IN · rules

Ind. Code Jud. Conduct

Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct

activein force · 2023-05-01 – presentcompiled-edition

Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct

Adopted, Effective March 1, 1993

Updated, Effective May 1, 2023

Table of Contents

Preamble 3

Scope 4

Terminology 5

Application 7

Canon 1: A Judge Shall Uphold and Promote the Independence, Integrity, and Impartiality of the Judiciary, and Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety 12

Rule 1.1: Compliance with the Law 12

Rule 1.2: Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary 12

Rule 1.3: Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office 13

Canon 2: A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially, Competently,

and Diligently 15

Rule 2.1: Giving Precedence to the Duties of Judicial Office 15

Rule 2.2: Impartiality and Fairness 15

Rule 2.3: Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment 17

Rule 2.4: External Influences on Judicial Conduct 18

Rule 2.5: Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation 18

Rule 2.6: Ensuring the Right to Be Heard 19

Rule 2.7: Responsibility to Decide 20

Rule 2.8: Decorum, Demeanor, and Communication with Jurors 21

Rule 2.9: Ex Parte Communications 22

Rule 2.10: Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases 24

Rule 2.11: Disqualification 25

Rule 2.12: Supervisory Duties 28

Rule 2.13: Hiring and Administrative Appointments 29

Rule 2.14: Disability and Impairment 30

Rule 2.15: Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct 31

Rule 2.16: Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities 32

Rule 2.17: Prohibiting Broadcasting of Proceedings 32

Canon 3: A Judge Shall Conduct the Judge’s Personal and Extrajudicial Activities to

Minimize the Risk of Conflict with the Obligations of Judicial Office 35

Rule 3.1: Extrajudicial Activities in General 35

Rule 3.2: Appearances before Governmental Bodies and Consultation with Government Officials 36

Rule 3.3: Testifying as a Character Witness 37

Rule 3.4: Appointments to Governmental Positions 38

Rule 3.5: Use of Nonpublic Information 39

Rule 3.6: Affiliation with Discriminatory Organizations 39

Rule 3.7: Participation in Educational, Religious, Charitable, Fraternal, or Civic Organizations and Activities 40

Rule 3.8: Appointments to Fiduciary Positions 42

Rule 3.9: Service as Arbitrator or Mediator 43

Rule 3.10: Practice of Law 44

Rule 3.11: Financial, Business, or Remunerative Activities 44

Rule 3.12: Compensation for Extrajudicial Activities 45

Rule 3.13: Acceptance and Reporting of Gifts, Loans, Bequests, Benefits, or Other

Things of Value 46

Rule 3.14: Reimbursement of Expenses and Waivers of Fees or Charges 48

Rule 3.15: Financial Reporting Requirements 50

Canon 4: A Judge or Candidate for Judicial Office Shall Not Engage in Political or Campaign Activity That is Inconsistent with the Independence, Integrity, or Impartiality of

the Judiciary 52

Rule 4.1: Political and Campaign Activities of Judges and Judicial Candidates in General 52

Rule 4.2: Political and Campaign Activities of Judicial Candidates in Public Elections 57

Rule 4.3: Activities of Candidates for Appointive Judicial Office 60

Rule 4.4: Campaign Committees 60

Rule 4.5: Activities of Judges Who Become Candidates for Nonjudicial Office 62

Rule 4.6: Political Activities of Nonjudicial Court Employees 62

Preamble

Effective March 1, 1993

[1] An independent, fair and impartial judiciary is indispensable to our system of justice. The

United States legal system is based upon the principle that an independent, impartial, and

competent judiciary, composed of men and women of integrity, will interpret and apply the

law that governs our society. Thus, the judiciary plays a central role in preserving the principles of justice and the rule of law. Inherent in all the Rules contained in this Code are the

precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office

as a public trust and strive to maintain and enhance confidence in the legal system.

[2] Judges should maintain the dignity of judicial office at all times, and avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and personal lives. They

should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in

their independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence.

[3] The Code of Judicial Conduct establishes standards for the ethical conduct of judges and

judicial candidates. It is not intended as an exhaustive guide for the conduct of judges and

judicial candidates, who are governed in their judicial and personal conduct by general ethical

standards as well as by the Code. The Code is intended, however, to provide guidance and

assist judges in maintaining the highest standards of judicial and personal conduct, and to

provide a basis for regulating their conduct through disciplinary agencies.

Scope

Effective March 1, 1993

[1] The Code of Judicial Conduct consists of four Canons, numbered Rules under each Canon,

and Comments that generally follow and explain each Rule. Scope and Terminology sections

provide additional guidance in interpreting and applying the Code. An Application section

establishes when the various Rules apply to a judge or judicial candidate.

[2] The Canons state overarching principles of judicial ethics that all judges must observe.

Although a judge may be disciplined only for violating a Rule, the Canons provide important

guidance in interpreting the Rules. Where a Rule contains a permissive term, such as “may” or

“should,” the conduct being addressed is committed to the personal and professional discretion of the judge or candidate in question, and no disciplinary action should be taken for

action or inaction within the bounds of such discretion.

[3] The Comments that accompany the Rules serve two functions. First, they provide guidance regarding the purpose, meaning, and proper application of the Rules. They contain

explanatory material and, in some instances, provide examples of permitted or prohibited

conduct. Comments neither add to nor subtract from the binding obligations set forth in the

Rules. Therefore, when a Comment contains the term “must,” it does not mean that the Comment itself is binding or enforceable; it signifies that the Rule in question, properly under-

stood, is obligatory as to the conduct at issue.

[4] Second, the Comments identify aspirational goals for judges. To implement fully the principles of this Code as articulated in the Canons, judges should strive to exceed the standards

of conduct established by the Rules, holding themselves to the highest ethical standards and

seeking to achieve those aspirational goals, thereby enhancing the dignity of the judicial

office.

[5] The Rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct are rules of reason that should be applied consistent with constitutional requirements, statutes, other court rules, and decisional law, and

with due regard for all relevant circumstances. The Rules should not be interpreted to

impinge upon the essential independence of judges in making judicial decisions.

[6] Although the black letter of the Rules is binding and enforceable, it is not contemplated

that every transgression will result in the imposition of discipline. Whether discipline should

be imposed should be determined through a reasonable and reasoned application of the

Rules, and should depend upon factors such as the seriousness of the transgression, the

facts and circumstances that existed at the time of the transgression, the extent of any pattern of improper activity, whether there have been previous violations, and the effect of the

improper activity upon the judicial system or others.

[7] The Code is not designed or intended as a basis for civil or criminal liability. Neither is it

intended to be the basis for litigants to seek collateral remedies against each other or to

obtain tactical advantages in proceedings before a court.

Terminology

Effective March 1, 1993

The first time any term listed below is used in a Rule in its defined sense, it is followed by an

asterisk (*).

“Appropriate authority” means the authority having responsibility for initiation of disciplinary

process in connection with the violation to be reported. See Rules 2.14 and 2.15.

“Contribution” means both financial and in-kind contributions, such as goods, professional or

volunteer services, advertising, and other types of assistance, which, if obtained by the recipient otherwise, would require a financial expenditure. See Rules 3.7, 4.1, and 4.4.

“De minimis” in the context of interests pertaining to disqualification of a judge, means an

insignificant interest that could not raise a reasonable question regarding the judge's impartiality. See Rule 2.11.

“Domestic partner” means a person with whom another person maintains a household and

an intimate relationship, other than a person to whom he or she is legally married. See Rules

2.11, 2.13, 3.13, and 3.14.

“Economic interest” means ownership of more than a de minimis legal or equitable interest.

Except for situations in which the judge participates in the management of such a legal or

equitable interest, or the interest could be substantially affected by the outcome of a proceeding before a judge, it does not include:

(1) an interest in the individual holdings within a mutual or common investment fund;

(2) an interest in securities held by an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic

organization in which the judge or the judge's spouse, domestic partner, parent, or child

serves as a director, an officer, an advisor, or other participant;

(3) a deposit in a financial institution or deposits or proprietary interests the judge may

maintain as a member of a mutual savings association or credit union, or similar proprietary interests; or

(4) an interest in the issuer of government securities held by the judge. See Rules 1.3 and

2.11.

“Fiduciary” includes relationships such as executor, administrator, trustee, or guardian. See

Rules 2.11, 3.2, and 3.8.

“Impartial,” “impartiality,” and “impartially” mean absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or

against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintenance of an open mind in

considering issues that may come before a judge. See Canons 1, 2, and 4, and Rules 1.2, 2.2,

2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 3.1, 3.12, 3.13, 4.1, and 4.2.

“Impending matter” is a matter that is imminent or expected to occur in the near future. See

Rules 2.9, 2.10, 3.13, and 4.1.

“Impropriety” includes conduct that violates the law, court rules, or provisions of this Code,

and conduct that undermines a judge's independence, integrity, or impartiality. See Canon 1

and Rule 1.2.

“Independence” means a judge's freedom from influence or controls other than those established by law. See Canons 1 and 4, and Rules 1.2, 3.1, 3.12, 3.13, and 4.2.

“Integrity” means probity, fairness, honesty, uprightness, and soundness of character. See

Canon 1 and Rule 1.2.

“Judicial candidate” means any person, including a sitting judge, who is seeking selection for

or retention in judicial office by election or appointment. A person becomes a candidate for

judicial office as soon as he or she makes a public announcement of candidacy, declares or

files as a candidate with the election or appointment authority, authorizes or, where permitted, engages in solicitation or acceptance of contributions or support, or is nominated for

election or appointment to office. See Rules 2.11, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.4.

“Knowingly,” “knowledge,” “known,” and “knows” mean actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person's knowledge may be inferred from circumstances. See Rules 2.11, 2.13, 2.15,

2.16, 3.6, and 4.1.

“Law” encompasses court rules as well as statutes, constitutional provisions, and decisional

law. See Rules 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.6, 2.7, 2.9, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.9, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4,

and 4.5.

“Member of the candidate's family” means a spouse, domestic partner, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, or other relative or person with whom the candidate maintains a close

familial relationship.

“Member of the judge's family” means a spouse, domestic partner, child, grandchild, parent,

grandparent, or other relative or person with whom the judge maintains a close familial relationship. See Rules 3.7, 3.8, 3.10, and 3.11.

