Conn. Code Jud. Conduct R. 3.13

History

(Effective Jan. 1, 2011.) COMMENT: (1) Whenever a judge accepts a gift or other thing of value without paying fair market value, there is a risk that the benefit might be viewed as intended to influence the judge’s decision in a case. Rule 3.13 imposes restrictions on the acceptance of such benefits, according to the magnitude of the risk. Subsection (b) identifies circumstances in which the risk that the acceptance would appear to undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality is low and explicitly provides that such items need not be publicly reported. As the value of the benefit or the likelihood that the source of the benefit will appear before the judge increases, the judge is either prohibited under subsection (a) from accepting the gift, or required under subsection (c) to publicly report it. (2) Gift giving between friends and relatives is a common occurrence and ordinarily does not create an appearance of impropriety or cause reasonable persons to believe that the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality has been com- promised. In addition, when the appearance of friends or rela- tives in a case would require the judge’s disqualification under Rule 2.11, there would be no opportunity for a gift to influence the judge’s decision making. Subsection (b) (2) places no restrictions on the ability of a judge to accept gifts or other things of value from friends or relatives under these circum - stances and does not require public reporting. (3) Businesses and financial institutions frequently make available special pricing, discounts, and other benefits, either in connection with a temporary promotion or for preferred customers, based on longevity of the relationship, volume of business transacted, and other factors. A judge may freely accept such benefits if they are available to the general public or if the judge qualifies for the special price or discount according to the same criteria as are applied to persons who are not judges. As an example, loans provided at generally prevailing interest rates are not gifts, but a judge could not accept a loan from a financial institution at below-market inter- est rates unless the same rate was being made available to the general public for a certain period of time or only to borrow- ers with specified qualifications that the judge also possesses. (4) Rule 3.13 applies only to acceptance of gifts or other things of value by a judge. Nonetheless, if a gift or other benefit is given to the judge’s spouse, domestic partner, or member of the judge’s family residing in the judge’s household, it may be viewed as an attempt to evade Rule 3.13 and influence the judge indirectly. Where the gift or benefit is being made primarily to such other persons, and the judge is merely an incidental beneficiary, this concern is reduced. A judge should, however, remind family and household members of the restric- tions imposed on judges and urge them to take these restric - tions into account when making decisions about accepting such gifts or benefits.