(H) When asked to recommend a legal professional such as an attorney, a legal document
preparer, or process server, refer the customer to a resource like a directory or referral service,
without recommending a specific legal professional; and
(I) Provide scheduling and other information about a case, without prejudicing another
party in the case or providing information to or from a judge that is impermissible ex parte (one
party) communication about a case.
Canon 3
E. Customer Assistance
A judicial employee may assist citizens in identifying available procedural options and in
understanding and complying with court procedures. Judicial employees shall not advise a
particular course of action.
Comment
For fuller explanation see the Guide to Court Customer Assistance: Legal Advice - Legal
Information Guidelines for Arizona Court Personnel, Administrative Office of the Courts, Court Services
Division, 2007 upon which this rule is based.
-12-
1. Employees may assist citizens, consistent with the court's resources, with matters within
the scope of their responsibilities and knowledge. This assistance may include providing
information contained in court records; furnishing examples of forms or pleadings, explaining
court rules, procedures, practices, and due dates,' and helping to complete forms with factual
information provided by a citizen. Although a person may be informed of the options for
addressing a matter, judicial employees should not advise citizens whether to take a particular
course of action or attempt to answer questions outside their knowledge and experience. In
performing their official duties, employees should not recommend the names of private attorneys
to the public unless the employee works in a court-approved lawyer-referral program, but may
refer members of the public to bar associations or legal aid organizations.
RULE 2.7
Reserved
RULE 2.8
Canon 3.A.
Professionalism
Judicial employees shall be patient, respectful, and courteous with litigants,
jurors, witnesses, lawyers, co-workers, and others who work in the court or come in contact with
the court.
Comment
The duty to interact and behave with patience and courtesy is not inconsistent with the
duty imposed in Rule 2.5 to handle matters diligently and promptly. Judicial employees can
be efficient and businesslike while being patient and courteous.
RULE 2.9
Canon 3.G.
Communication with Judges.
(A) A judicial employee shall not communicate personal knowledge about the facts of a
pending case to the judge assigned to the case.
(B) Based upon general direction by a judge, a judicial employee may communicate
information from a party to the judge for scheduling, administrative, or emergency purposes,
which does not address substantive matters.
Comment
To the extent reasonably possible, all parties or their lawyers shall be included in
communications with a judge. A judge may also direct judicial staff, without invoking the
notice and disclosure provisions of Rule 2.9 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, to screen
written ex parte communications and to take appropriate action consistent with Rule 2.9 of
the Code of Judicial Conduct.
-13-
RULE 2.10
Statements on Pending and Impending Cases
Canon 3
G. Communication with Judges.
(A) A judicial employee shall not make or repeat remarks about a case pending before an
Arizona court that might affect the fairness or outcome of the proceeding any public statement
that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter
pending or impending in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially
interfere with a fair trial or hearing.
(B) Notwithstanding the restrictions in paragraph (A), a judicial employee may make public
statements in the course of official duties, may explain court procedures, and may comment on
any proceeding in which the judicial employee is a litigant in a personal capacity.
Comment
1. This rule’s restrictions on speech are essential to the maintenance of the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.
2. This rule does not prohibit a judicial employee from commenting on proceedings in
which the judicial employee is a litigant in a personal capacity. In cases in which the judicial
employee is a litigant in an official capacity, the judicial employee may comment publicly on
the merits of the case. However, the judicial employee should consider whether any comment
is advisable and consistent with that employee’s responsibilities.
RULE 2.11
Canon 4.C.
Personal Conflict of Interests.
(A) A judicial employee shall manage personal and business matters so as to avoid situations
that may lead to conflict, or the appearance of conflict, in the performance of their the judicial
employee’s employment.
(B) A judicial employee shall inform the appropriate supervisor of any potential conflict
between the judicial employee’s performance of interest involving court duties and an economic
interest of the employee individually or as a fiduciary or of the employee’s spouse, domestic
partner, parent, or child, or any other member of the employee’s family residing in the
employee’s household.