“Member of a judge's family residing in the judge's household” means any relative of a judge

by blood or marriage, or a person treated by a judge as a member of the judge's family, who

resides in the judge's household. See Rules 2.11 and 3.13.

“Nonpublic information” means information that is not available to the public. Nonpublic

information may include, but is not limited to, information that is sealed by statute or court

order or impounded or communicated in camera, and information offered in grand jury proceedings, presentencing reports, dependency cases, or psychiatric reports. See Rule 3. 5.

“Pending matter” is a matter that has commenced. A matter continues to be pending through

any appellate process until final disposition. See Rules 2.9, 2.10, 3.13, and 4.1.

“Personally solicit” means a direct request made by a judge or a judicial candidate for financial support or in-kind services, whether made by letter, telephone, or any other means of

communication. See Rule 4.1.

“Political organization” means a political party or other group sponsored by or affiliated with a

political party or candidate, the principal purpose of which is to further the election or

appointment of candidates for political office. For purposes of this Code, the term does not

include a judicial candidate's campaign committee created as authorized by Rule 4.4. See

Rules 4.1 and 4.2.

“Public election” includes primary and general elections, partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, and retention elections. See Rules 4.2 and 4.4.

“Third degree of relationship” includes the following persons: great-grandparent, grandparent, parent, uncle, aunt, brother, sister, child, grandchild, great-grandchild, nephew, and

niece. See Rule 2.11.

Application

Effective January 1, 2011

I. Applicability of This Code

(A) A judge, within the meaning of this Code, is anyone who is authorized to perform judicial

functions within the courts of the Indiana judiciary, including an officer such as a magistrate,

commissioner, or referee. Administrative law judges and hearing officers of State agencies

are not judges within the meaning of this Code.

(B) All the provisions of the Code apply to full-time judges. Parts II through V of this section

identify those provisions that apply to the distinct categories of part-time judges. The categories of judicial service in other than a full-time capacity are necessarily defined in general

terms because of the widely varying forms of judicial service. Canon 4 applies to judicial candidates.

Comment

[1] The Rules in this Code have been formulated to address the ethical obligations of any

person who serves a judicial function, and are premised upon the supposition that a uni-

form system of ethical principles should apply to all those authorized to perform judicial

functions.

[2] The determination of which category and, accordingly, which specific Rules apply to

an individual judicial officer, depends upon the facts of the particular judicial service.

[3] In recent years many jurisdictions have created what are often called “problem solving” courts, in which judges are authorized by court rules to act in nontraditional ways. For

example, judges presiding in drug courts and monitoring the progress of participants in

those courts' programs may be authorized and even encouraged to communicate directly

with social workers, probation officers, and others outside the context of their usual judicial role as independent decision makers on issues of fact and law. When local rules specifically authorize conduct not otherwise permitted under these Rules, they take

precedence over the provisions set forth in the Code. Nevertheless, judges serving on

“problem solving” courts shall comply with this Code except to the extent local rules

provide and permit otherwise.

II. Senior Judge

A senior judge is considered to be a periodic part-time judge subject to Part IV of this Application Section.

III. Continuing Part-Time Judge

A judge who serves on a part-time basis by election or under a continuing appointment (a

“continuing part-time judge”)

(A) is not required to comply:

(1) with Rules 2.10(A) and 2.10(B) (Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending

Cases), except while serving as a judge; or

(2) at any time with Rules 3.4 (Appointments to Governmental Positions), 3.8 (Appointments to Fiduciary Positions), 3.9 (Service as Arbitrator or Mediator), 3.10 (Practice of

Law), 3.11 (Financial, Business, or Remunerative Activities), 3.14 (Reimbursement of

Expenses and Waivers of Fees or Charges), and 3.15 (Financial Reporting Requirements); and

(B) shall not practice law in the court on which the judge serves or in any court subject to

the appellate jurisdiction of the court on which the judge serves, and, except as permitted

by the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, shall not act as a lawyer in a proceeding in

which the judge has served as a judge or in any other proceeding related thereto.

IV. Periodic Part-Time Judge

A judge, including a senior judge, who serves or expects to serve repeatedly on a part-time

basis but under a separate appointment for each limited period of service or for each matter

(a “periodic part-time judge”)

(A) is not required to comply:

(1) with Rule 2.10 (Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases), except while

serving as a judge; or

(2) at any time with Rules 3.4 (Appointments to Governmental Positions), 3.7 (Participation in Educational, Religious, Charitable, Fraternal, or Civic Organizations and

Activities), 3.8 (Appointments to Fiduciary Positions), 3.9 (Service as Arbitrator or Mediator), 3.10 (Practice of Law), 3.11 (Financial, Business, or Remunerative Activities), 3. 13

(Acceptance and Reporting of Gifts, Loans, Bequests, Benefits, or Other Things of

Value), 3.15 (Financial Reporting Requirements), 4.1 (Political and Campaign Activities

of Judges and Judicial Candidates in General), and 4. 5 (Activities of Judges Who

Become Candidates for Nonjudicial Office); and

(B) shall not represent any client in any court on which the judge serves or in any court

subject to the appellate jurisdiction of a court on which the judge serves, and, except as

permitted by the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, shall not act as a lawyer or ADR

neutral in a proceeding in which the judge has served as a judicial officer or in any other

proceeding related thereto.

V. Pro Tempore Part-Time Judge

A judge who serves or expects to serve once or only sporadically on a part-time basis under a

separate appointment for each period of service or for each case heard (a “pro tempore part-time judge”) is not required to comply:

(A) except while serving as a judge, with Rules 1.2 (Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary),

2.4 (External Influences on Judicial Conduct), 2.10 (Judicial Statements on Pending and

Impending Cases), or 3.2 (Appearances before Governmental Bodies and Consultation

with Government Officials); or

(B) at any time with Rules 3.4 (Appointments to Governmental Positions), 3.6 (Affiliation

with Discriminatory Organizations), 3.7 (Participation in Educational, Religious, Charitable,

Fraternal, or Civic Organizations and Activities), 3.8 (Appointments to Fiduciary Positions),

3.9 (Service as Arbitrator or Mediator), 3.10 (Practice of Law), 3.11 (Financial, Business, or

Remunerative Activities), 3.13 (Acceptance and Reporting of Gifts, Loans, Bequests, Benefits, or Other Things of Value), 3.15 (Financial Reporting Requirements), 4.1 (Political and

Campaign Activities of Judges and Judicial Candidates in General), and 4.5 (Activities of

Judges Who Become Candidates for Nonjudicial Office), and

any proceeding related thereto except as permitted by the Indiana Rules of Professional

Conduct.

VI. Time For Compliance

A person to whom this Code becomes applicable shall comply immediately with its provisions, except that those judges to whom Rules 3.8 (Appointments to Fiduciary Positions)

and 3.11 (Financial, Business, or Remunerative Activities) apply shall comply with those Rules

as soon as reasonably possible, but in no event later than one year after the Code becomes

applicable to the judge.

Comment

[1] If serving as a fiduciary when selected as judge, a new judge may, notwithstanding the

prohibitions in Rule 3.8, continue to serve as fiduciary, but only for that period of time

necessary to avoid serious adverse consequences to the beneficiaries of the fiduciary

relationship and in no event longer than one year. Similarly, if engaged at the time of judicial selection in a business activity, a new judge may, notwithstanding the prohibitions in

Rule 3.11, continue in that activity for a reasonable period but in no event longer than one

year.

Canon 1: A Judge Shall Uphold and Promote the

Independence, Integrity, and Impartiality of the

Judiciary, and Shall Avoid Impropriety and the

Appearance of Impropriety

Rule 1.1: Compliance with the Law

Effective January 1, 2018

A judge shall comply with the law,* including the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Rule 1.2: Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary

Effective January 1, 2009

A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the

appearance of impropriety.

Comment

[1] Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct and conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety. This principle applies to both the professional and

personal conduct of a judge.

[2] A judge should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might be viewed as bur-

densome if applied to other citizens, and must accept the restrictions imposed by the

Code.

[3] Conduct that compromises or appears to compromise the independence, integrity,

and impartiality of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary. Because it is not

practicable to list all such conduct, the Rule is necessarily cast in general terms.

[4] Judges should participate in activities that promote ethical conduct among judges and

lawyers, support professionalism within the judiciary and the legal profession, and promote access to justice for all.

[5] Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules, or provisions of this Code.

The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable

minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that

reflects adversely on the judge's honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as

a judge.

[6] A judge should initiate and participate in community outreach activities for the purpose

of promoting public understanding of and confidence in the administration of justice. In

conducting such activities, the judge must act in a manner consistent with this Code.

Rule 1.3: Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial

Office

Effective January 1, 2009

A judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic

interests* of the judge or others, or allow others to do so.

Comment

[1] It is improper for a judge to use or attempt to use his or her position to gain personal

advantage or deferential treatment of any kind. For example, it would be improper for a

judge to allude to his or her judicial status to gain favorable treatment in encounters with

traffic officials. Similarly, a judge must not use judicial letterhead to gain an advantage in

conducting his or her personal business.

[2] A judge may provide a reference or recommendation for an individual based upon the

judge's personal knowledge and may use official letterhead, but may not provide a reference or recommendation if there is a likelihood that it would reasonably be perceived as

an attempt to exert pressure by reason of the judicial office.

[3] Judges may participate in the process of judicial selection by initiating communication,

writing letters of recommendation, and otherwise cooperating with appointing authorities

and screening committees, and by responding to inquiries from such entities concerning

the professional qualifications of a person being considered for judicial office.

[4] Special considerations arise when judges write or contribute to publications of for-profit entities, whether related or unrelated to the law. A judge should not permit anyone

associated with the publication of such materials to exploit the judge's office in a manner

that violates this Rule or other applicable law. In contracts for publication of a judge's writing, the judge should retain sufficient control over the advertising to avoid such exploit-

ation.

Canon 2: A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial

Office Impartially, Competently, and Diligently

Rule 2.1: Giving Precedence to the Duties of Judicial

Office

Effective March 1, 1993

The duties of judicial office, as prescribed by law,* shall take precedence over all of a judge's

personal and extrajudicial activities.

Comment

[1] To ensure that judges are available to fulfill their judicial duties, judges must conduct

their personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflicts that would result

in frequent disqualification. See Canon 3.

