As of August 31, 2016
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
CPR POLICY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
COMPARISON OF ABA MODEL JUDICIAL CODE AND STATE VARIATIONS
RULE 3.1: Extrajudicial Activities in General
A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, except as prohibited by law* or this
Code. However, when engaging in extrajudicial activities, a judge shall not:
(A) participate in activities that will interfere with the proper performance
of the judge’s judicial duties;
(B) participate in activities that will lead to frequent disqualification of the
judge;
(C) participate in activities that would appear to a reasonable person to
undermine the judge’s independence,* integrity,* or impartiality;*
(D) engage in conduct that would appear to a reasonable person to be
coercive; or
(E) make use of court premises, staff, stationery, equipment, or other
resources, except for incidental use for activities that concern the law, the
legal system, or the administration of justice, or unless such additional use is
permitted by law.
COMMENT
[1] To the extent that time permits, and judicial independence and impartiality are not
compromised, judges are encouraged to engage in appropriate extrajudicial activities.
Judges are uniquely qualified to engage in extrajudicial activities that concern the law,
the legal system, and the administration of justice, such as by speaking, writing, teaching,
or participating in scholarly research projects. In addition, judges are permitted and
encouraged to engage in educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic extrajudicial
activities not conducted for profit, even when the activities do not involve the law. See
Rule 3.7.
[2] Participation in both law-related and other extrajudicial activities helps integrate
judges into their communities, and furthers public understanding of and respect for
courts and the judicial system.
[3] Discriminatory actions and expressions of bias or prejudice by a judge, even outside
the judge’s official or judicial actions, are likely to appear to a reasonable person to call
into question the judge’s integrity and impartiality. Examples include jokes or other
remarks that demean individuals based upon their race, sex, gender, religion, national
origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. For the
same reason, a judge’s extrajudicial activities must not be conducted in connection or
affiliation with an organization that practices invidious discrimination. See Rule 3.6.
[4] While engaged in permitted extrajudicial activities, judges must not coerce others or
take action that would reasonably be perceived as coercive. For example, depending
upon the circumstances, a judge’s solicitation of contributions or memberships for an
organization, even as permitted by Rule 3.7(A), might create the risk that the person
solicited would feel obligated to respond favorably, or would do so to curry favor with
As of August 31, 2016
the judge.
Seven (7) states have identical language (CO, CT, DC, MT, NE, NV, and WY)
Nineteen (19) states have similar language (AZ, AR, CA, HI, IN, IA, KS, ME, MD, MN,
MO, NH, NM, OH, OK, OR, PA, TN, and UT)
Three (3) states have different language (DE, SD, and WA)
AL
AK
AZ
Effective
9/1/2009
AR
Effective
7/1/2009
CA
Effective
1/1/2013
CO
Effective
7/1/2010
CT
Effective
1/1/2011
DE
Effective
11/1/2008
(c): adds “or demean the judicial office” to end
(E): deletes “incidental use for”
Adds [5]: The telecommunications policy of the Arizona judiciary, which defines the
permissible uses of electronic equipment, is set forth in Part 1, Chapter 5, § 1-503 of the
Arizona Code of Judicial Administration.
[3]: replaces examples in second sentence with “personal characteristics”
Adds [5A]: Before speaking or writing about social or political issues, judges should
consider the impact of their statements. Comments may suggest that the judge lacks
impartiality. See Rule 1.2. They may create the impression that a judge has or manifests
bias or prejudice toward individuals with contrary social or political views. See Rule 2.3.
Public comments may require the judge to disqualify himself or herself when litigation
involving those issues comes before the judge. See Rule 2.11. When making such
statements, a judge should acknowledge the overarching judicial obligation to apply and
uphold the law, without regard to his or her personal views.
Canon 4A(4) and Commentary. New. Based on the Model Rule. Substantially the same,
but CA adds an explanatory sentence: “Because a judge’s judicial duties take precedence
over all other activities (see Canon 3A), a judge must avoid extrajudicial activities that
might reasonably result in the judge being disqualified.” The commentary expands the
list of classifications.
Commentary to Canon 5A – 3d paragraph. Adds the language to discourage judges from
unreasonably pressuring potential contributors or endorsers.