(C) A member of a judge's personal staff and a the courtroom clerk shall inform the judge of
any potential conflict of interest, involvement, or activity of the staff member or courtroom clerk
in a case pending before the judge. This includes a case in which the judicial employee, the
judicial employee’s spouse or domestic partner, or a person within the third degree of
relationship to a great-grandparent, grandparent, parent, uncle, aunt, brother, sister, child,
grandchild, great-grandchild, nephew or niece of the judicial employee or the judicial
-14-
employee’s spouse or domestic partner either of them, or the spouse or domestic partner of such
a person of any of these relatives is:
(1)
a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, general partner, managing member,
or trustee of a party;
(2)
acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(3)
a person who has more than a de minimis (insignificant) interest that could be
substantially affected by the proceeding; or
likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(4)
(D) A judicial employee shall withdraw from participation in a court proceeding or court
business in which the employee or the employee’s spouse, domestic partner, parent, or child, or
any other member of the employee’s family residing in the employee’s household has a
substantial personal, economic, or family interest that may actually or appear to influence the
outcome of the court proceeding or business.
(E) A judicial employee shall withdraw from any proceeding in which the employee’s
impartiality might reasonably be questioned due to a personal bias or prejudice concerning a
party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.
(F) A judicial employee required to withdraw from participation in a judicial proceeding
under this rule, other than for bias or prejudice under paragraph (A)(4) (E), may continue to
perform duties related to the proceeding if, following disclosure to the parties and their lawyers,
the parties and lawyers agree, without participation by the judge or court personnel in this
decision, that the court employee need not withdraw. The agreement shall be incorporated into
the record of the proceeding.
Comment
1. Every judicial employee has a legal obligation under A.R.S. § 38-501 et. seq. to
diligently identify, disclose and avoid conflicts of interest. A potential personal interest or
conflict of interest exists when an official action or decision in which a judicial employee
participates may specially benefit or harm a personal, business or employment interest of the
judicial employee, the judicial employee's relative or the judicial employee's close friends. In
a judicial proceeding, a potential conflict of interest arises if a judicial employee's business
associate, relative or close friend is an interested party. Even if no impropriety actually
occurs, a conflict of interest creates an appearance of impropriety that can seriously
undermine the public's confidence and trust in the court system.
2. If withdrawal from a matter would cause unnecessary hardship, the judge or court
manager may authorize the judicial employee to participate in the matter if permitted by the
Code of Judicial Conduct, no reasonable alternative exists, and safeguards, including full
disclosure to the parties involved, ensure official duties are properly performed.
-15-
3. “Economic interest,” is defined in the Terminology section.
RULE 2.12
Reserved
RULE 2.13
Canon 2.D.
Employment of Relatives
Judicial employees shall not be appointed by, or assigned to be directly supervised by, a
relative or by a supervisor reporting to a relative. Employees shall not attempt to influence the
employment or advancement of a relative by a court except by letters of reference or in response
to a person verifying references.
Comment
Employment of a relative by a court manager may be a class 2 misdemeanor under
A.R.S. § 38-481.
RULE 2.14
Disability and Impairment
A judicial employee who has a reasonable belief that the performance of another judicial
employee or a judge is impaired by drugs or alcohol, or by a mental, emotional, or physical
condition, shall immediately report the observed behavior to a supervisor, administrator, the
appropriate Human Resources Office, or the Commission on Judicial Conduct. A judicial
employee who receives a report of impairment shall take appropriate action, which may include
a confidential referral when the judge or judicial employee agrees to seek assistance from an
appropriate assistance program.
Comment
1. “Appropriate action” means action intended and reasonably likely to help the
impaired person address the problem and prevent harm to the justice system. Depending
upon the circumstances, appropriate action may include but is not limited to speaking
directly to the impaired person, notifying an individual with supervisory responsibility over
the impaired person, or making a referral to an assistance program.