[2] Although it is not a duty of judicial office unless prescribed by law, judges are encouraged to participate in activities that promote public understanding of and confidence in the

justice system.

Rule 2.2: Impartiality and Fairness

Effective May 16, 2019

A judge shall uphold and apply the law,* and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly

and impartially.* A judge may make reasonable efforts, consistent with the law and court

rules, to facilitate the ability of all litigants, including self-represented litigants, to be fairly

heard.

Comment

[1] To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open-minded.

[2] Although each judge comes to the bench with a unique background and personal philo-

sophy, a judge must interpret and apply the law without regard to whether the judge

approves or disapproves of the law in question.

[3] When applying and interpreting the law, a judge sometimes may make good-faith

errors of fact or law. Errors of this kind do not violate this Rule.

[4] It is not a violation of this Rule for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to

ensure pro se litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly heard.

[5] A judge’s responsibility to promote access to justice, especially in cases involving self-represented litigants, may warrant the exercise of discretion by using techniques that

enhance the process of reaching a fair determination in the case. Although the appropriate scope of such discretion and how it is exercised will vary with the circumstances of

each case, a judge’s exercise of such discretion will not generally raise a reasonable

question about the judge’s impartiality. Reasonable steps that a judge may take, but in no

way is required to take, include:

(a) Construe pleadings to facilitate consideration of the issues raised.

(b) Provide information or explanation about the proceedings.

(d) Ask neutral questions to elicit or clarify information.

(e) Modify the traditional order of taking evidence.

(f) Permit narrative testimony.

(g) Refer litigants to any resources available to assist in the preparation of the case or

enforcement and compliance with any order.

(h) Inform litigants what will be happening next in the case and what is expected of

them.

Rule 2.3: Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment

Effective January 1, 2018

(A) A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without

bias or prejudice.

(B) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias

or prejudice, or engage in harassment, including but not limited to bias, prejudice, or harassment based upon race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age,

sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, and shall not

permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge's direction and control to do

so.

bias or prejudice, or engaging in harassment, based upon attributes including but not limited

to race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, against parties, witnesses, lawyers, or

others.

(D) The restrictions of paragraphs (B) and (C) do not preclude judges or lawyers from making

legitimate reference to the listed factors, or similar factors, when they are relevant to an issue

in a proceeding.

Comment

[1] A judge who manifests bias or prejudice in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute.

[2] Examples of manifestations of bias or prejudice include but are not limited to epithets;

slurs; demeaning nicknames; negative stereotyping; attempted humor based upon ste-

reotypes; threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts; suggestions of connections between

race, ethnicity, or nationality and crime; and irrelevant references to personal characteristics. Even facial expressions and body language can convey to parties and lawyers

in the proceeding, jurors, the media, and others an appearance of bias or prejudice. A

judge must avoid conduct that may reasonably be perceived as prejudiced or biased.

[3] Harassment, as referred to in paragraphs (B) and (C), is verbal or physical conduct

that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward a person on bases such as race,

sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital

status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation.

[4] Sexual harassment includes but is not limited to sexual advances, requests for sexual

favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that is unwelcome.

Rule 2.4: External Influences on Judicial Conduct

Effective January 1, 2018

(A) A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.

(B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment.

organization is in a position to influence the judge.

Comment

[1] An independent judiciary requires that judges decide cases according to the law and

facts, without regard to whether particular laws or litigants are popular or unpopular with

the public, the media, government officials, or the judge's friends or family. Confidence in

the judiciary is eroded if judicial decision making is perceived to be subject to inap-

propriate outside influences.

Rule 2.5: Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation

Effective March 1, 1993

(A) A judge shall perform judicial and administrative duties competently, diligently, and

promptly.

(B) A judge shall cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration of court

business.

Comment

[1] Competence in the performance of judicial duties requires the legal knowledge, skill,

thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary to perform a judge's responsibilities of judicial office, including the benefits and risks associated with the technology relevant to service as a judicial officer.

[2] A judge should seek the necessary docket time, court staff, expertise, and resources

to discharge all adjudicative and administrative responsibilities.

[3] Prompt disposition of the court's business requires a judge to devote adequate time to

judicial duties, to be punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters

under submission, and to take reasonable measures to ensure that court officials, litigants, and their lawyers cooperate with the judge to that end.

[4] In disposing of matters promptly and efficiently, a judge must demonstrate due regard

for the rights of parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without unnecessary cost

or delay. A judge should monitor and supervise cases in ways that reduce or eliminate

dilatory practices, avoidable delays, and unnecessary costs.

Rule 2.6: Ensuring the Right to Be Heard

Effective March 1, 1993

(A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.*

(B) A judge may encourage parties to a proceeding and their lawyers to settle matters in dispute but shall not act in a manner that coerces any party into settlement.

Comment

[1] The right to be heard is an essential component of a fair and impartial system of

justice. Substantive rights of litigants can be protected only if procedures protecting the

right to be heard are observed.

[2] The judge plays an important role in overseeing the settlement of disputes, but should

be careful that efforts to further settlement do not undermine any party's right to be heard

according to law. The judge should keep in mind the effect that the judge's participation in

settlement discussions may have, not only on the judge's own views of the case, but also

on the perceptions of the lawyers and the parties if the case remains with the judge after

settlement efforts are unsuccessful. Among the factors that a judge should consider when

deciding upon an appropriate settlement practice for a case are (1) whether the parties

have requested or voluntarily consented to a certain level of participation by the judge in

settlement discussions, (2) whether the parties and their counsel are relatively soph-

isticated in legal matters, (3) whether the case will be tried by the judge or a jury, (4)

whether the parties participate with their counsel in settlement discussions, (5) whether

any parties are unrepresented by counsel, and (6) whether the matter is civil or criminal.

[3] Judges must be mindful of the effect settlement discussions can have, not only on their

objectivity and impartiality, but also on the appearance of their objectivity and impartiality.

Despite a judge's best efforts, there may be instances when information obtained during

settlement discussions could influence a judge's decision making during trial, and, in such

instances, the judge should consider whether disqualification may be appropriate. See

Rule 2.11(A)(1).

Rule 2.7: Responsibility to Decide

Effective March 1, 1993

A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge, except when disqualification is

required by Rule 2.11 or other law.*

Comment

[1] Judges must be available to decide the matters that come before the court. Although

there are times when disqualification is necessary to protect the rights of litigants and preserve public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary,

judges must be available to decide matters that come before the courts. Unwarranted disqualification may bring public disfavor to the court and to the judge personally. The dignity

of the court, the judge's respect for fulfillment of judicial duties, and a proper concern for

the burdens that may be imposed upon the judge's colleagues require that a judge not

use disqualification to avoid cases that present difficult, controversial, or unpopular

issues.

Rule 2.8: Decorum, Demeanor, and Communication

with Jurors

Effective March 1, 1993

(A) A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the court.

(B) A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers,

court staff, court officials, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and

shall require similar conduct of lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others subject to the

judge's direction and control.

or opinion in a proceeding.

Comment

[1] The duty to hear all proceedings with patience and courtesy is not inconsistent with the

duty imposed in Rule 2.5 to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Judges can be

efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate.

[2] 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.

[3] A judge may meet with jurors who choose to remain after trial but should be careful not

to discuss the merits of the case.

Rule 2.9: Ex Parte Communications

Effective January 1, 2018

(A) A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other

communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending* or impending matter,* except as follows:

(1) When circumstances require it, ex parte communication for scheduling, administrative,

or emergency purposes, which does not address substantive matters, is permitted,

provided:

(a) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or

tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication; and

(b) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of the substance of

the ex parte communication, and gives the parties an opportunity to respond.

(2) A judge may obtain the written advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to

a proceeding before the judge, if the judge gives advance notice to the parties of the person to be consulted and the subject matter of the advice to be solicited, and affords the

parties a reasonable opportunity to object and respond to the notice and to the advice

received.

(3) A judge may consult with court staff and court officials whose functions are to aid the

judge in carrying out the judge's adjudicative responsibilities, or with other judges,

provided the judge makes reasonable efforts to avoid receiving factual information that is

not part of the record, and does not abrogate the responsibility personally to decide the

matter.

(4) A judge may, with the consent of the parties, confer separately with the parties and

their lawyers in an effort to settle matters pending before the judge.

(5) A judge may initiate, permit, or consider any ex parte communication when expressly

authorized by law* to do so.

(B) If a judge inadvertently receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing upon

the substance of a matter, the judge shall make provision promptly to notify the parties of

the substance of the communication and provide the parties with an opportunity to respond.

evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed.

(D) A judge shall make reasonable efforts, including providing appropriate supervision, to

ensure that this Rule is not violated by court staff, court officials, and others subject to the

judge's direction and control.

Comment

[1] To the extent reasonably possible, all parties or their lawyers shall be included in communications with a judge.

[2] Whenever the presence of a party or notice to a party is required by this Rule, it is the

party's lawyer, or if the party is unrepresented, the party, who is to be present or to whom

notice is to be given.

[3] The proscription against communications concerning a proceeding includes communications with lawyers, law teachers, and other persons who are not participants in the

proceeding, except to the limited extent permitted by this Rule.

[4] A judge may initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications expressly authorized by law, such as when serving on therapeutic or problem-solving courts, mental

health courts, or drug courts. In this capacity, judges may assume a more interactive role

with parties, treatment providers, probation officers, social workers, and others.

[5] A judge may consult with other judges on pending matters, but must avoid ex parte discussions of a case with judges who have previously been disqualified from hearing the

matter, and with judges who have appellate jurisdiction over the matter.

[6] The prohibition against a judge investigating the facts in a matter extends to information available in all mediums, including electronic.

[7] A judge may consult ethics advisory committees, outside counsel, or legal experts concerning the judge's compliance with this Code. Such consultations are not subject to the

restrictions of paragraph (A)(2).

[8] A judge is permitted by Rule 2.9(A)(3) to consult about legal and procedural issues

with the Indiana Office of Judicial Administration (IOJA).

Rule 2.10: Judicial Statements on Pending and

Impending Cases

Effective March 1, 1993

(A) A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect

the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending* or impending* in any court, or make

any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.