Identical
Identical
First paragraph: A judge, subject to the proper performance of judicial duties, may
engage in the following law-related activities if in doing so the judge does not cast
reasonable doubt on the capacity to decide impartially, independently and with integrity
any issue that may come before the judge:
(A): similar to 1990 Model Code Canon 4B but deletes “extra-judicial” and replaces
language after “justice” with “(including projects directed to the drafting of legislation)”
Comment: same as 1990 Model Code Canon 2B Commentary second paragraph third
sentence
(B) A judge may write, lecture, teach, and speak on non-legal subjects, and engage in the
As of August 31, 2016
arts, sports, and other social and recreational activities, if such avocational activities do
not detract from the dignity of the judge’s office or interfere with the performance of the
judge’s judicial duties.
DC
Effective
1/1/2012
FL
HI
Effective
1/1/2009
ID
Effective
7/1/2016
Comment: same as 1990 Model Code Canon 4A Commentary first paragraph but
replaces “community” with “society”
(C) A judge may engage in activities to improve the law, the legal system, and the
administration of justice.
(D) A judge should not use judicial chambers, resources, or staff to engage in activities
permitted by this Canon 3, except for uses that are de minimis.
Has no (E)
Has no equivalent to Model Code Comments
Identical
First paragraph: adds “law-related and other” after “engage in”
(A): replaces “judge’s judicial duties” with “duties of judicial office”
(B): same as 1990 Model Code Canon 4A(2)
(C): replaces “undermine” with “materially impair” and adds “temperament, or fitness to
fulfill the duties of judicial office” to end
Deletes (E)
[1]: adds second sentence “However, when engaging in extrajudicial activities, a judge
shall not participate in activities that will lead to frequent disqualification or recusal of
the judge.”
[3]: replaces “judge’s judicial or official actions” with “duties of judicial office” and adds
“marital status” and “political affiliation, or personal characteristics” to list of examples
[3]: Deletes all MR text after the first sentence and replaces with: “For the same reason, a
judge’s extrajudicial activities must not be conducted in connection or affiliation with an
organization that practices invidious discrimination. See Rule 3.6.”
Adds [5]: While judges are not prohibited from participating in online social networks,
such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and the like, they should exercise restraint and
caution in doing so. A judge should not identify himself as such, either by words or
images, when engaging in commentary or interaction that is not in keeping with the
limitations of this Code.
IL
IN
Effective
1/1/2009
IA
Effective
5/3/2010
(E): deletes language after “justice”
In first paragraph, adds “However” before “when engaging.”
As of August 31, 2016
KS
Effective
3/1/2009
KY
MD
Effective
7/1/2010
MA
Effective
1/1/2016
ME
Effective
9/1/2015
MI
MN
Effective
7/1/2009
MO
Effective
1/1/2012
(c): adds “or demeans the judicial office” to end
Deletes (E)
Deletes “However,” before “when engaging”
(e) Changes language to read: make inappropriate use of court premises, staff,
stationery, equipment, or other resources.
[1] Deletes “appropriate” before “extrajudicial activities”
(B): Changes “frequent” to “recurrent”
(E): Deletes “or unless such additional use is permitted by law.”
[1]: Deletes MR examples of permitted extrajudicial activities; Adds sentence to end:
“Participation in both law-related and other extrajudicial activities helps integrate judges
into their communities, and furthers public understanding of and respect for courts and
the judicial system.”
[2]: “This Rule emphasizes that when engaging in any extrajudicial activity, a judge must
consider the obligations of judicial office and avoid any activities that are reasonably
likely to interfere with those obligations.”
[3]: Adds “independence” before “integrity”; adds “color” and uses “gender identity or
expression” instead of “gender”; adds “citizenship or immigration status”, “marital
status”, and “political affiliation”.
[4]: While engaged in permitted extrajudicial activities, judges must not coerce others or
take action that would reasonably be perceived as coercive. For example, a judge's
urging a lawyer who appears in the judge's court to assist on a time-consuming
extrajudicial project would create the risk that the person solicited would feel obligated
to respond favorably, or would do so to curry favor with the judge.
[5]: Paragraph (E) recognizes that reasonable use of public resources to support a judge's
law-related activities advances the legitimate interests of the public and the court system.
(E): adds “or”
Adds (F): Demean the judicial office.