2. Taking or initiating corrective action by way of referral of a cooperative judge or
judicial employee to an assistance program may satisfy a the responsibility of judicial
employee who receives a report under this rule. Assistance programs have many approaches
for offering help to impaired judicial employees and judges, such as intervention, counseling,
or referral to appropriate health care professionals. Depending upon the gravity of the
conduct that has come to the been reported judicial employee’s attention, however, the
judicial employee who receives a report may be required to take other action, such as
reporting the impaired person to the appropriate supervisory or disciplinary authority or the
Commission on Judicial Conduct, agency, or body. See Rule 2.15.
-16-
RULE 2.15
Canon 3.H.
Duty to Report
A judicial employee shall report to a supervisor, administrator or judge within the judicial
department any violation of the law in the course of court employment or that may affect the
violator’s ability to perform court duties or this and any violation of the applicable code of
conduct by a judge, another judicial employee, or the reporting employee. Employees shall not
be subject to retaliation for reporting violations if such report is made in good faith and shall
cooperate and be candid and honest in any investigation and disciplinary proceeding.
Comment
1. This obligation does not prohibit reporting illegal conduct to a law enforcement
agency or other appropriate authority.
2. Employees should cooperate with the Commission on Judicial Conduct and may
communicate with the Commission at any time, without fear of reprisal, for the purpose of
discussing potential or actual judicial misconduct. Cooperation with investigations and
discipline proceedings, as required in paragraph (A), instills confidence in judicial
employees’ commitment to the integrity of the judicial system and the protection of the
public.
3. A judicial employee who does not have actual knowledge that another employee may
have committed misconduct, but receives information indicating a substantial likelihood of
such misconduct, is required to take appropriate action. Appropriate action may include, but
is not limited to, communicating directly with the employee who may have violated this code
or communicating with a supervisor, administrator or judge.
-17-
CANON 3
A JUDICIAL EMPLOYEE SHALL CONDUCT ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE OF JUDICIAL
EMPLOYMENT TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT
WITH THE OBLIGATIONS OF JUDICIAL EMPLOYMENT.
RULE 3.1
Outside Activities in General.
Canon 4
A. General Activities
(A) A judicial employee shall conduct outside activities so as to avoid a negative effect on
the court or the ability to perform court duties.
Canon 4
B. Financial Activities
(B) Except as provided by law or court rule, judicial employees shall not engage in any
business, secondary employment or volunteer activity that:
(1)
Involves an organization or a private employer whose officers, employees or agents
are that regularly conducts business involved as a litigant, an attorney, or a witness in
cases filed with the court in which the judicial employee is employed;
(2)
Is conducted during the judicial employee's scheduled normal working hours;
(3)
Places the judicial employee in a position of conflict with his or her the judicial
employee’s official role in the judicial department;
(4)
Requires the judicial employee to appear regularly in judicial or administrative
agency proceedings;
(5)
Identifies the judicial employee with the judicial department or gives an impression
the employment or activity is on behalf of the judicial department; or
(6)
Requires use of court equipment, materials, supplies, telephone services, office space,
computer time, or facilities.
(C) Paragraph B does not apply to court reporters appointed pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-221
when preparing transcripts pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-223 and 12-224. A person may serve as a
volunteer and also engage in an activity described in subsection B (1) or (4). A part time
employee may engage in such an activity approved by the respective clerk of superior court,
presiding judge, chief judge, or chief justice of a court consistent with other provisions of this
code and the Code of Judicial Conduct.
-18-
Comment
1. In order to avoid any employment or volunteer activity that is in conflict with a
judicial employee's official role within the judiciary, a judicial employee should not, for
example, work for a police department, public defender, or prosecutor.
2. Judicial employees may become foster parents and may teach, lecture, or write on any
subject, so long as any payment is at the prevailing rate, any presentation or document
clarifies that the judicial employee is not representing the judicial department, and
confidential documents and information are not disclosed.
RULE 3.2
Use of Nonpublic Information
Canon 3
D. Information and Records
A judicial employee shall not disclose any confidential information received in the course of
official duties, except as required in the performance of such duties, or use such information for
personal gain or advantage.
