On Oct. 28, the state Supreme Court issued a policy on judges’ use of social media, which states that extra-judicial statements of judges disseminated through social media “should not undermine the public confidence in the impartiality, integrity, or independence of the Judiciary.”
The official Comment to Rule 2.1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to “avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety and [judges] must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny” in their professional and personal conduct.
The court’s new policy on social media requires that judges, when using social media platforms, not broadcast any inconsistencies with the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Accordingly, when using social media, judges are specifically restricted from:
• Engaging in ex parte communications or commenting on any pending or impending proceeding in any court
• Making inappropriate remarks about litigants, lawyers or court personnel
• Disclosing information acquired in a judicial capacity for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties
• Lending the prestige of the judiciary or the judge’s office to advance personal, economic or charitable interests or allowing others to do so or even permitting others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge
• Engaging in conduct that manifests bias or prejudice, as specified in Canon 3 of the Judicial Conduct Code
• Engaging in any political activity or comment on controversial or political matters
• Engaging in inappropriate conduct or by using obscenities or other derogatory language that might undermine public confidence in the Judiciary
The Code of Judicial Conduct is a basic document which should be emblazoned in the mind of every judge. The court’s new social media order homes in on those moral and common sensical aspects of the code to “help judges navigate these complex and constantly evolving communication platforms,” in the broader picture of appropriate judicial conduct as required by the dictates of the code.
One would expect that plain common sense, intellectual capacity to be expected of one holding judicial position, and the exercise of reasonable prudence in conducting one’s personal and professional life as a judge, a position of trust and respect, and with consideration of the public’s expectations, would not need specific directions on the level of maturity when communicating to members of the public. But recent real life events, unfortunately, show the need for black letter instructions to the bench. The court’s order is a reminder to judges of the solemnity of their oath and each judge’s obligations in this most sensitive area of governmental service. At the same time, we trust that the court will ensure that the policy’s broad terminology (e.g., “respectful,” “dignified” and “inappropriate”) will be construed in a way that does not overly intrude on judges’ private lives.
We congratulate the court for recognizing the need for and in issuing this judicial reminder.