(B) A judge shall not, in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come

before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the

impartial* performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.

and control to refrain from making statements that the judge would be prohibited from making by paragraphs (A) and (B).

(D) Notwithstanding the restrictions in paragraph (A), a judge may make public statements in

the course of official duties, may explain court procedures, and may comment on any proceeding in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity.

(E) Subject to the requirements of paragraph (A), a judge may respond directly or through a

third party to allegations in the media or elsewhere concerning the judge's conduct in a matter.

Comment

[1] This Rule's restrictions on judicial speech are essential to the maintenance of the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.

[2] This Rule does not prohibit a judge from commenting on proceedings in which the

judge is a litigant in a personal capacity. In cases in which the judge is a litigant in an official capacity, such as a writ of mandamus, the judge must not comment publicly.

[3] Depending upon the circumstances, the judge should consider whether it may be

preferable for a third party, rather than the judge, to respond or issue statements in connection with allegations concerning the judge's conduct in a matter.

Rule 2.11: Disqualification

Effective July 31, 2017

(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality* might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:

(1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or

personal knowledge* of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.

(2) The judge knows* that the judge, the judge's spouse or domestic partner,* or a person

within the third degree of relationship* to either of them, or the spouse or domestic partner of such a person is:

(a) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, general partner, managing member, or trustee of a party;

(b) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

affected by the proceeding; or

(d) likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

(3) The judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary,* or the judge's spouse,

domestic partner, parent, or child, or any other 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 that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.

(4) [Reserved]

(5) The judge, while a judge or a judicial candidate,* has made a public statement, other

than in a court proceeding, judicial decision, or opinion, that commits or appears to commit the judge to reach a particular result or rule in a particular way in the proceeding or

controversy.

(6) The judge:

(a) served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or was associated with a lawyer

who participated substantially as a lawyer in the matter during such association;

(b) served in governmental employment, and in such capacity participated personally

and substantially as a lawyer or public official concerning the proceeding, or has publicly expressed in such capacity an opinion concerning the merits of the particular matter in controversy;

(d) previously presided as a judge over the matter in another court.

(B) A judge shall keep informed about the judge's personal and fiduciary economic interests,

and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal economic interests of the

judge's spouse or domestic partner and minor children residing in the judge's household.

paragraph (A)(1) or for conflicts under paragraph (A)(2), shall disclose on the record the basis

of the judge’s disqualification and may ask the parties and their lawyers to consider, outside

the presence of the judge and court personnel, whether to waive disqualification. If, following

the disclosure, the parties and lawyers agree, without participation by the judge or court personnel, that the judge should not be disqualified, the judge may participate in the proceeding. The agreement shall be incorporated into the record of the proceeding and shall be

in writing and signed by the parties.

Comment

[1] Under this Rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific provisions of paragraphs

(A)(1) through (6) apply. In many jurisdictions, the term “recusal” is used interchangeably

with the term “disqualification.”

[2] A judge's obligation not to hear or decide matters in which disqualification is required

applies regardless of whether a motion to disqualify is filed.

[3] The rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification. For example, a judge

might be required to participate in judicial review of a judicial salary statute, or might be

the only judge available in a matter requiring immediate judicial action, such as a hearing

on probable cause or a temporary restraining order. In matters that require immediate

action, the judge must disclose on the record the basis for possible disqualification and

make reasonable efforts to transfer the matter to another judge as soon as practicable.

[4] The fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law firm with which a relative

of the judge is affiliated does not itself disqualify the judge. If, however, the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned under paragraph (A), or the relative is known by

the judge to have an interest in the law firm that could be substantially affected by the proceeding under paragraph (A)(2)(c), the judge's disqualification is required.

[5] A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or

their lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for disqualification,

even if the judge believes there is no basis for disqualification.

[6] “Economic interest,” as set forth in the Terminology section, means ownership of more

than a de minimis legal or equitable interest. Except for situations in which a judge participates in the management of such a legal or equitable interest, or the interest could be

substantially affected by the outcome of a proceeding before a judge, it does not include:

(1) an interest in the individual holdings within a mutual or common investment fund;

(2) an interest in securities held by an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or

civic organization in which the judge or the judge's spouse, domestic partner, parent,

or child serves as a director, officer, advisor, or other participant;

(3) a deposit in a financial institution or deposits or proprietary interests the judge may

maintain as a member of a mutual savings association or credit union, or similar proprietary interests; or

(4) an interest in the issuer of government securities held by the judge.

[7] A statement that “appears to commit” a judge within the meaning of Rule 2.11 (A)(5) is

one that a reasonable person would believe from the judge's public statement that the

judge has specifically undertaken to reach a particular result.

[8] A waiver procedure provides the parties an opportunity to proceed without delay if they

wish to waive disqualification.

(1) Because of the important nature of maintaining confidence in the judiciary, a judge

should, even over the agreement of the parties, disqualify himself/herself in any situation when reasonable minds with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry would conclude that the judge’s integrity, impartiality,

or independence to serve as a judge is impaired. The waiver procedures should not be

construed to relieve the judge of the duty to disqualify when appropriate.

(2) A judge should be especially cautious of accepting a waiver from a self-represented litigant when the opposing party is represented by counsel. To ensure a voluntary, intentional, and knowledgeable waiver, a judge should inquire on the record

whether the self-represented litigant understands the nature of the conflict and is explicitly, intentionally, and voluntarily relinquishing the disqualification.

Rule 2.12: Supervisory Duties

Effective January 1, 2020

(A) A judge shall require court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction

and control to act in a manner consistent with the judge's obligations under this Code.

(B) A judge with supervisory authority for the performance of other judges shall take reasonable measures to ensure that those judges properly discharge their judicial responsibilities, including the prompt disposition of matters before them.

Comment

[1] A judge is responsible for his or her own conduct and for the conduct of others, such as

staff, when those persons are acting at the judge's direction or control. A judge may not

direct court personnel to engage in conduct on the judge's behalf or as the judge's representative when such conduct would violate the Code if undertaken by the judge.

[2] Public confidence in the judicial system depends upon timely justice. To promote the

efficient administration of justice, a judge with supervisory authority must take the steps

needed to ensure that judges under his or her supervision administer their workloads

promptly.

[3] A judge is responsible for ensuring competency, efficiency, and productivity of court

staff. To better provide accurate performance of court staff duties and to best serve the

public and the judge, a judge is encouraged to make certain that court staff receive training on a regular and continuing basis.

Rule 2.13: Hiring and Administrative Appointments

Effective March 1, 1993

(A) In hiring court employees and making administrative appointments, a judge:

(1) shall exercise the power of appointment impartially* and on the basis of merit; and

(2) shall avoid nepotism, favoritism, and unnecessary appointments.

(B) [Reserved]

rendered.

Comment

[1] “Appointees of a judge” includes but is not limited to assigned counsel, officials such

as referees, commissioners, special masters, receivers, special advocates, and

guardians, and personnel such as clerks, secretaries, and bailiffs.

[2] Unless otherwise defined by law, nepotism is the appointment or hiring of any relative

within the third degree of relationship of either the judge or the judge's spouse or

domestic partner, or the spouse or domestic partner of such relative.

[3] A judge should consult the staff of the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications

or its advisory opinions to determine whether hiring or appointing a relative as defined by

Comment [2] may be justifiable under the circumstances.

[4] Consent by the parties to an appointment or an award of compensation does not

relieve the judge of the obligation prescribed by paragraphs (A) and (C).

Rule 2.14: Disability and Impairment

Effective March 1, 1993

A judge having a reasonable belief that the performance of a lawyer or another judge is

impaired by drugs or alcohol, or by a mental, emotional, or physical condition, shall take

appropriate action, which may include a confidential referral to a lawyer or judicial assistance

program.

Comment

[1] “Appropriate action” means action intended and reasonably likely to help the judge or

lawyer in question address the problem and prevent harm to the justice system. Depending upon the circumstances, appropriate action may include but is not limited to speaking

directly to the impaired person, notifying an individual with supervisory responsibility over

the impaired person, or making a referral to an assistance program.

[2] Taking or initiating corrective action by way of referral to an assistance program may

satisfy a judge's responsibility under this Rule. Assistance programs have many

approaches for offering help to impaired judges and lawyers, such as intervention, counseling, or referral to appropriate health care professionals. Depending upon the gravity of

the conduct that has come to the judge's attention, however, the judge may be required to

take other action, such as reporting the impaired judge or lawyer to the appropriate authority, agency, or body. See Rule 2.15.

Rule 2.15: Responding to Judicial and Lawyer

Misconduct

Effective March 1, 1993

(A) A judge having knowledge* that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that

raises a substantial question regarding the judge's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a

judge in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority.*

(B) A judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority.

judge has committed a violation of this Code shall take appropriate action.

(D) A judge who receives credible information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer

has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct shall take appropriate action.

Comment

[1] Taking action to address known misconduct is a judge's obligation. Paragraphs (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 deny-

ing known misconduct among one's judicial colleagues or members of the legal profession undermines 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 who receives credible information indicating a substantial

likelihood of such misconduct, is required to take appropriate action under paragraphs (C)

and (D). Appropriate action may include, but is not limited to, communicating directly with

the judge who may have violated this Code, communicating with a supervising judge, or

reporting the suspected violation to the appropriate authority or other agency or body.

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 appropriate authority or other agency or body.

[3] The provisions of this Rule do not require the reporting of information received while

acting on behalf of an impaired judges or lawyers assistance program approved by the

Indiana Supreme Court.

Rule 2.16: Cooperation with Disciplinary Authorities

Effective March 1, 1993

(A) A judge shall cooperate and be candid and honest with judicial and lawyer disciplinary

agencies.

(B) A judge shall not retaliate, directly or indirectly, against a person known* or suspected to

have assisted or cooperated with an investigation of a judge or a lawyer.

Comment

[1] Cooperation with investigations and proceedings of judicial and lawyer discipline agencies, as required in paragraph (A), instills confidence in judges' commitment to the integrity of the judicial system and the protection of the public.

