Federal judges should not serve as officers or directors of organizations, national, regional or local, which are present or potential litigants in the federal courts or are the promoters, sponsors or financiers of organizations sponsoring litigation in the federal courts.

A judge, subject to the proper performance of judicial duties, may engage in the following law-related activities, if in doing so the judge does not cast reasonable doubt on the capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before the judge:

C. A judge may serve as a member, officer, or director of an organization or governmental agency devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. A judge may assist such an organization in planning fund-raising activities and may participate in the management and investment of funds, but should not personally participate in public fund-raising activities. A judge may make recommendations to public and private fund-granting agencies on projects and programs concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.

As a judicial officer and person specially learned in the law, a judge is in a unique position to contribute to the improvement of the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, including revision of substantive and procedural law and improvement of criminal and juvenile justice. To the extent that the judge's time permits, the judge is encouraged to do so, either independently or through a bar association, judicial conference, or other organization dedicated to the improvement of the law.

Although old Canon 33 does not discourage the judge's continued participation in bar activities, its approval is at most lukewarm, and it does not say whether a judge may be an officer or director of a bar association or a law reform or improvement organization. In contrast, section 4C specifically authorizes such activities as another means of keeping the judge in contact with the world around him and as a way of making his expertise available in the ever-continuing effort to improve the law. The judge must not, however, become involved in a way that casts doubt on his impartiality. The "impartiality" standard would, for example, prevent a judge from participating as a member or officer of a partisan legal organization that champions one special interest in litigation that may be heard in the court on which he sits. Such a relationship would almost certainly cast doubt on a judge's capacity to decide impartially the issues in that type of litigation.

One of the difficult issues faced by the Committee was the participation by judges in fund raising and the investing of funds for organizations that fall within the scope of Canon 4C. Canon 5B(2) forbids judges to become involved in raising or investing funds for civic, charitable, and other similar organizations. Is there sufficient difference between the two situations to support different standards? The Committee's answer was "Yes." One difference is the practical one that the membership of many of these Canon 4 organizations is entirely, or substantially, made up of judges, whereas judges normally comprise a small percentage of the membership of civic or charitable organizations. To deny any judicial participation in fund raising in the former situation would be effectively to exclude such organizations from engaging in projects that require substantial financing. The Committee was not willing to do this. On the other hand, it was not willing to authorize judges personally to solicit funds for any organization. The solution adopted authorizes a judge to assist in fund raising for Canon 4 organizations but not to the extent of personally participating in public fund raising activities. This distinction is primarily a matter of form, but the Committee felt it sufficiently insulates the judge from the donors and the donors from the judge, thereby reducing the possible appearance of impropriety or lack of impartiality implicit in fund raising by judges.

A judge, whether or not a member of an interested organization, may make recommendations to public and private fund-granting agencies with regard to projects and programs concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice. This provision was added in recognition that many organizations seek the advice of judges about funding law-related projects and in the belief that responses to such requests should not be precluded.

1. A judge may properly serve as an officer or member of a board, council or committee of a bar association, subject to the restrictions set forth in Canon 4 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

2. The spirit and intent of the statement of policy adopted by the Judicial Conference in October 1971 and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges are satisfied where the judge abstains from discussion, debate and vote on matters which may present a conflict of interest or which might give the appearance of impropriety if the judge did participate in debate and vote.

March 21, 1974
Revised January 16, 1998

Note:

1. See Advisory Opinion Nos. 85 and 93 and Compendium of Selected Opinions § 4.5 (1997).