Conn. Code Jud. Conduct R. 2.15

History

(Effective Jan. 1, 2011.) COMMENT: (1) Taking appropriate action under the circum- stances to address known misconduct is a judge’s obligation. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (e), subsections (a) and (b) impose an obligation on the judge to report to the appropriate disciplinary authority the known misconduct of another judge or a lawyer that raises a substantial question regarding the honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness of that judge or lawyer. Ignoring or denying known misconduct among one’s judicial colleagues or members of the legal profession under- mines a judge’s responsibility to participate in efforts to ensure public respect for the justice system. This Rule limits the reporting obligation to those offenses that an independent judiciary must vigorously endeavor to prevent. (2) A judge who does not have actual knowledge that another judge or a lawyer may have committed misconduct, but receives information indicating a substantial likelihood of such miscon- duct, is required to take appropriate action under subsections (c) and (d), except as otherwise provided in subsection (e). Appropriate action may include, but is not limited to, communicat- ing directly with the judge who may have violated this Code, communicating with a supervising judge, or reporting the sus- pected violation to the appropriate authority or other agency or body. (3) Similarly, actions to be taken in response to information indicating that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct may include, but are not limited to, communicating directly with the lawyer who may have committed the violation or reporting the suspected violation to the appro- priate authority or other agency or body.