Judge William L. Osteen was appointed to the U.S. District Court of the Middle District of North Carolina in 1991. He is a former member of the North Carolina State Legislature, serving as minority leader from 1961 to 1963, and a former U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina, a position he held from 1969 to 1974. In 2001, he was named chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct.

Q: A new model confidentiality statement was recently circulated. Can you tell us what this statement is, and what prompted its issuance?

A: The new model confidentiality statement is designed primarily for law clerks, but it also may be useful for other judicial employees. Most breaches of confidentiality occur unintentionally—when something is overheard in a public place or materials are left unattended and openly exposed to view. These days, electronic files and internet exchanges can also lead to inadvertent disclosures. Judges are understandably concerned about maintaining the confidentiality of their private discussions and documents, and the Committee thought it would be helpful to judges to provide a model for them to use in guiding their staff. The model statement (Form AO 306) is available on the J-Net at http://jnet.ao.dcn/Forms/AO_National_Forms/AO_306.html.

Q: How often are advisory opinions issued? What sparks one?

A: There is no set schedule. Published advisory opinions are issued periodically whenever the Committee identifies a subject of widespread interest to the judicial community. For example, we recently issued an opinion—No. 103—advising judges about recusal considerations when harassing claims are filed against them. This situation arises all too frequently, and judges need to know that the filing of a frivolous lawsuit will not necessarily require them to recuse from unrelated cases involving the same litigant. Another recent opinion—No. 101—discusses whether ownership of bonds and other debt instruments requires judges to disqualify when the debt issuer appears before them (generally not). The Committee's advisory opinions are in the Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures, which is on the J-Net at http://jnet.ao.dcn/Guide/Volume_2/Chapter_5.html and on the Judiciary's website at www.uscourts.gov.

Q: The assumption might be made that your Committee is only concerned with the ethical conduct of judges. Would that be a correct assumption? Do you reach out to Judiciary employees to provide advice and/or training?

A: Although the majority of advice we give goes to judges, we receive many requests for guidance from judicial employees. In fact, a few years ago we developed a new part four of the Compendium of Selected Opinions compiling the advice provided to employees over the years. The most common area of questions is whether an employee can properly engage in an outside activity, such as taking a part-time job, helping with a charity fund-raiser, and speaking and writing about the law.

Q: The American Bar Association has an on-going project to revise their Code of Conduct. Is your Committee involved in this effort? Will the ABA's proposed changes affect federal judges?

A: The Committee has been following this project with great interest, although we are not directly involved. The Judiciary's Code of Conduct for United States Judges was originally based on the ABA Model Code of Conduct, and each time the ABA has substantially revised the Model Code the Judiciary has considered similar changes to its code. It would be unfortunate if the two codes were to diverge substantially, but we don't know yet what the ABA will propose. We plan to study this carefully when the ABA completes its work.

Q: Gift regulations were revised by your Committee last fall. Were there any significant changes?

A: There were a few constructive additions to the Gift Regulations, but the essential guidance was not changed in any material way. Our goal was to make the regulations clearer and to track more closely the language of the gift statutes. One new provision clarifies that it's not a gift if the recipient pays market value for it, so judges and judicial employees generally won't need to worry if someone gives them theater tickets and they reimburse the donor for them.

Q: As Committee chair, you've focused on ethics training for judges. Why is this important to you? What does your Committee do to educate judges?

A: I can't conceive of a more important function for the Codes of Conduct Committee than to help educate judges and employees about their ethical obligations. In my experience, judges and employees are eager to hear from us. They want to do what's right and they know that public trust in the Judiciary can disappear all too easily if they don't.

We have worked closely with the Federal Judicial Center and the Administrative Office to develop training programs and materials, and I have personally attended and spoken at literally dozens of judges' workshops.

Also, I am very proud of our new ethics pamphlets for law clerks and for judicial employees, which have been well-received by the courts; they are so popular we've had trouble keeping them in stock! We also encourage individual courts to devote time each year to an ethics program for judges and employees.

Q: Your Committee also has promoted the development of conflict screening software. Can you tell us more about this, what it will do, and when it will be available?

A: There is, reportedly, a judge in New York whose family holdings include stock in over 3,000 companies. Most judges don't face quite such a challenge, but we can all use help in keeping track of financial conflicts of interest. One extremely useful tool is the software developed in the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) program, which allows judges to check for conflicts electronically. The screening is done by comparing a list of a judge's financial interests and affiliations to parties, attorneys, and law firms on the court's docket. If something matches, the judge is informed so he or she can consider whether disqualification is necessary. Of course, the software screening can't catch every possible conflict, but we believe it will be a valuable time-saver for judges and court staff. An early version of the conflicts screening software is available in the CM/ECF program distributed to bankruptcy courts in 2001, and an improved version is in the CM/ECF for district courts being installed this year.

Q: The Committee on Codes of Conduct regularly fields ethics questions from judges and Judiciary employees. What types of issues are raised? What is the most interesting ethics question you've had?

A: Judges frequently seek advice about recusal—i.e., does a particular financial investment or personal association require that they not handle a matter? Other common areas of inquiry are gifts and—because this year is an election year—political activities. Because our work is confidential, I can't reveal the substance of the inquiries we receive, but I can say that we deal with many challenging problems of our era, from domestic partnerships to sophisticated new financial investments to internet "chat" rooms about the law.

Although you haven't asked, I could not complete this interview without recognizing the dedicated efforts which the individual members of our Committee have devoted to the fulfillment of our assigned duties. It has been my honor to work with such pleasant and inspiring judges. Our assigned counsel, Marilyn Holmes, has consistently amazed me with her knowledge and expertise in the completion of our tasks. The opportunity to serve on the Codes of Conduct Committee has been a true highlight in my judicial career.