Rule 2.17: Prohibiting Broadcasting of Proceedings

Effective May 1, 2023

A judge shall prohibit broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking photographs in the

courtroom and areas immediately adjacent thereto. However, a judge may authorize:

(1) the use of electronic or photographic means for the presentation of evidence, for the

perpetuation of a record, or for other purposes of judicial administration;

(2) the broadcasting, televising, recording, or photographing of investitive or ceremonial

proceedings;

(3) the broadcasting, televising, recording, digital streaming, or photographing of court proceedings or the courtroom by members of the news media under the following conditions:

(a) the means of recording will not distract participants or impair the dignity of the proceedings; and

(b) the broadcasting is restricted to non-confidential proceedings.

Comment

[1] Under paragraph (3) of this Rule, the judge has discretion to approve or deny a

request for broadcast of a court proceeding. If the judge allows broadcast, the judge has

discretion to interrupt or stop the coverage if he or she deems the interruption or stoppage

appropriate. The judge also has discretion to limit or terminate broadcast by a news

media organization at any time during the proceeding.

[2] News media is defined as persons employed by or representing a newspaper, peri-

odical, press association, radio station, television station, or wire service and covered by

Ind. Code § 34-46-4-1. Representatives of news media organizations may be required to

wear identification. The judge has discretion to determine who is admitted as news media

and under what conditions. Members of the general public are prohibited from broadcasting, recording, or photographing court proceedings.

[3] All civil and criminal proceedings are eligible for broadcast by the news media, except

for proceedings closed to the public, either by state statute or Indiana Supreme Court

rules. No broadcast of a court proceeding is allowed without authorization from the judge.

All authorized broadcast coverage of a court proceeding must comply with the Indiana

Rules of Professional Conduct and the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct. The judge must

prohibit media broadcast of minors; juvenile delinquency and CHINS matters; victims of

violent offenses, sex offenses, and domestic abuse; jurors; attorney-client

communications; bench conferences; and materials on counsel tables and judicial bench.

The judge has discretion to deny broadcast coverage of a witness for safety concerns.

[4] A judge may require news media to submit requests to broadcast a trial court proceeding in advance of the court proceeding. The judge has discretion to modify the notice

period. The judge will provide a copy of the request to the counsel of record and parties

appearing without counsel. The judge must post notice in the courtroom that news media

personnel may be present for broadcast of court proceedings, and filming, photographing,

and recording is limited to the authorized news media personnel.

Canon 3: A Judge Shall Conduct the Judge’s Personal

and Extrajudicial Activities to Minimize the Risk of

Conflict with the Obligations of Judicial Office

Rule 3.1: Extrajudicial Activities in General

Effective January 1, 2009

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;

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 or for activities that concern the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.

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 the

judge.

Rule 3.2: Appearances before Governmental Bodies

and Consultation with Government Officials

Effective January 1, 2009

A judge shall not appear voluntarily at a public hearing before, or otherwise consult with, an

executive or a legislative body or official, except:

(A) in connection with matters concerning the law,* the legal system, or the administration

of justice;

(B) in connection with matters about which the judge acquired knowledge or expertise in

the course of the judge's judicial duties; or

interests or those of members of the judge's family residing in the judge's household, or

when the judge is acting in a fiduciary* capacity.

Comment

[1] Judges possess special expertise in matters of law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, and may properly share that expertise with governmental bodies and

executive or legislative branch officials.

[2] In appearing before governmental bodies or consulting with government officials,

judges must be mindful that they remain subject to other provisions of this Code, such as

Rule 1.3, prohibiting judges from using the prestige of office to advance their own or others' interests, Rule 2.10, governing public comment on pending and impending matters,

and Rule 3.1(C), prohibiting judges from engaging in extrajudicial activities that would

appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge's independence, integrity, or

impartiality.

[3] In general, it would be an unnecessary and unfair burden to prohibit judges from

appearing before governmental bodies or consulting with government officials on matters

that are likely to affect them as private citizens, such as zoning proposals affecting their

real property. In engaging in such activities, however, judges must not refer to their judicial positions, and must otherwise exercise caution to avoid using the prestige of judicial

office.

[4] A judge is not prohibited under this Rule from appearing before an executive or legislative body or official in connection with an extrajudicial position held in accordance with

Rule 3.4.

Rule 3.3: Testifying as a Character Witness

Effective January 1, 2009

A judge shall not testify as a character witness in a judicial, administrative, or other adjudicatory proceeding or otherwise vouch for the character of a person in a legal proceeding,

except when duly summoned.

Comment

[1] A judge who, without being subpoenaed, testifies as a character witness abuses the

prestige of judicial office to advance the interests of another. See Rule 1.3. Except in

unusual circumstances where the demands of justice require, a judge should discourage

a party from requiring the judge to testify as a character witness.

[2] This Rule does not prohibit judges from writing letters of recommendation in non-adjudicatory proceedings pursuant to Rule 1.3, Comments [2] and [3].

[3] This Rule applies to attorney and judicial disciplinary proceedings, including rein-

statements.

Rule 3.4: Appointments to Governmental Positions

Effective January 1, 2009

A judge shall not accept appointment to a governmental committee, board, commission, or

other governmental position except with prior approval of the Indiana Supreme Court, unless

it is one that concerns the law,* the legal system, or the administration of justice.

Comment

[1] Rule 3.4 implicitly acknowledges the value of judges accepting appointments to entities that concern the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. Even in such

instances, however, a judge should assess the appropriateness of accepting an appointment, paying particular attention to the subject matter of the appointment and the avail-

ability and allocation of judicial resources, including the judge's time commitments, and

giving due regard to the requirements of the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

[2] A judge may represent his or her country, state, or locality on ceremonial occasions or

in connection with historical, educational, or cultural activities. Such representation does

not constitute acceptance of a government position.

Rule 3.5: Use of Nonpublic Information

Effective January 1, 2009

A judge shall not intentionally disclose or use nonpublic information* acquired in a judicial

capacity for any purpose unrelated to the judge's judicial duties.

Comment

[1] In the course of performing judicial duties, a judge may acquire information of commercial or other value that is unavailable to the public. The judge must not reveal or use

such information for personal gain or for any purpose unrelated to his or her judicial

duties.

[2] This rule is not intended, however, to affect a judge's ability to act on information as

necessary to protect the health or safety of the judge or a member of a judge's family,

court personnel, or other judicial officers if consistent with other provisions of this Code.

Rule 3.6: Affiliation with Discriminatory Organizations

Effective January 1, 2009

(A) A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

(B) A judge shall not use the benefits or facilities of an organization if the judge knows* or

should know that the organization practices invidious discrimination on one or more of the

bases identified in paragraph (A). A judge's attendance at an event in a facility of an organization that the judge is not permitted to join is not a violation of this Rule when the judge's

attendance is an isolated event that could not reasonably be perceived as an endorsement of

the organization's practices.

Comment

[1] A judge's public manifestation of approval of invidious discrimination on any basis

gives rise to the appearance of impropriety and diminishes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. A judge's membership in an organization that practices invidious discrimination creates the perception that the judge's impartiality is

impaired.

[2] An organization is generally said to discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes

from membership on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or

sexual orientation persons who would otherwise be eligible for admission. Whether an

organization practices invidious discrimination is a complex question to which judges

should be attentive. The answer cannot be determined from a mere examination of an

organization's current membership rolls, but rather, depends upon how the organization

selects members, as well as other relevant factors, such as whether the organization is

dedicated to the preservation of religious, ethnic, or cultural values of legitimate common

interest to its members, or whether it is an intimate, purely private organization whose

membership limitations could not constitutionally be prohibited.

[3] When a judge learns that an organization to which the judge belongs engages in invidious discrimination, the judge must resign immediately from the organization.

[4] A judge's membership in a religious organization as a lawful exercise of the freedom of

religion is not a violation of this Rule.

[5] This Rule does not apply to national or state military service.

Rule 3.7: Participation in Educational, Religious,

Charitable, Fraternal, or Civic Organizations and

Activities

Effective January 1, 2009

(A) Except as provided by Rule 3.7(A)(2), a judge may not directly solicit funds for an organization. However, subject to the requirements of Rule 3.1, a judge may participate in activities

sponsored by organizations or governmental entities concerned with the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, and those sponsored by or on behalf of educational, reli-

gious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organizations not conducted for profit, including but not

limited to the following activities:

(1) assisting such an organization or entity in planning related to fund-raising, volunteering

services or goods at fund-raising events, and participating in the management and investment of the organization's or entity's funds;

(2) soliciting* contributions* for such an organization or entity, but only from members of

the judge's family,* or from judges over whom the judge does not exercise supervisory or

appellate authority;

(3) soliciting membership for such an organization or entity, even though the membership

dues or fees generated may be used to support the objectives of the organization or

entity, but only if the organization or entity is concerned with the law, the legal system, or

the administration of justice;

(4) appearing or speaking at, receiving an award or other recognition at, being featured on

the program of, and permitting his or her title to be used in connection with an event of

such an organization or entity, but if the event serves a fund-raising purpose, the judge

may not be a featured speaker or guest of honor;

(5) making recommendations to such a public or private fund-granting organization or

entity in connection with its programs and activities, but only if the organization or entity

is concerned with the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice; and

(6) serving as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of such an organization or

entity, unless it is likely that the organization or entity:

(a) will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge; or

(b) will frequently be engaged in adversary proceedings in the court of which the judge

is a member, or in any court subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the court of which

the judge is a member.

(B) A judge may encourage lawyers to provide pro bono publico legal services.

Comment

[1] The activities permitted by paragraph (A) generally include those sponsored by or

undertaken on behalf of public or private not-for-profit educational institutions, and other

not-for-profit organizations, including law-related, charitable, and other organizations.

[2] Even for law-related organizations, a judge should consider whether the membership

and purposes of the organization, or the nature of the judge's participation in or association with the organization, would conflict with the judge's obligation to refrain from activities that reflect adversely upon a judge's independence, integrity, and impartiality.

[3] Attendance at fund-raising events and volunteering services or goods at or in support

of fundraising events do not present an element of coercion or abuse the prestige of judicial office and are not prohibited by this Rule.

[4] Identification of a judge's position in educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic

organizations on letterhead used for fund-raising or membership solicitation does not violate this Rule. The letterhead may list the judge's title or judicial office if comparable designations are used for other persons.