(E): adds “or Judicial Branch policy” to end
(B) Replaces “disqualification” with “recusal”
(C) Replaces text after “activities that would” with: “demean the judicial office or cast
reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge”
(E) Deleted
[1] Replaces text with:
Complete separation of a judge from extrajudicial activities is neither possible nor wise;
a judge should not become isolated from the community in which the judge lives. As a
judicial officer and person specially learned in the law, a judge is in a unique position to
contribute to the improvement of the law, the legal system, and the administration of
justice, including revision of substantive and procedural law and improvement of
As of August 31, 2016
criminal and juvenile justice. To the extent that the time permits, a judge is encouraged
to do so, either independently or through a bar association, judicial conference or other
organization dedicated to the improvement of the law. Judges may participate in efforts
to promote the fair administration of justice, the independence of the judiciary, and the
integrity of the legal profession and may express opposition to the persecution of lawyers
and judges in other countries because of their professional activities. A judge may speak,
write, lecture, teach, and participate in other extrajudicial activities concerning the law,
the legal system, the administration of justice and nonlegal subjects, subject to the
requirements of this Rule 2-3.1.
[3] Deleted
[4] Deleted
MS
MT
Effective
1/1/2009
NE
Effective
1/1/2011
NV
Effective
1/19/2010
NH
Effective
4/1/2011
Identical
Identical
Identical
MC Rule is the same as NH Section (A)(1)-(5).
Adds:
(B) Avocational Activities. A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach and participate in
other extra-judicial activities concerning the law, the legal system, the administration of
justice and non-legal subjects, subject to the requirements of this Code.
(1) A judge who intends to enter into a teaching contract shall obtain written approval, in
advance, from the chief justice of the supreme court.
(2) A judge who is otherwise in compliance with the provisions of Canon 2 relating to
the precedence of his of her judicial duties and the timely and competent disposition of
the business of the court may, in any calendar year derive income from such activities
not to exceed 15% of the judge’s salary. For good cause shown and in extraordinary
circumstances, exceptions to this limitation may be approved, in advance by formal and
unanimous vote of the supreme court. Such approval shall be in writing and shall state
the reasons for and terms of the exception.
Comment
[1] As a judicial officer and person specifically learned in the law, a judge is in a unique
position to contribute to the improvement of the law, the legal system, and the
administration of justice, including revision of substantive and procedural law and
improvement of criminal and juvenile justice. To the extent that time permits, a judge is
encouraged to do so, either independently or through a bar association, judicial
conference or other organization dedicated to the improvement of the law. Judges may
participate in efforts to promote the fair administration of justice, the independence of the
judiciary and the integrity of the legal profession and may express opposition to the
persecution of lawyers and judges in other countries because of their professional
activities.
As of August 31, 2016
[2] The 15% income limitation is consistent with Title VI of the Ethics Reform Act of
1989, 5 U.S.C. app. 4, sections 501-505, which limits the income that federal judges may
receive from quasi-judicial activities.
[3] In this and other sections of Canon 3, the phrase “subject to the requirements of this
Code” is used, notably in connection with a judge’s governmental, civic or charitable
activities. This phrase is included to remind judges that the use of permissive language in
various sections of the Code does not relieve a judge from the other requirements of the
Code that apply to the specific conduct.
NJ
NM
Effective
12/31/
2015
(E) Deletes “or unless such additional use is permitted by law” at the end.
[1] Replaces reference at the end with corresponding Rule 21-307 NMRA; Adds
sentence: “They may also speak, write, lecture, teach, and engage in other extrajudicial
activities concerning non-legal subjects, subject to the requirements of this Code.”
[3] Adds “ancestry” as a ground for prohibited discrimination; Replaces “disability” with
“physical or mental handicap;” Replaces reference at the end with corresponding Rule
21-306 NMRA.
[4] Replaces reference at the end with corresponding Rule 21-307(A) NMRA
NY
NC
ND
Effective
7/1/2012
OH
Effective
3/1/2009
OK
Effective
4/15/2011
OR
Effective
12/1/2013
(A) Replaces “the judge’s judicial duties” with “duties of judicial office”
First paragraph: deletes “or this Code”
(E): adds “extrajudicial” before “activities” and deletes language through “permitted”
[1]: adds “(2) participating in judicial or bar association activities; or (3) serving on a
board, commission, committee or task force established by the Supreme Court or a
judicial or bar association” after “projects” and adds “However, a judge should consider
whether engaging in a particular extrajudicial activity could give rise to an unlawful
interest in a public contract as prohibited by R.C. 2921.42” as last sentence
(E) Deletes the last sentence.
