Comments


Note: Resources associated with a meeting or hearing are located in the Meetings & Hearings section. Drafts available for public comment may be accessed in the Commission Drafts section.

Comments refer to documents submitted for review by the Commission. There are currently two categories of comments, including those based on the original 1990 Code and those based on the preliminary drafts of the new code. Additional categories of comments will be added during subsequent stages of rule development.



Comments on 1990 Code    |    Comments on Preliminary Draft of Code    |   


  • Comments on 1990 Code

  • ABA Standing Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service

  • Debbie Segal, Chair


    •      Comment   (February 3, 2004)


    •      Comment   (December 3, 2003)



  • Abramson, Leslie

  • Professor
  • Louis D. Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville


    •      Comment   (January 14, 2004)



  • American Judicature Society

  • Cynthia Gray, Director
  • Center for Judicial Ethics





  • Calkins, Susan

    • Associate Justice
    • Maine Supreme Judicial Court


    •      Comment   (January 14, 2004)



  • Coffin, Thomas M.

    • U.S. Magistrate
    • District of Oregon


    •      Comment   (March 25, 2004)



  • Community Rights Counsel

    • Douglas T. Kendall
    • Executive Director
    • Washington, D.C.


    •      Comment   (July 14, 2004)

    •       Canons 1, 2 and 3



  • HALT, Inc., and Community Rights Counsel

    • James Turner
    • Executive Director


    •      Comment   (October 15, 2003)


    •      Summary



  • Iowa Supreme Court & Iowa State Court Administrator's Office

  • Jennifer Juhler, Domestic Abuse Coordinator
  •     Iowa State Court Administrator's Office
  • Mark Cady, Iowa Supreme Court


    •      Comment   (undated)

    •       Canons 1, 2 and 4



  • Gass, J.J.

    • Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law


    •      Comment   (2004)

    •       After White: Defending and Amending Canons of Judicial Ethics


    •      Summary


    • Cannon 5
    • Political Conduct

    • In a report entitled, "After White: Defending and Amending Canons of Judicial Ethics," (one of a series emanating from a project to combat threats to fair and impartial courts), the Brennan Center for Justice (BCJ) evaluates Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 122 S.Ct. 2528 (2002) and other litigation that has impacted the Canons; identifies core issues that recur in most litigation (impartiality, independence, and the appearance of impartiality and independence); and suggests defense of specific kinds of canons in the context of judicial election campaigns. The report also examines revision of judicial ethics canons by the American Bar Association and states in the areas of campaign speech, political activity and use of alternatives to disciplinary sanctions such as recusal and adoption of aspirational standards of conduct to protect values that the canons represent.



  • Langslet, John L.

    • Martin, Bischoff, Templeton, Langslet & Hoffman LLP
    • Portland, OR


    •      Comment   (March 31, 2004)



  • McDermott, James T.

    • Ball Janik LLP
    • Portland, OR


    •      Comment   (March 16, 2004)



  • Miller, David K.

    • Miller - Wagner
    • Portland, OR


    •      Comment   (March 8, 2004)



  • National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

    • Honorable David B. Mitchell, Executive Director
    • Honorable James Ray, President


    •      Comment   (May 19, 2004)


    •      Comment   (May 18, 2004)



  • National Judicial Education Program

    • Lynn Hecht-Schafran, Director


    •      Comment   (July 8, 2004)
    •       Canons 1 and 2



    •      Summary


    • Offering further comment on testimony it submitted in April 2004, the National Judicial Education Program expresses the following strong reservations about proposed revisions to Canons 1 and 2:
      • Proposed Canon 1.01, Commentary [2] will be read as yoking a violation of Canon 1.01 to another Canon before a claim of impropriety can be invoked.
      • The generic bar on harassment in the Commentary to Proposed Canon 2.05 is not only unacceptable because it weakens the bar on sexual harassment in the Commentary to current Canon 3B(5), but also puzzling in view of American Judicature Society and the National Judicial Education Program testimony on the need to strengthen the prohibition on sexual harassment with a new Canon and Commentary that provides an explicit, non-exclusive list of what constitutes sexual harassment.
      • Proposed Canon 2.05, Commentary [3] should include “insensitive statement about crimes against women” as an additional manifestation of bias that would violate Canon 2.05.
      • Current Canon 2C, barring membership in organizations that individually discriminate, should not be eliminated.


    •      Comment   (May 18, 2004)



    • New York County Lawyers' Association

      • Susan B. Lindenauer
      • Co-chair
      • Task Force on Judicial Selection


      •      Comment   (February 6, 2004)


      •      Summary



    • New York State Lawyer Assistance Trust

      • Honorable Sarah L. Krauss


      •      Comment   (May 7, 2004)



    • Public Citizen Litigation Group

      • Alan B. Morrison


      •      Comment   (December 5, 2003)


      •      Summary



    • Sledge, James S.

      • U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
      • Northern District of Alabama


      •      Comment   (February 9, 2004)



    • Stern, Gerald

      • Former Administrator
      • New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct


      •      Comment   (December 5, 2003)



    • Walters, Martha L.

      • Walters Romm Uhanti & Diukens
      • Eugene, OR


      •      Comment   (March 11, 2004)



    • Zorza, Richard

      • Zorza Associates
      • Washington, D.C.


      •      Comment   (January 14, 2004)


      •      Comment   (December 5, 2003)