On April 29th, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Williams - Yulee v. Florida Bar, upholding the constitutionality of Florida's
canon of judicial conduct prohibiting judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions.
A complete reference that discusses the state's code
of judicial conduct in more detail can be found in the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct, which is available online.
All codes
of judicial conduct espouse the values of judicial independence, impartiality, integrity, diligence and competence, as evidenced by The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002), which was signed by the chief justices of 29 countries.
Specifically, the commission found that Jenevein violated Canon
2B of the judicial conduct code, which bars a judge from using the prestige of his office to advance his private interests or those of others.
Investment treaty claims arising
out of judicial conduct - whether based on annulment of a contract for corruption or other irregularity or a fundamental jurisprudential shift - have been on the rise.
There are four essential
canons of judicial conduct that apply to judges serving on the supreme court and all other state judges in Indiana.
Under rule 8.4 (f), a lawyer may not «knowingly assist a judge... in conduct that is a violation of applicable
rules of judicial conduct.»
Appealing to unnecessarily abstract
standards of judicial conduct might do a disservice to the judge whose tears are the only understandable response to hard cases.
An American Bar Association commission's proposal to weaken the code
of judicial conduct is finding no support within the legal blogosphere.
In 2005, 2006, and 2008 the Florida Supreme Court made minor amendments to its canons
of judicial conduct.
(g) knowingly assisting a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules
of judicial conduct or other law;
Williams - Yulee's case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the question it will decide is whether a rule
of judicial conduct that prohibits candidates for judicial office from personally soliciting campaign funds violates the First Amendment.
By publishing this false advertisement, Gableman violated the canons
of judicial conducts, the commission's complaint charges.