Mont. Code Jud. Conduct Scope

[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 paragraph s

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

establishes when the various Rules apply to a judge or judicial candidate. 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 to change a judge’s decision, to seek collateral remedies against each other, or to obtain

tactical advantages in proceedings before a court.

[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 understood, 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.