[5] In addition to appointing lawyers to serve as counsel for indigent parties in individual

cases, a judge may promote broader access to justice by encouraging lawyers to participate in pro bono publico legal services, if in doing so the judge does not employ coercion, or abuse the prestige of judicial office. Such encouragement may take many forms,

including providing lists of available programs, training lawyers to do pro bono publico

legal work, and participating in events recognizing lawyers who have done pro bono publico work.

[6] Judges, as parents, may assist their children in their fund-raising activities if the procedures employed are not coercive and the sums nominal.

Rule 3.8: Appointments to Fiduciary Positions

Effective January 1, 2009

(A) A judge shall not accept appointment to serve in a fiduciary* position, such as executor,

administrator, trustee, guardian, attorney in fact, or other personal representative, except for

the estate, trust, or person of a member of the judge's family,* and then only if such service

will not interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.

(B) A judge shall not serve in a fiduciary position if the judge as fiduciary will likely be engaged

in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge, or if the estate, trust, or ward

becomes involved in adversary proceedings in the court on which the judge serves, or one

under its appellate jurisdiction.

in financial activities that apply to a judge personally.

(D) If a person who is serving in a fiduciary position becomes a judge, he or she must comply

with this Rule as soon as reasonably practicable, but in no event later than one year after

becoming a judge.

Comment

[1] A judge should recognize that other restrictions imposed by this Code may conflict with

a judge's obligations as a fiduciary; in such circumstances, a judge should resign as fiduciary. For example, serving as a fiduciary might require frequent disqualification of a

judge under Rule 2.11 because a judge is deemed to have an economic interest in shares

of stock held by a trust if the amount of stock held is more than de minimis.

Rule 3.9: Service as Arbitrator or Mediator

Effective January 1, 2009

A judge shall not act as an arbitrator or a mediator or perform other judicial functions apart

from the judge's official duties unless expressly authorized by law.*

Comment

[1] This Rule does not prohibit a judge from participating in arbitration, mediation, or settlement conferences performed as part of assigned judicial duties. Rendering dispute res-

olution services apart from those duties, whether or not for economic gain, is prohibited

unless it is expressly authorized by law.

Rule 3.10: Practice of Law

Effective January 1, 2009

A judge shall not practice law. A judge may act pro se and may, without compensation, give

legal advice to and draft or review documents for a member of the judge's family,* but is prohibited from serving as the family member's lawyer before a tribunal. This Rule does not prohibit the practice of law pursuant to military service.

Comment

[1] A judge may act pro se in all legal matters, including matters involving litigation and

matters involving appearances before or other dealings with governmental bodies. A

judge must not use the prestige of office to advance the judge's personal or family

interests. See Rule 1.3.

[2] A judge's assistance to a family member in legal matters may not include signing pleadings or appearing before a tribunal for a family member.

Rule 3.11: Financial, Business, or Remunerative

Activities

Effective January 1, 2009

(A) A judge shall not engage in any business, financial, or other remunerative activity if engaging in the activity would:

(1) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties;

(2) lead to frequent disqualification of the judge;

(3) involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with lawyers or other persons likely to come before the court on which the judge serves; or

(4) result in violations of other provisions of this Code.

Comment

[1] Judges generally are permitted to engage in financial and business activities subject to

the requirements of this Rule and all other provisions of the Code. For example, it would

be improper for a judge to spend so much time on business activities that it interferes with

the performance of judicial duties. See Rule 2.1. Similarly, it would be improper for a

judge to use his or her official title or appear in judicial robes in business advertising, to

conduct his or her business or financial affairs in such a way that disqualification is frequently required, or to use or permit the use of the judicial position in the judge's extrajudicial financial activities. See Rules 1.3 and 2.11.

[2] As soon as practicable without serious financial detriment, the judge must divest himself or herself of investments and other financial interests that might require frequent disqualification or otherwise violate this Rule.

Rule 3.12: Compensation for Extrajudicial Activities

Effective January 1, 2009

A judge may accept reasonable compensation for extrajudicial activities permitted by this

Code or other law* unless such acceptance would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge's independence,* integrity,* or impartiality.*

Comment

[1] A judge is permitted to accept honoraria, stipends, fees, wages, salaries, royalties, or

other compensation for speaking, teaching, writing, and other extrajudicial activities,

provided the compensation is reasonable and commensurate with the task performed.

The judge should be mindful, however, that judicial duties must take precedence over

other activities. See Rule 2.1.

[2] Compensation derived from extrajudicial activities is subject to public reporting. See

Rule 3.15.

Rule 3.13: Acceptance and Reporting of Gifts, Loans,

Bequests, Benefits, or Other Things of Value

Effective January 1, 2009

(A) A judge shall not accept any gifts, loans, bequests, benefits, or other things of value, if

acceptance is prohibited by law* or would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the

judge's independence,* integrity,* or impartiality.*

(B) Unless otherwise prohibited by law, or by paragraph (A), a judge may accept the following

without publicly reporting such acceptance:

(1) items with little intrinsic value, such as plaques, certificates, trophies, and greeting

cards;

(2) gifts, loans, bequests, benefits, or other things of value from friends, relatives, or other

persons, including lawyers, whose appearance or interest in a proceeding pending* or

impending* before the judge would in any event require disqualification of the judge

under Rule 2.11;

(3) ordinary social hospitality;

(4) commercial or financial opportunities and benefits, including special pricing and dis-

counts, and loans from lending institutions in their regular course of business, if the same

opportunities and benefits or loans are made available on the same terms to similarly situated persons who are not judges;

(5) rewards and prizes given to competitors or participants in random drawings, contests,

or other events that are open to persons who are not judges;

(6) scholarships, fellowships, and similar benefits or awards, if they are available to similarly situated persons who are not judges, based upon the same terms and criteria;

(7) books, magazines, journals, audiovisual materials, and other resource materials supplied by publishers on a complimentary basis for official use; or

(8) gifts, awards, or benefits associated with the business, profession, or other separate

activity of a spouse, a domestic partner,* or other family member of a judge residing in

the judge's household,* but that incidentally benefit the judge;

(9) gifts incident to a public testimonial;

(10) invitations to the judge and the judge's spouse, domestic partner, or guest to attend

without charge:

(a) an event associated with a bar-related function or other activity relating to the law,

the legal system, or the administration of justice; or

(b) an event associated with any of the judge's educational, religious, charitable,

fraternal or civic activities permitted by this Code, if the same invitation is offered to

nonjudges who are engaged in similar ways in the activity as is the judge.

loan, bequest, benefit, or other thing of value but must report such acceptance to the extent

required by Rule 3.15.

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 upon the acceptance of such benefits,

according to the magnitude of the risk. Paragraph (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 paragraph (A) from accepting the gift, or required under paragraph (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 compromised. In addition, especially when the appearance of friends or relatives 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. Paragraph (B)(2) places no restrictions upon the ability of a

judge to accept gifts or other things of value from friends or relatives under these circumstances, and does not require public reporting.

Similarly, the receipt of ordinary social hospitality, commensurate with the occasion, is not

likely to undermine the integrity of the judiciary. However, the receipt of other gifts and

things of value, not listed in Rule 3.13(B), presents the greatest risk. Under Rule 3.13(C),

a judge may accept and report other gifts and things of value only after careful scrutiny in

light of Rule 3.13(A). Where the donor is an attorney or party who has or is likely to come

before the judge, the exchange will be appropriate only in the rarest of circumstances,

and only after the judge has determined under Rule 3.13(A) that the receipt would not

appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge's integrity, impartiality, or independence, and only if reported pursuant to Rule 3.15. For example, if a substantial period

of time has elapsed since the judge presided over a case involving the donor and, in the

interim, there has occurred a significant change of personal circumstances between the

two, the judges may be permitted to accept the gift or loan or other thing of value, subject

to the reporting requirements.

[3] Businesses and financial institutions frequently make available special pricing, dis-

counts, and other benefits, either in connection with a temporary promotion or for pre-

ferred customers, based upon 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 interest rates unless the same

rate was being made available to the general public for a certain period of time or only to

borrowers 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 restrictions imposed upon judges, and urge them to take these restrictions into

account when making decisions about accepting such gifts or benefits.

[5] Rule 3.13 does not apply to contributions to a judge's campaign for judicial office. Such

contributions are governed by Rule 4.4.

Rule 3.14: Reimbursement of Expenses and Waivers of

Fees or Charges

Effective January 1, 2009

(A) Unless otherwise prohibited by Rules 3.1 and 3.13(A) or other law,* a judge may accept

reimbursement of necessary and reasonable expenses for travel, food, lodging, or other incidental expenses, or a waiver or partial waiver of fees or charges for registration, tuition, and

similar items, from sources other than the judge's employing entity, if the expenses or

charges are associated with the judge's participation in extrajudicial activities permitted by

this Code.

(B) Reimbursement of expenses for necessary travel, food, lodging, or other incidental

expenses shall be limited to the actual costs reasonably incurred by the judge and, when

appropriate to the occasion, by the judge's spouse, domestic partner,* or guest.

charges on behalf of the judge or the judge's spouse, domestic partner, or guest shall publicly

report such acceptance as required by Rule 3.15.

Comment

[1] Educational, civic, religious, fraternal, and charitable organizations often sponsor meetings, seminars, symposia, dinners, awards ceremonies, and similar events. Judges are

encouraged to attend educational programs, as both teachers and participants, in law-related and academic disciplines, in furtherance of their duty to remain competent in the

law. Participation in a variety of other extrajudicial activity is also permitted and encouraged by this Code.

[2] Not infrequently, sponsoring organizations invite certain judges to attend seminars or

other events on a fee-waived or partial-fee-waived basis, and sometimes include reimbursement for necessary travel, food, lodging, or other incidental expenses. A judge's

decision whether to accept reimbursement of expenses or a waiver or partial waiver of

fees or charges in connection with these or other extrajudicial activities must be based

upon an assessment of all the circumstances. The judge must undertake a reasonable

inquiry to obtain the information necessary to make an informed judgment about whether

acceptance would be consistent with the requirements of this Code.