A judicial employee shall not intentionally disclose or use nonpublic information acquired
in an official capacity for any purpose unrelated to the employee’s duties.
Comment
1. In the course of performing court duties a judicial employee may acquire information
of commercial or other value that is unavailable to the public. The judicial employee must
not reveal or use such information for personal gain or advantage or for any purpose
unrelated to court duties.
2. This rule is not intended to affect a judicial employee’s ability to act on information as
necessary to protect the health or safety of any individual if consistent with other provisions
of this code.
3. Some information received by judicial employees while performing their duties is
confidential and should not be revealed. Sometimes confidential matters are revealed
through innocent and casual remarks about pending or closed cases, about participants in
litigation, or about juries, any of which could give attorneys, litigants and reporters an unfair
advantage. Such remarks can seriously prejudice a case or harm a person's standing in the
community.
-19-
RULE 3.3
Canon 4.D.
Solicitation for Outside Activities
(A) A judicial employees shall not use the employee’s their positions or office to solicit
funds, but a judicial employee, other than a member of a judge's personal staff, a courtroom
clerk, or a court manager, may solicit funds in connection with outside activities.
(B) A member of a judge's personal staff, a courtroom clerk, or a court manager is subject to
the same limitations on solicitation as judges stated in Rule 3.7, Code of Judicial Conduct.
Comment
A judicial employees should not personally request or by action or inference solicit a
subordinates to contribute funds to any organization or activity but may provide information
to subordinates them about a general fund-raising campaign. A member of a judge's personal
staff, a the courtroom clerk, or a court manager should not request or by action or inference
solicit any litigant, attorney or judicial employee to contribute funds under circumstances
where their close relationship to the judge could reasonably be viewed to give weight to the
request.
RULE 3.4
Canon 2.B.
Gifts and Extra Compensation
(A) A judicial employees shall not solicit gifts or favors nor accept gifts or favors, other than
those listed in paragraph B, from attorneys, litigants, or other persons known to do business with
the court and shall not request or accept any payment in addition to their the judicial employee’s
regular compensation for assistance given as part of official duties. This rule does not apply to a
volunteer soliciting or accepting a gift from a person with whom the volunteer has not been
involved in the performance of court duties.
(B) A judicial employee may accept the following:
(1)
items with little intrinsic value, such as plaques, certificates, trophies, and greeting
cards;
(2)
gifts, loans, bequests, benefits, or other things of value from friends, relatives, or
other persons, including lawyers, whose appearance or interest in a proceeding
pending or impending would in any event require disqualification of withdrawal
from participation by the judicial employee under Rule 2.11;
(3)
ordinary social hospitality;
(4)
commercial or financial opportunities and benefits, including special pricing and
discounts, and loans from lending institutions in their regular course of business, if
-20-
the same opportunities and benefits or loans are made available on the same terms to
similarly situated persons who are not judicial employees;
(5)
rewards and prizes given to competitors or participants in random drawings,
contests, or other events that are open to persons who are not judicial employees;
(6)
scholarships, fellowships, and similar benefits or awards granted on the same terms
and based on the same criteria applied to other applicants;
(7)
books, magazines, journals, audiovisual materials, and other resource materials
supplied by publishers on a complimentary basis for official use; or
(8)
gifts, awards, or benefits associated with the business, profession, or other separate
activity of a spouse, a domestic partner, or other family member of a judicial
employee residing in the judicial employee’s household, but that incidentally benefit
the judicial employee;
(9)
gifts incident to a public testimonial or other event honoring the recipient; or
(10) invitations to the judicial employee and the judicial employee’s spouse, domestic
partner, or guest to attend without charge:
(a) an event associated with a bar-related function or other activity relating to the
law, the legal system, or the administration of justice; or
(b) an event associated with a judicial employee’s educational, religious, charitable,
fraternal or civic activities, if the same invitation is offered to persons who are not
judicial employees and who are engaged in similar ways in the activity as is the
judicial employee.
