A recent informal judicial ethics advisory opinion from Utah deals with 18 questions concerning a judge’s extrajudicial activities.

The Committee believes that many of these questions were adequately addressed in Informal Opinion 15-1. The Committee nevertheless provides additional guidance through this opinion.

The 18 questions can be grouped into categories. The first category involves a judge’s title and whether a judge may engage in certain private activities if the judge’s title is not used. The next category involves statements made about political candidates. The third category involves a judge’s fundraising activities. The final category involves parameters on a judge publically addressing issues that affect the judge’s personal interests.

The Code of Judicial Conduct is divided into four canons. Canon 1 contains the general provisions that apply to a judge’s activities both on and off the bench. Canon 2 governs a judge’s conduct when specifically acting as a judge. Canon 3 addresses a judge’s off-the-bench conduct. Canon 4 covers a judge’s political activities, including conduct while acting as a judge and conduct in private life…

…the Code of Judicial Conduct applies to a judge’s off-the-bench activities and applies whether or not a judge’s title is used. By accepting a nomination to the bench, a judge accepts restrictions that are not placed on other members of society. As stated in Comment 2 to Rule 1.2, “a judge 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.” These requirements ensure a fair, independent, and impartial judiciary.