[3] A judge must assure himself or herself that acceptance of reimbursement or fee

waivers would not appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge's independence, integrity, or impartiality. The factors that a judge should consider when deciding whether to accept reimbursement or a fee waiver for attendance at a particular activity

include:

(a) whether the sponsor is an accredited educational institution or bar association

rather than a trade association or a for-profit entity;

(b) whether the funding comes largely from numerous contributors rather than from a

single entity and is earmarked for programs with specific content;

pending or impending before the judge, or to matters that are likely to come before the

judge;

(d) whether the activity is primarily educational rather than recreational, and whether

the costs of the event are reasonable and comparable to those associated with similar

events sponsored by the judiciary, bar associations, or similar groups;

(e) whether information concerning the activity and its funding sources is available

upon inquiry;

(f) whether the sponsor or source of funding is generally associated with particular

parties or interests currently appearing or likely to appear in the judge's court, thus pos-

sibly requiring disqualification of the judge under Rule 2.11;

(g) whether differing viewpoints are presented; and

(h) whether a broad range of judicial and nonjudicial participants are invited, whether a

large number of participants are invited, and whether the program is designed specifically for judges.

[4] Rule 3.14(C) does not require judges to report expenses paid by governmental entities, colleges and universities, or the following local, state, and national judicial and bar

organizations or their subdivisions: Indiana Judges Association, Indiana State Bar Association, National Association of Women Judges, Indiana Continuing Legal Education

Forum, American Bar Association, National Bar Association, National Center for State

Courts, Conference of Chief Justices, National Conference of Bar Examiners, Seventh

Circuit Bar Association, any Indiana city or county local bar association, or any other

organization designated by the Indiana Supreme Court as an exempted source of reimbursement.

Rule 3.15: Financial Reporting Requirements

Effective January 1, 2009

(A) A judge shall publicly report the amount or value of:

(1) compensation received for extrajudicial activities whether or not permitted by Rule

3.12;

(2) gifts and other things of value as permitted by Rule 3.13(C), unless the value of such

items, alone or in the aggregate with other items received from the same source in the

same calendar year, does not exceed $150.00; and

(3) reimbursement of expenses and waiver of fees or charges permitted by Rule 3.14(A),

unless the amount of reimbursement or waiver, alone or in the aggregate with other reimbursements or waivers received from the same source in the same calendar year, does

not exceed $150.00.

(B) When public reporting is required by paragraph (A), a judge shall report the date, place,

and nature of the activity for which the judge received any compensation; the description of

any gift, loan, bequest, benefit, or other thing of value accepted; and the source of reimbursement of expenses or waiver or partial waiver of fees or charges.

Economic Interests.

Comment

[1] Compensation from the performance of marriage ceremonies or from a prior law practice may be reported in lump sums and need not include the identities of individual payors

or clients.

Canon 4: A Judge or Candidate for Judicial Office Shall

Not Engage in Political or Campaign Activity That is

Inconsistent with the Independence, Integrity, or

Impartiality of the Judiciary

Rule 4.1: Political and Campaign Activities of Judges

and Judicial Candidates in General

Effective January 1, 2011

(A) Except as permitted by law,* or by Rules 4.1(B), 4.1(C), 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4, a judge or a judicial candidate* shall not:

(1) act as a leader in or hold an office in a political organization;*

(2) make speeches on behalf of a political organization;

(3) publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for any public office;

(4) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution* to a political organization or a candidate for public office;

(5) attend or purchase tickets for dinners or other events sponsored by a political organization or a candidate for public office;

(6) publicly identify himself or herself as a member or candidate of a political organization;

(7) seek, accept, or use endorsements from a political organization;

(8) personally solicit* or accept campaign contributions other than through a campaign

committee authorized by Rule 4.4;

(9) use or permit the use of campaign contributions for the private benefit of the judge,

the candidate, or others;

(10) use court staff, facilities, or other court resources in a campaign for judicial office or

for any political purpose;

(11) knowingly,* or with reckless disregard for the truth, make any false or misleading

statement;

(12) make any statement that would reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or

impair the fairness of a matter pending* or impending* in any court; or

(13) in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the

court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial*

performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.

(B) A judge or judicial candidate shall take reasonable measures to ensure that other persons

do not undertake, on behalf of the judge or judicial candidate, any activities prohibited under

paragraph (A).

a judicial officer serving for a judge in office filled by partisan election may at any time:

(1) identify himself or herself as a member of a political party;

(2) voluntarily contribute to and attend meetings of political organizations; and

(3) attend dinners and other events sponsored by political organizations and may purchase a ticket for such an event and a ticket for a guest.

(D) A judge in an office filled by nonpartisan election other than a retention election, a judicial

candidate seeking that office, and a judicial officer serving for a judge in an office filled by nonpartisan election may at any time attend dinners and other events sponsored by political

organizations and may purchase a ticket for such an event and a ticket for a guest.

Comment

General Considerations

[1] Even when subject to public election, a judge plays a role different from that of a legislator or executive branch official. Rather than making decisions based upon the

expressed views or preferences of the electorate, a judge makes decisions based upon

the law and the facts of every case. Public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary is eroded if judges or judicial candidates are perceived to be subject

to political influence. In furtherance of this interest, judges and judicial candidates must, to

the greatest extent possible, be free, and appear to be free, from political influence and

partisan interests. Therefore, this Canon permits only narrowly-tailored exceptions to the

prohibitions against political activities of judges and judicial candidates, taking into

account the different methods of judicial selection and the role of the electorate in select-

ing and retaining its judiciary.

[2] When a person becomes a judicial candidate, this Canon becomes applicable to his or

her conduct.

Participation in Political Activities

[3] Public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary is eroded if

judges or judicial candidates are perceived to be subject to political influence. Although

judges and judicial candidates may register to vote as members of a political party, they

are prohibited by paragraph (A)(1) from assuming leadership roles in political organizations.

[4] Paragraphs (A)(2) and (A)(3) prohibit judges and judicial candidates from making

speeches on behalf of political organizations or, except as permitted by Rule 4.2, from

publicly endorsing or opposing candidates for public office to prevent them from abusing

the prestige of judicial office to advance the interests of others. See Rule 1.3. These

Rules do not prohibit candidates from campaigning on their own behalf.

[5] Family members of judges and judicial candidates are not bound by the Code of Judicial Conduct, and are free to engage in their own political activities, including running for

public office. Nonetheless, a judge or judicial candidate must not be publicly associated

with a family member's political activity or campaign for public office except that a judge

may, as a family member, accompany a member of the judge's family* at events related

directly and solely to that person's candidacy for public office. To avoid public mis-

understanding, judges and judicial candidates should take, and should urge members of

their families to take, reasonable steps to avoid any implication that the prestige of judicial

office is being used to support any family member's candidacy or other political activity.

[6] Judges and judicial candidates retain the right to participate in the political process as

voters in both primary and general elections.

[7] Full-time and continuing part-time judicial officers who are employed by or appointed

to serve on behalf of an elected or appointed judge are bound by Rule 4.1 and, therefore,

may not endorse or contribute to candidates for public office. However, as a limited exception to the restrictions in Rule 4.1, a judicial officer who serves for or is employed by a

judge who is a candidate for judicial office publicly may endorse that judicial candidate by

attending the candidate's fundraisers and purchasing a ticket for such an event and a

ticket for a guest.

[8] Generally, taking part in ceremonies and similar public events with other public officials, such as riding in parades or participating in public inaugural activities, does not constitute political conduct.

Statements and Comments Made During a Campaign for Judicial Office

[9] Judicial candidates must be scrupulously fair and accurate in all statements made by

them and by their campaign committees. Paragraph (A)(11) obligates candidates and

their committees to refrain from making statements that are false or misleading, or that

omit facts necessary to make the communication considered as a whole not materially

misleading.

[10] Judicial candidates are sometimes the subject of false, misleading, or unfair allegations made by opposing candidates, third parties, or the media. For example, false or

misleading statements might be made regarding the identity, present position, exper-

ience, qualifications, or judicial rulings of a candidate. In other situations, false or misleading allegations may be made that bear upon a candidate's integrity or fitness for

judicial office. As long as the candidate does not violate paragraphs (A)(11), (A)(12), or

(A)(13), the candidate may make a factually accurate public response. In addition, when

an independent third party has made unwarranted attacks on a candidate's opponent, the

candidate may disavow the attacks, and request the third party to cease and desist.

[11] Subject to paragraph (A)(12), a judicial candidate is permitted to respond directly to

false, misleading, or unfair allegations made against him or her during a campaign,

although it is preferable for someone else to respond if the allegations relate to a pending

case.

[12] Paragraph (A)(12) prohibits judicial candidates from making comments that might

impair the fairness of pending or impending judicial proceedings. This provision does not

restrict arguments or statements to the court or jury by a lawyer who is a judicial candidate, or rulings, statements, or instructions by a judge that may appropriately affect the

outcome of a matter.

Pledges, Promises, or Commitments Inconsistent with Impartial

Performance of the Adjudicative Duties of Judicial Office

[13] The role of a judge is different from that of a legislator or executive branch official,

even when the judge is subject to public election. Campaigns for judicial office must be

conducted differently from campaigns for other offices. The narrowly drafted restrictions

upon political and campaign activities of judicial candidates provided in Canon 4 allow

candidates to conduct campaigns that provide voters with sufficient information to permit

them to distinguish between candidates and make informed electoral choices.

[14] Paragraph (A)(13) makes applicable to both judges and judicial candidates the prohibition that applies to judges in Rule 2.10(B), relating to pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of

judicial office.

[15] The making of a pledge, promise, or commitment is not dependent upon, or limited

to, the use of any specific words or phrases; instead, the totality of the statement must be

examined to determine if a reasonable person would believe that the candidate for judicial

office has specifically undertaken to reach a particular result. Pledges, promises, or commitments must be contrasted with statements or announcements of personal views on

legal, political, or other issues, which are not prohibited. 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.

[16] A judicial candidate may make campaign promises related to judicial organization,

administration, and court management, such as a promise to dispose of a backlog of

cases, start court sessions on time, or avoid favoritism in appointments and hiring. A candidate may also pledge to take action outside the courtroom, such as working toward an

improved jury selection system, or advocating for more funds to improve the physical

plant and amenities of the courthouse.