[1] Combines first and second sentences by adding at the end of first sentence: “that
concern the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, such as by speaking,
writing, teaching, or participating in scholarly research projects.”
[3] Deletes the third sentence.
Adds [4]
A judge’s extrajudicial activities must not be conducted in connection or affiliation with
an organization that practices invidious discrimination.
OR Rule 3.1 Title and Rule is similar to MCJC Rule 3.1. Title deletes “Extrajudicial”
A judge shall not participate in activities when the judge’s conduct would:
(A) interfere with the performance of judicial duties;
(B) lead to frequent disqualification of the judge; or
As of August 31, 2016
PA
Effective
7/1/2014
(C) reasonably be expected to compromise the judge’s independence, integrity or
impartiality.
Deletes first sentence “A judge may engage… or this code”; Replaces with new
sentence: Judges shall regulate their extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of
conflict with their judicial duties and to comply with all provisions in this Canon. Deletes
“when engaging in extrajudicial activities” in second sentence.
[4]: Deletes second sentence
SD
Effective
1/1/2006
TN
Effective
7/1/2012
Adds [5]: “Paragraph (E) of this Rule is not intended to prohibit a judge’s occasional use
of office resources, such as a telephone, for personal purposes.”
Model Code Rule 3.1 corresponds to Canon 4A. The Model Code adds additional
restrictions to the judge’s extrajudicial activities and is expanded to include all “three
I’s.”
First sentence: Adds “personal or” before “extrajudicial activities”. Second sentence:
Deletes “extrajudicial” and replaces with “such”.
(A): Adds: “and timely” after “proper”
(E): make inappropriate use of court premises, staff, stationery, equipment, or other
resources.
[4]: Replaces “permitted extrajudicial activities” with “personal or extrajudicial
activities”
TX
UT
Effective
4/1/2010
(B): adds “unreasonably” before “frequent”
Deletes (D)
(E): adds “inappropriate” after “make” and deletes languages after “resources”
[1]: adds cross reference to 3.12
Deletes [4]
VT
VA
WA
Effective
1/1/2011
WV
Effective
12/1/2015
(B) State Code adds to end of paragraph, “except activities expressly allowed under this
code. This rule does not apply to national or state military service”
(C) State Code deletes clause, “appear to a reasonable person to”
(D) State Code deletes clause, “appear to a reasonable person to”
(E) State Code changes “makes use” to “makes extrajudicial or personal use;” deletes
“for activities…such additional use.”
Identical
Adds [2]: Off-the-bench judicial leadership is essential to effective resolution of local
systemic problems that impede the progress of child abuse and neglect, delinquency, and
status offense cases involving at-risk children and their families. Unlike most other types
of cases in the court system, these cases deal with ongoing and changing circumstances,
with federal and state legal mandates assigning to the judge a series of time-specific and
complex decisions that shape the course of state intervention and determine the future of
As of August 31, 2016
the child and family. For these reasons, judges are encouraged to regularly convene
meetings of local professionals routinely involved in these cases for the purpose of
addressing issues in the circuit relating to effective procedures and necessary services.
These collaborative meetings may address systemic problems but shall not include
discussion of individual cases.
[3]: MR Comment [2]; adds 3.7 to end.
[4]: MR Comment [3]
[5]: MR Comment [4]
Adds [6]: The same Rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct that govern a judicial officer’s
ability to socialize and communicate in person, on paper, or over the telephone also
apply to the Internet and social networking sites like Facebook.
WI
WY
Effective
7/1/2009
Identical
Copyright © 2016 American Bar Association. All rights reserved. Nothing contained in this
chart is to be considered the rendering of legal advice. The chart is intended for
educational and informational purposes only. We make every attempt to keep the chart as
accurate as possible. If you are aware of any inaccuracies in the chart, please send your
corrections or additions and the source of that information to John Holtaway, (312) 9885298, [email protected]