Comment
1. Whenever a judicial employee accepts a gift or other thing of value without paying
fair market value, there is a risk that the benefit might be viewed as intended to influence the
judge’s decision or a judicial employee’s action in a case. Rule 3.13 prohibits the acceptance
of such benefits except in circumstances where the risk of improper influence is low.
Examples of improper conduct include seeking a favor or receiving a gift, or the promise of
one, whether it be money, services, travel, food, entertainment, or hospitality, that could be
viewed as a reward for past or future services. Receiving fees or compensation not provided
by law in return for public services may be a class 6 felony or a class 1 misdemeanor under
A.R.S. § 38-504 subject to the penalties in A.R.S. § 38-510.
2. Gift-giving between friends and relatives is a common occurrence, and ordinarily
does not create an appearance of impropriety or cause reasonable persons to believe that a
judicial employee’s or judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality has been
compromised. In addition, when the appearance of friends or relatives in a case would
-21-
require the judge’s or the judicial employee’s withdrawal disqualification under Rule 2.11,
there would be no opportunity for a gift to influence the performance of court duties.
Paragraph (B)(2) places no restrictions upon the ability of a judge to accept gifts or other
things of value from friends or relatives under these circumstances but may require public
reporting.
3. The receipt of ordinary social hospitality, commensurate with the occasion, is not
likely to undermine the integrity of the judiciary. If an event is a traditional occasion for
social hospitality such as a holiday party or the opening of an office and is not
inappropriately lavish or expensive, it may qualify as "ordinary social hospitality.” However,
the receipt of other gifts and things of value from an attorney or party who has or is likely to
do business with the court will be appropriate only in the rarest of circumstances.
4. Businesses and financial institutions frequently make available special pricing,
discounts, and other benefits, either in connection with a temporary promotion or for
preferred customers, based upon longevity of the relationship, volume of business transacted,
and other factors. A judicial employee may freely accept such benefits if they are available to
the general public, or if the judicial employee qualifies for the special price or discount
according to the same criteria as are applied to persons who are not judicial employees. As
an example, loans provided at generally prevailing interest rates are not gifts, but a judicial
employee could not accept a loan from a financial institution at below-market interest rates
unless the same rate was being made available to the general public for a certain period of
time or only to borrowers with specified qualifications that the judicial employee also
possesses.
5. If a gift or other benefit is given to the judicial employee’s spouse, domestic partner,
or member of the judicial employee’s family residing in the judicial employee’s household, it
may be viewed as an attempt to influence the judicial employee indirectly. A judicial
employee should remind family and household members of the reporting requirements
imposed upon judicial employees by Rule 3.15, and urge them to take these restrictions into
account when making decisions about accepting such gifts or benefits.
RULE 3.5
Reimbursement of Expenses and Waivers of Fees or Charges
(A) Unless otherwise prohibited by Rules 3.1 and 3.13(A) or other law, a judicial employee
may accept reimbursement of necessary and reasonable expenses for travel, food, lodging, or
other incidental expenses, or a waiver or partial waiver of fees or charges for registration,
tuition, and similar items, from sources other than the judicial employee’s employing entity, if
the expenses or charges are associated with the judicial employee’s participation in outside
activities permitted by this code.
(B) Reimbursement of expenses for necessary travel, food, lodging, or other incidental
expenses shall be limited to the actual costs reasonably incurred by the judicial employee and,
when appropriate to the occasion, by the judicial employee’s spouse, domestic partner, or guest.
-22-
(C) This rule does not apply to reimbursement of a part time employee or a volunteer for
expenses not incurred in the performance of court duties.
Comment
Educational, civic, religious, fraternal, and charitable organizations often sponsor
meetings, seminars, symposia, dinners, awards ceremonies, and similar events. Judicial
employees are encouraged to attend educational programs, as both teachers and
participants in furtherance of their duty to remain competent. Participation in a variety of
other extrajudicial activity is also permitted and encouraged by this code.
-23-
CANON 4
A JUDICIAL EMPLOYEE OR CANDIDATE FOR JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT OFFICE
SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN POLITICAL OR CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY THAT IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, OR IMPARTIALITY OF
THE JUDICIARY.
RULE 4.1
General Activities
In general, a judicial employee may participate in any political activities that do not give the
impression the judiciary itself endorses political candidates or supports political causes, except
when assigned to do so regarding measures to improve the law, the legal system, or
the administration of justice.
Comment
1. The judiciary seeks to maintain neutrality in political matters. While judicial employees
may express and act on personal opinions about political candidates and issues as other
citizens, they should maintain neutrality in action and appearance when performing their
duties on behalf of the judicial department, unless their positions permit political
advocacy on the part of the judiciary. To this end, judicial employees should separate
their political activities from employment duties.
2. As long as a judicial employee does not give the impression the judiciary itself endorses a
political candidate or supports a political cause, the employee may circulate candidate
nomination petitions or recall petitions; engage in activities to advocate the election or
defeat of any candidate; solicit or encourage contributions to be made directly to
candidates or campaign committees which are contributing to candidates or advocating
the election or defeat of candidates.
3. An employee can best avoid the impression political activity is on behalf of the judiciary
by not identifying himself or herself as a court employee while engaging in political
activities or, if asked, explaining that the he or she is simply participating as a concerned
citizen. These political activities must be conducted outside of normal working hours
and away from the work place to avoid any association with the court.
RULE 4.2
Personal Staff, Courtroom Clerks, and Managers.
In addition to the other sections of this canon, members of a judge's personal staff,
courtroom clerks, and court managers shall be subject to the same political limitations as judges
contained in Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, except as provided in Rule 4.3 of this
code, and may not hold any elective office.
-24-
RULE 4.3
Elective Judicial Department Office
Any judicial employee may be a candidate for an elective judicial department office without
resigning or taking a leave of absence as required by other rules unless the office is within the
same court in which the judicial employee is employed and the incumbent of that office is
seeking reelection. If elected, the judicial employee shall resign from court employment prior to
assuming office. An incumbent clerk of superior court may be a candidate for the office held
without resigning or taking a leave of absence. This provision does not authorize a candidacy by
an employee that is prohibited by state law or local ordinance.
RULE 4.4
Elective Office In General
A judicial employee who is not limited under Rule 4.2 as a member of a judge's personal
staff, a courtroom clerk, or a court manager and who is not seeking judicial department office as
permitted in Rule 4.3 may be a candidate for elective office under the following conditions:
(A) Partisan. Such a judicial employee may be a candidate for partisan elective office if the
judicial employee is authorized to take an unpaid leave of absence. A leave of absence must be
approved by the judicial employee’s appointing authority, i.e. presiding judge, chief judge, chief
justice or elected clerk of court. The leave of absence must begin before the judicial employee
makes a public announcement of candidacy, declares or files as a candidate with the election or
appointment authority, authorizes or engages in solicitation or acceptance of contributions or
support, or is nominated for election or appointment to office any public declaration of an
intention to seek office, including the filing of campaign papers, and prior to any fund-raising for
the judicial employee's campaign. The judicial employee shall publicly disclose that he or she is
on a leave of absence from court employment. If elected, the judicial employee shall resign from
court employment prior to assuming office.
(B) Non-partisan. Such a judicial employee may be a candidate for nonpartisan elective
office without taking a leave of absence or separating from court employment if:
(1)
The judicial employee first seeks permission from the chief justice, chief judge,
presiding judge of the court or clerk of court;
(2)
That judicial officer or clerk of court determines the office sought is consistent with
judicial employment; and
(3)
The judicial employee otherwise complies with this code.
(C) A person may continue to serve as a volunteer while campaigning for an elective office
if continued service is approved by the respective clerk of superior court, presiding judge, chief
judge, or chief justice of a court consistent with other provisions of this code and the Code of
Judicial Conduct.
-25-
(A) Incumbent elected clerks of the court may be candidates for their offices without taking
a leave of absence and are not subject to the provisions of this section.
RULE 4.5
Workplace Activity
During scheduled work hours or at the workplace, judicial employees shall not engage in
political campaign activities and shall not display literature, badges, stickers, signs, or other
political advertisements on behalf of any party, political committee, agency, or candidate
for political office or ballot measure. Judicial employees authorized to do so may participate in
approved activities regarding measures to improve the law, the legal system, or the
administration of justice.
Comment
A personal vehicle parked in a space or a parking lot reserved for court employees is
covered by these work place limitations. Where such reserved parking exists, displaying
political materials on vehicles brings political advocacy to the workplace because the parking
lot is part of the workplace.
RULE 4.6
Political Pressure
Judicial employees shall not use their official authority or position, directly or indirectly, to
influence or attempt to influence any other judicial employee to become a member of any
political organization or to take part in any political activity.
RULE 4.7
Judicial Campaign Activity
Judicial employees, including members of a judge's personal staff, courtroom clerks and
court managers, may voluntarily participate in a judge's or clerk's campaign activities and may
voluntarily contribute funds to a campaign, but only through a judge's or clerk's fund-raising
committee. However, judges, elected clerks of the court, and court managers or supervisors shall
not require subordinate judicial employees to participate in political activities or personally
receive funds from judicial employees for any political purpose.
RULE 4.8
Political Discrimination
Judicial employees shall not discriminate in favor of or against any subordinate or any
applicant for judicial employment on account of permitted political activities.
-26-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
____________________________________
In the Matter of:
)
)
LEGAL ADVICE – LEGAL
)
INFORMATION GUIDELINES
)
MANDATORY SIGNAGE
)
____________________________________)
Administrative Order
No. 2007 - 28
Administrative Order No. 2006-40 entered on May 3, 2006, established the Legal Advice –
Legal Information Guidelines Task Force to review materials and information gathered from other
states that have adopted policy statements, develop standards adopting authoritative distinctions
between legal information and legal advice for guidance to court staff, and to determine the best
method(s) for implementation of the proposed guidelines in Arizona’s courts that will promote
consistent quality service. The Court further ordered the Task Force to provide a final report and
recommendations to the Arizona Judicial Council for adoption by March 2007.
On March 6, 2007, the Arizona Judicial Council approved the Task Force’s final report and
recommendations, including the recommendation that the signage in Appendix A be prominently
displayed at court service counters, self-service centers, and law libraries open to the public. The
Council further approved the posting of signage in Spanish at the discretion of each court.
Now, therefore, pursuant to Article VI, Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution,
IT IS ORDERED that the attached content is approved for posting and shall be prominently
displayed at court service counters, self-service centers, and law libraries open to the public no later
than December 31, 2007.
Dated this 22nd day of March, 2007.
____________________________________
RUTH V. MCGREGOR
Chief Justice
APPENDIX A
WELCOME TO THE ARIZONA COURTS
WE WILL BE HAPPY TO HELP YOU IF WE CAN. AS WE MUST BE FAIR TO
EVERYONE, WE ARE ALLOWED TO HELP YOU ONLY IN CERTAIN WAYS.
This is a list of some things court personnel can and cannot do for you:
We can
***************************
explain and answer general questions about how the court works.
We can
give you general information about court rules, procedures, and practices.
We can
provide you with the number for lawyer referral services, legal aid programs, and
other services where you can get legal information.
We can
provide court schedules and information on how to get a case scheduled.
We can
give you information from your case file that is not restricted.
We can
provide you with court forms and instructions that are available.
We can
usually answer questions about court deadlines.
We cannot
***************************
tell you whether or not you should bring your case to court.
We cannot
tell you what words to use in your court papers or whether they are correct.
We cannot
tell you what to say in court.
We cannot
give you an opinion about what will happen if you bring your case to court.
We cannot
conduct legal research for you.
We cannot
talk to the judge for you or let you talk to the judge outside of court.
We cannot
alter court documents.
OUR ABILITY TO ASSIST YOU WILL DEPEND ON THE TIME AND RESOURCES
AVAILABLE AS WELL AS THE SCOPE OF OUR RESPONSIBILITIES, KNOWLEDGE
AND EXPERIENCE.