Copied from:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/rules/text.cfm?ruleid=gacjc3Washington State Supreme Court Rules of Judicial Conduct
CANON 3--JUDGES SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THEIR OFFICE
IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLYThe judicial duties of judges should take precedence
over all other activities. Their judicial duties include
all the duties of office prescribed by law. In the
performance of these duties, the following standards apply:(A) Adjudicative Responsibilities.
(1) Judges should be faithful to the law and maintain
professional competence in it, and comply with the
continuing judicial education requirements of GR 26.
Judges should be unswayed by partisan interests, public
clamor, or fear of criticism.(2) Judges should maintain order and decorum in
proceedings before them.(3) Judges should be patient, dignified, and courteous
to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with
whom judges deal in their official capacity, and should
require similar conduct of lawyers, and of the staff, court
officials, and others subject to their direction and
control.Comment
The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with
patience is not inconsistent with the duty to dispose
promptly of the business of the court. Courts can be
efficient and businesslike while being patient and
deliberate.(4) Judges should accord to every person who is legally
interested in a proceeding, or that persons lawyer, full
right to be heard according to law, and, except as
authorized by law, neither initiate nor consider ex parte
or other communications concerning a pending or impending
proceeding. Judges, however, may obtain the advice of a
disinterested expert on the law applicable to a proceeding
before them, by amicus curiae only, if they afford the
parties reasonable opportunity to respond.Comment
The proscription against communications concerning a
proceeding includes communications from lawyers, law
teachers, and other persons who are not participants in the
proceeding, except to the limited extent permitted. It does
not preclude judges from consulting with other judges, or
with court personnel whose function is to aid judges in
carrying out their adjudicative responsibilities. An
appropriate and often desirable procedure for a court to
obtain the advice of a disinterested expert on legal issues
is to invite the expert to file a brief amicus curiae.(5) Judges shall perform judicial duties without bias
or prejudice.Comment
A judge must perform judicial duties impartially and
fairly. A judge who manifests bias on any basis in a
proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and
brings the judiciary into disrepute.(6) Judges should dispose promptly of the business of
the court.Comment
Prompt disposition of the courts business requires
judges to devote adequate time to their duties, to be
punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining
matters under submission, and to insist that court
officials, litigants and their lawyers cooperate with them
to that end.(7) Judges shall not, while a proceeding is pending or
impending in any court, make any public comment that might
reasonably be expected to affect its outcome or impair its
fairness or make any nonpublic comment that might
substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing. The
judge shall require similar abstention on the part of court
personnel subject to the judge's direction and control.
This section does not prohibit judges from making public
statements in the course of their official duties or from
explaining for public information the procedures of the
court. This section does not apply to proceedings in which
the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity.(8) Judges shall not commend or criticize jurors for
their verdict other than in a court order or opinion in a
proceeding, but may express appreciation to jurors for
their service to the judicial system and the community.Comment
Commending or criticizing jurors for their verdict may
imply a judicial expectation in future cases and may impair
a juror's ability to be fair and impartial in a subsequent
case.(B) Administrative Responsibilities.
(1) Judges should diligently discharge their
administrative responsibilities, maintain professional
competence in judicial administration, and facilitate the
performance of the administrative responsibilities of other
judges and court officials.(2) Judges should require their staff and court
officials subject to their direction and control to observe
the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to them.(3) Judges should not make unnecessary appointments.
They should exercise their power of appointment only on the
basis of merit, avoiding nepotism and favoritism. They
should not approve compensation of appointees beyond the
fair value of services rendered.Comment
Appointees of the judge include officials such as
referees, commissioners, special masters, receivers,
guardians and personnel such as clerks, secretaries, and
bailiffs. Consent by the parties to an appointment or an
award of compensation does not relieve the judge of the
obligation prescribed by this subsection.(C) Disciplinary Responsibilities.
(1) Judges having actual knowledge that another judge
has committed a violation of this Code should take
appropriate action. Judges having actual knowledge that
another judge has committed a violation of this Code that
raises a substantial question as to the other judge's
fitness for office should take or initiate appropriate
corrective action, which may include informing the
appropriate authority.(2) Judges having actual knowledge that a lawyer has
committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct
should take appropriate action. Judges having actual
knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the
Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial
questions as to the lawyer's fitness as a lawyer should
take or initiate appropriate corrective action, which may
include informing the appropriate authority.(D) Disqualification.
(1) Judges should disqualify themselves in a proceeding
in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned,
including but not limited to instances in which:(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice
concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed
evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;(b) the judge previously served as a lawyer or was a
material witness in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer
with whom the judge previously practiced law served during
such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or such
lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;(c) the judge knows that, individually or as a
fiduciary, the judge or the judge's spouse or member of the
judge's family residing in the judge's household, has an
economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or
in a party to the proceeding, or is an officer, director or
trustee of a party or has any other interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding,
unless there is a remittal of disqualification;(d) the judge or the judge's spouse or member of the
judge's family residing in the judge's household, or the
spouse of such a person:(i) is a party to the proceeding, or an officer,
director, or trustee of a party;(ii) is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a
material witness in the proceeding.Comment
The fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated
with a law firm with which a lawyer-relative of the judge
is affiliated does not of itself disqualify the judge.
Under appropriate circumstances, the fact that "their
impartiality might reasonably be questioned" under Canon
3(D)(1), or that the lawyer-relative is known by the judge
to have an interest in the law firm that could be
"substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding"
may require the judge's disqualification.(2) Judges should inform themselves about their
personal and fiduciary economic interests, and make a
reasonable effort to inform themselves about the personal
economic interests of their spouse and minor children
residing in their household.(E) Remittal of Disqualification.
A judge disqualified by the terms of Canon 3(D)(1)(c)
or Canon 3(D)(1)(d) may, instead of withdrawing from the
proceeding, disclose on the record the basis of the
disqualification. If, based on such disclosure, the parties
and lawyers, independently of the judge's participation,
all agree in writing or on the record that the judge's
relationship is immaterial or that the judge's economic
interest is de minimis, the judge is no longer
disqualified, and may participate in the proceeding. When a
party is not immediately available, the judge may proceed
on the assurance of the lawyer that the party's consent
will be subsequently given.[Canon 3 amended effective September 20, 1976; September 1,
1983; Canon 3 and Comments amended effective March 25,
1988; Canon 3 amended effective December 27, 1991; Canon 3
and Comments amended effective June 23, 1995; Canon 3
amended effective July 1, 2002.]