[17] Judicial candidates may receive questionnaires or requests for interviews from the

media and from issue advocacy or other community organizations that seek to learn their

views on disputed or controversial legal or political issues. Paragraph (A)(13) does not

specifically address judicial responses to such inquiries. Depending upon the wording

and format of such questionnaires, candidates' responses might be viewed as pledges,

promises, or commitments to perform the adjudicative duties of office other than in an

impartial way. To avoid violating paragraph (A)(13), therefore, candidates who respond to

media and other inquiries should also give assurances that they will keep an open mind

and will carry out their adjudicative duties faithfully and impartially if elected. Candidates

who do not respond may state their reasons for not responding, such as the danger that

answering might be perceived by a reasonable person as undermining a successful can-

didate's independence or impartiality, or that it might lead to frequent disqualification. See

Rule 2.11.

Rule 4.2: Political and Campaign Activities of Judicial

Candidates in Public Elections

Effective January 1, 2011

(A) A judicial candidate* in a partisan, nonpartisan, or retention public election* shall:

(1) act at all times in a manner consistent with the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary;

(2) comply with all applicable election, election campaign, and election campaign fund-raising laws and regulations;

(3) review and approve the content of all campaign statements and materials produced by

the candidate or his or her campaign committee, as authorized by Rule 4.4, before their

dissemination;

(4) take reasonable measures to ensure that other persons do not undertake on behalf of

the candidate activities, other than those described in Rule 4.4, that the candidate is prohibited from doing by Rule 4.1; and

(5) notify the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications in writing, within one week

after becoming a candidate, of the office sought and of the candidate's address and telephone number.

(B) A candidate for partisan elective judicial office may, in addition to those activities permitted at any time under Rule 4.1(C) and unless prohibited by law,* and not earlier than one

(1) year before the primary or general election in which the candidate is running:

(1) establish a campaign committee and accept campaign contributions pursuant to the

provisions of Rule 4.4;

(2) speak on behalf of his or her candidacy through any medium, including but not limited

to advertisements, websites, or other campaign literature;

(3) publicly endorse and contribute to candidates for election to public office running in

the same election cycle;

(4) attend dinners, fundraisers, or other events for candidates for public office running in

the same election cycle and purchase a ticket for such an event and a ticket for a guest;

(5) seek, accept, or use endorsements from any person or organization, including a political organization; and

(6) identify himself or herself as a candidate of a political organization.

(C) A candidate for nonpartisan elective judicial office may, in addition to those activities permitted at any time under Rule 4.1(D) and unless prohibited by law, and not earlier than one

(1) year before the primary or general election in which the candidate is running:

(1) establish a campaign committee and accept campaign contributions pursuant to the

provisions of Rule 4.4;

(2) speak on behalf of his or her candidacy through any medium, including but not limited

to advertisements, websites, or other campaign literature;

(3) publicly endorse, contribute to, and attend functions for other candidates running for

the same judicial office for which he or she is running; and

(4) seek, accept, and use endorsements from any appropriate person or organization

other than a political organization.

(D) A candidate for retention to judicial office whose candidacy has drawn active opposition

may campaign in response and may:

(1) establish a campaign committee and accept campaign contributions pursuant to the

provisions of Rule 4.4;

(2) speak on behalf of his or her candidacy through any medium, including but not limited

to advertisements, websites, or other campaign literature; and

(3) seek, accept, and use endorsements from any appropriate person or organization

other than a political organization.

Comment

[1] Paragraphs (B), (C), and (D) permit judicial candidates in public elections to engage in

some political or campaign activities otherwise prohibited by Rule 4.1. Candidates in partisan and nonpartisan elections may not engage in these activities earlier than one year

before the first applicable electoral event. Candidates for retention to judicial office may

engage in certain campaign activities only if their retention actively is opposed.

[2] Despite paragraphs (B) and (C), and (D), judicial candidates for public election remain

subject to many of the provisions of Rule 4.1. For example, a candidate continues to be

prohibited from soliciting funds for a political organization, knowingly making false or misleading statements during a campaign, or making certain promises, pledges, or commitments related to future adjudicative duties. See Rule 4.1(A), paragraphs (4), (11), and

(13).

[3] In partisan public elections for judicial office, a candidate may be nominated by, affiliated with, or otherwise publicly identified as a candidate of a political organization.

[4] In nonpartisan public elections or retention elections, candidates are prohibited from

seeking, accepting, or using nominations or endorsements from partisan political organizations.

[5] Judicial candidates in partisan and nonpartisan elections are permitted to attend dinners and other events sponsored by political organizations and may purchase a ticket for

such an event and a ticket for a guest.

[6] For purposes of paragraph (C)(3), nonpartisan candidates are considered to be running for the same judicial office if several judgeships on the same court are to be filled as

a result of the election. In endorsing another candidate for a position on the same court, a

judicial candidate must abide by the same rules governing campaign conduct and speech

as apply to the candidate's own campaign.

[7] Although judicial candidates in nonpartisan public elections are prohibited from running on a ticket or slate associated with a political organization, they may group themselves into slates or other alliances to conduct their campaigns more effectively.

Candidates who have grouped themselves together are considered to be running for the

same judicial office if they satisfy the conditions described in Comment [6].

Rule 4.3: Activities of Candidates for Appointive Judicial

Office

Effective January 1, 2011

A candidate for appointment to judicial office may:

(A) communicate with the appointing or confirming authority, including any selection,

screening, or nominating commission or similar agency;

(B) seek endorsements for the appointment from any person or organization other than a

partisan political organization; and

4.1 for judges holding the type of judicial office sought.

Comment

[1] When seeking support or endorsement, or when communicating directly with an

appointing or confirming authority, a candidate for appointive judicial office must not make

any pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of the office. See Rule 4.1(A)(13).

[2] Candidates for appointive judicial office may arrange for letters of recommendation to

nominating commissions or the Governor in support of their candidacies from friends, relatives, colleagues, and other members of the candidate's community, including lawyers.

However, a judicial candidate, particularly a judge seeking another judicial appointment,

must be cautious about from whom and how these letters are obtained, and must not misuse the court's power.

[3] This Rule does not apply to a candidate for appointment to a judicial office subject to

partisan or nonpartisan election.

Rule 4.4: Campaign Committees

Effective January 1, 2011

(A) A judicial candidate* subject to partisan or nonpartisan election*, and a candidate for

retention who has met active opposition, may establish a campaign committee to manage

and conduct a campaign for the candidate, subject to the provisions of this Code. The candidate is responsible for ensuring that his or her campaign committee complies with applicable provisions of this Code and other applicable law.*

(B) A judicial candidate shall direct his or her campaign committee:

(1) to solicit and accept only such campaign contributions* as are reasonable;

(2) not to solicit or accept contributions for a candidate's current campaign more than one

(1) year before the applicable primary election, caucus, or general or retention election,

nor more than ninety (90) days after the last election in which the candidate participated;

and

(3) to comply with all applicable statutory requirements for disclosure and divestiture of

campaign contributions.

Comment

[1] Judicial candidates are prohibited from personally soliciting campaign contributions or

personally accepting campaign contributions. See Rule 4.1(A)(8). This Rule recognizes

that in many jurisdictions, judicial candidates must raise campaign funds to support their

candidacies, and permits candidates, other than candidates for appointive judicial office

or candidates for retention who have not met active opposition, to establish campaign

committees to solicit and accept reasonable financial contributions or in-kind contributions.

[2] Campaign committees may solicit and accept campaign contributions, manage the

expenditure of campaign funds, and generally conduct campaigns. Candidates are

responsible for compliance with the requirements of election law and other applicable

law, and for the activities of their campaign committees.

[3] At the start of a campaign, the candidate must instruct the campaign committee to solicit or accept only such contributions as are reasonable in amount, appropriate under the

circumstances, and in conformity with applicable law. Although lawyers and others who

might appear before a successful candidate for judicial office are permitted to make campaign contributions, the candidate should instruct his or her campaign committee to be

especially cautious in connection with such contributions, so they do not create grounds

for disqualification if the candidate is elected to judicial office. See Rule 2.11.

Rule 4.5: Activities of Judges Who Become Candidates

for Nonjudicial Office

Effective January 1, 2011

(A) Upon becoming a candidate for a nonjudicial elective office, a judge shall resign from judicial office, unless permitted by law* to continue to hold judicial office.

(B) Upon becoming a candidate for a nonjudicial appointive office, a judge is not required to

resign from judicial office, provided that the judge complies with the other provisions of this

Code.

Comment

[1] In campaigns for nonjudicial elective public office, candidates may make pledges,

promises, or commitments related to positions they would take and ways they would act if

elected to office. Although appropriate in nonjudicial campaigns, this manner of campaigning is inconsistent with the role of a judge, who must remain fair and impartial to all

who come before him or her. The potential for misuse of the judicial office, and the political promises that the judge would be compelled to make in the course of campaigning for

nonjudicial elective office, together dictate that a judge who wishes to run for such an

office must resign upon becoming a candidate.

[2] The “resign to run” rule set forth in paragraph (A) ensures that a judge cannot use the

judicial office to promote his or her candidacy, and prevents post-campaign retaliation

from the judge in the event the judge is defeated in the election. When a judge is seeking

appointive nonjudicial office, however, the dangers are not sufficient to warrant imposing

the “resign to run” rule.

[3] For purposes of this Rule, the office of Prosecuting Attorney is a nonjudicial office.

Rule 4.6: Political Activities of Nonjudicial Court

Employees

Effective January 1, 2011

(A) An appointed judge in an office filled by retention election must require nonjudicial court

employees to abide by the same standards of political conduct which bind the judge.

(B) A judge in an office filled by partisan or nonpartisan election must not permit nonjudicial

court employees to run for or hold nonjudicial partisan elective office or to hold office in a

political party's central committee.

Comment

[1] Limitations on political activities by court employees are necessary to protect the public's confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judicial system.

[2] Unlike appointed judges subject to retention, judges in partisan and nonpartisan elective office are not required to hold their employees to the same limitations on political conduct which apply to the judges.

[3] The standards for employees of retention judges set out in Rule 4. 6(A) are those

which apply to the judges when they are not running in an election.

[4] Unlike nonjudicial court employees, court employees who perform judicial functions

are bound directly by the Code of Judicial Conduct unless exempted under the Application Section.

Provenance

Source: rules.incourts.gov
Retrieved: 2026-10-02
Edition: supplied-in-23-2023-05-01
Content hash: 7201fdbdadaf6a04f00aa7c11fc373517efb70c4bef81205b65768600b13da04

View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs