State Adoption of ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 3.7
Currently, seven states (CO, CN, KY, NH, UT, VT, and WY) have adopted the identical language of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 3.7. Thirty-two (32) states have similar language (AZ, AR, CA, D.C., FL, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, ME, MD, MA, MN, MO, MT, NE, NV, NJ, NM, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, VA, WA, WV). Twelve (12) states have similar language to 3.7 but no mention of pro bono. (AL, AK, DE, GA, LA, MI, MS, NC, NY, SD, TX, WI).
States with Identical Language
Colorado
Colorado's revised judicial code can be viewed here.
Connecticut
Connecticut's revised judicial code can be viewed here
Kentucky
Kentucky's revised Code of Judicial Conduct can be found here.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire's judicial code can be viewed here.
Utah
Utah's Judicial Code of Conduct can be viewed here.
Vermont
Vermont's Code of Judicial Conduct can be found here.
Wyoming
Wyoming's code can be viewed here.
States with Similar Language
Arizona
In addition to the general language of Rule 3.7, Arizona has added section (C)(1) which states that a judge may provide leadership in identifying and addressing issues involving equal access to the justice system; developing public education programs; engaging in activities to promote the fair administration of justice; and convening, participating or assisting in advisory committees and community collaborations devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, the provision of services, or the administration of justice.
In addition, Comment [6] to Arizona's Rule 3.7 states that a judge may be an announced speaker at a fundraising event benefiting indigent representation, scholarships for law students, or accredited institutions of legal education.
Arkansas
Arkansas has adopted Rule 3.7 with no major changes regarding judicial promotion of pro bono.
California
Canon 4C(3)(d)(i) adds language specifically allowing a judge to solicit funds from family members. Canon 4C(3)(d)(ii) is similar to the model rule and any changes are not intended to alter the meaning of the Canon, but solely to make the canon clearer by making a slight change in the wording. Canon 4C(3)(e) and commentary are based on comment 5 to the Model Rule as it applies to judicial encouragement of pro bono. Language regarding judicial promotion of pro bono is the same as the Model Rule.
District of Columbia
The District of Columbia adopted Rule 3.7 with no major changes regarding judicial promotion of pro bono.
Florida
According to Canon 4B of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge is encouraged to speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in other quasi-judicial activities concerning the law, the legal system, the administration of justice, and the role of the judiciary as an independent branch within our system of government, subject to the requirements of this code.
The comments to 4(B) make clear that support of pro bono legal services by members of the bench is an activity that relates to improvement of the administration of justice. Accordingly, a judge may engage in activities intended to encourage attorneys to perform pro bono services, including but not limited to:
- Participating in events to recognize attorneys who do pro bono work;
- Establishing a general procedural or scheduling accommodations for pro bono attorneys as feasible, and
- Acting in an advisory capacity to pro bono programs.
Hawaii
Hawaii has adopted Rule 3.7, but added paragraphs (7) and (8). 3.7(A)(8) states that "participating in pro bono activities to improve the law, the legal system or the legal profession or that promote public understanding of and confidence in the justice system and that are not prohibited by this code or other law. Such pro bono activity may include activity that is related to judicial activity, but not required to fulfill the duties of judicial office."
Comment 6 specifies, "Examples of “pro bono activity . . . related to judicial activity, but not required to fulfill the duties of judicial office” include: (i) judging moot court for law school classes, high school mock trials or We the People competitions; (ii) giving speeches or presentations on law-related topics, such as (a) at the Judiciary’s Lunch and Learn the Law events, (b) to a bar association or section, or (c) to other groups, like high school civics classes or Rotary Club groups; (iii) serving on Judiciary committees, such as the rules committees; (iv) serving on the board of a law-related organization, such as the American Judicature Society, or delivering presentations on behalf of such organizations; or (v) serving on continuing legal education committees, Bar Association committees, and committees of the Access to Justice Commission."
Idaho
Idaho has adopted language substantially similar language to Rule 3.7, but added “as long as encouragement is not coercive in nature” to the pro bono language.
Illinois
Illinois has adopted language similar to Model Rule 3.7. Under 3.7(B), Illinois' rule states that "a judge may encourage or solicit lawyers to provide pro bono public legal services."
Indiana
Indiana has adopted Rule 3.7 with no major changes regarding judicial promotion of pro bono.
Iowa
Iowa has adopted Rule 3.7, but added section (C), which states that "subject to the requirements of Rule 51:3.1, a judge may: (1) provide leadership in identifying and addressing issues involving equal access to the justice system; developing public education programs; engaging in activities to promote the fair administration of justice and convening, participating or assisting in advisory committees and community collaborations devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, the provision of legal services, or the administration of justice. (2) endorse projects and programs directly related to the law, the legal system, the provision of legal services, and the administration of justice to those coming before the courts. (3) participate in programs concerning the law or which promote the administration of justice." Comment [5] addressing judicial promotion of pro bono is now labeled as Comment [4].
Kansas
Kansas has adopted Rule 3.7 with no major changes regarding judicial promotion of pro bono.
Maine
Maine adopted Rule 3.7 with no major changes regarding judicial promotion of pro bono, apart from the omission of all Comments to Rule 3.7.
Maryland
Maryland has adopted rule 3.7 with no major changes regarding judicial promotion of pro bono, except the addition to 3.7(B), which states that a judge my encourage but not coerce lawyers to provide pro bono publico legal services.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts has adopted Rule 3.7 with no major changes regarding judicial promotion of pro bono.
Minnesota
Minnesota has adopted Rule 3.7 with no major changes regarding judicial promotion of pro bono.
Missouri
Missouri has adopted Rule 3.7 with slight changes to the comments related to judicial promotion of pro bono.
Montana
Montana has adopted Model Rule 3.7 with the deletion of Comment 5.
Nebraska
Nebraska's Rule 3.7 adds section (C) which states that, subject to the requirements in Sections (A) and (B), a judge may:
- Provide leadership in identifying and addressing issues involving equal access to the justice system; develop public education programs; engage in activities to promote the fair administration of justice; and convene or participate or assist in advisory committees and community collaborations devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, the provision of services, or the administration of justice.
- Endorse projects and programs directly related to the law, the legal system, the administration of justice, and the provision of services to those coming before the courts, and may actively support the need for funding of such projects and programs.
- Participate in programs concerning the law or which promote the administration of justice.
Furthermore, Nebraska's proposed rule adds Comments [6] and [7] which state that a judge may be an announced speaker at a fundraising event benefiting indigent representation, scholarships for law students, or accredited institutions of legal education, and write, speak, lecture, teach and participate in other extrajudicial activities concerning the law, the legal system, the administration of justice and non-legal subjects.
Nevada
Nevada's Rule 3.7 adds Comment [6] which states recruitment of lawyers or law firms to provide pro bono legal services pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 191 is not membership solicitation for purposes for Rule 3.7. Accordingly, a judge may assist an organization in recruiting attorneys so long as the recruitment effort cannot reasonably be perceived as coercive. Additionally, a judge may provide an organization with general endorsement or solicitation material for use in the organization's recruitment materials.
Similarly, the Comment makes clear that Rule 3.7 does not preclude a judge from requesting an attorney to accept pro bono representation of a party in a proceeding pending before the judge.
New Jersey
New Jersey did not adopt the Model Rule's numbering system. Rule 4(D) contains language substantially similar to Rule 3.7 with regard to judicial promotion of pro bono.
New Mexico
New Mexico has adopted language substantially similar to Rule 3.7, with no major changes regarding judicial promotion of pro bono.
North Dakota
North Dakota has adopted Rule 3.7 with no major changes regarding judicial promotion of pro bono.
Ohio
Ohio has adopted Rule 3.7 with no major changes regarding judicial promotion of pro bono.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma's Rule 3.7 adds Section (C) which states that subject to the requirements of Rule 3.1 and Rule 3.7(A) and (B), a judge may:
- Provide leadership in: Identifying and addressing issues involving providing equal access to the justice system; Developing public education programs; Engaging in community outreach activities to promote the fair administration of justice; and Convening, participating or assisting in advisory committees and community collaborations devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, the provision of services and/or the administration of justice.
- A judge may endorse projects and programs directly related to the law, the legal system, the provision of services and/or the administration of justice.
- A judge may participate in programs concerning the law or which promote the administration of justice.
Oregon
Oregon Rule 4.5 is similar to Rule 3.7. Section 4.5(E) states, "So long as the procedures employed are not coercive, a judge may personally encourage or solicit lawyers to provide publicly available pro bono legal services."
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania’s Rule is similar in substance, the order and numeration of the content differs. The language on pro bono is identical to Rule 3.7.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island has adopted Rule 3.7 with no major changes related to judicial promotion of pro bono.
South Carolina
South Carolina's Canon 4 is substantively similar to Rule 3.7. The comment to (4)(B) states that a judge, "may promote the administration of justice by supporting and encouraging lawyers to provide pro bono legal services as long as the judge does not employ coercion or abuse the prestige of the judicial office. Such support and encouragement may include, but is not limited to: participating in events to recognize lawyers who do pro bono work; establishing general procedural or scheduling accommodations for pro bono lawyers as feasible; acting in an advisory capacity to pro bono programs; assisting an organization in the recruitment of lawyers or law firms to provide pro bono legal services so long as the recruitment effort cannot reasonably be perceived as coercive; participating in programs concerning the law which promote the provision of pro bono legal services; and providing leadership in convening, participating or assisting in advisory committees and community collaborations devoted to the provision of legal services to the indigent or those with low incomes."
Tennessee
Tennessee adopted Rule 3.7 with no major changes regarding judicial promotion of pro bono. Tennessee does have an additional comment, relating to a judge's obligations to supervise staff as to matters addressed in the rule.
Virginia
Virginia Canon 2(M) is similar in substance to Rule 3.7. Canon 2(M) states, “A judge may promote broader access to justice by encouraging lawyers to participate in pro bono publico legal services, if in doing so the judge does not employ coercion or abuse the prestige of judicial office. Such encouragement may take many forms, including providing a list of available programs, training lawyers to do pro bono publico service, and participating in events recognizing lawyers who have done pro bono publico work, including nominating lawyers for such recognition. A judge may assist an organization in the recruitment of lawyers or law firms to provide these services so long as the recruitment effort cannot reasonably be perceived as coercive. This includes a judge requesting an attorney to accept pro bono representation of a party in a proceeding pending before the judge."
"A judge may participate in programs concerning the law which promote the provision of pro bono legal services, may serve on the governing boards of organizations which promote the provision of pro bono legal services, and may provide leadership in convening, participating, or assisting in advisory committees and community collaborations devoted to the provision of legal services to the indigent or those with low income. A judge may also support projects and programs directly related to the provision of services to indigent and low-income individuals coming before the courts and may comment upon the need for funding of such projects and programs."
Washington
Washington's Rule 3.7 is substantively similar to ABA Model Rule 3.7. Comment 5 states, "In addition to appointing lawyers to serve as counsel for indigent parties in individual cases, a judge may promote broader access to justice by encouraging lawyers to participate in pro bono legal services, if in doing so the judge does not employ coercion, or abuse the prestige of judicial office. Such encouragement may take many forms, including providing lists of available programs, training lawyers to do pro bono legal work, and participating in events recognizing lawyers who have done pro bono work."
Comment (8) states, "A judge may provide leadership in identifying and addressing issues involving equal access to the justice system; developing public education programs; engaging in activities to promote the fair administration of justice; and convening, participating, or assisting in advisory committees and community collaborations devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, the provision of services, or the administration of justice."
West Virginia
West Virginia adopted Rule 3.7 with no major changes regarding judicial promotion of pro bono.
States with Different Language
Alabama
Canon 5 is substantively similar to Rule 3.7, but does not mention judicial support for pro bono.
Alaska
Canon 4 of the Alaska Code of Judicial Conduct is substantively similar to ABA Model Rule 3.7. Alaska's Canon 4 does not include any information regarding judicial support of pro bono.
Alaska's Canon 4(C)(3)(b)(i) permits a judge to be the "speaker or guest of honor for public service organizations that seek improvement in the administration of justice, benefit indigent representation, or assist access to justice, or for any permitted organization under Section 4(C)(3) where the proceeds of the event seek to improve the adminstration of justice, benefit indigent representation, or assist access to justice."
Delaware
Rule 3.7 of the Delaware Code of Judicial Conduct is substantively similar to ABA Model Rule 3.7(A). Delaware's Rule 3.7 omits Section 3.7(B) of the Model Rule, which provides that a judge may encourage lawyers to provide pro bono legal services.
Georgia
Rule 3.7 of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct is substantively similar to ABA Model Rule 3.7(A). Georgia’s Rule omits Section 3.7(B) of the Model Rule, which provides that a judge may encourage lawyers to provide pro bono legal services.
Louisiana
Louisiana's Canon 5 is substantively similar to Model Rule 3.7, but does not include any information regarding judicial support of pro bono.
Michigan
Canon 4 of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct is substantively similar to ABA Model Rule 3.7. Michigan’s Canon 4 does not include any information regarding judicial support for pro bono.
Mississippi
Canon 4 of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct is substantively similar to ABA Model Rule 3.7, but does not include any information regarding judicial support for pro bono.
New York
Section 100.4 of the New York Code of Judicial Conduct is substantively similar to Rule 3.7, but does not include any information regarding judicial support for pro bono.
North Carolina
Canon 5 is substantively similar to Model Rule 3.7, but does not include any information regaridng judicial support of pro bono.
South Dakota
South Dakota Canon 4 is substantively similar to Rule 3.7, but does not include information regarding judicial support for pro bono.
Texas
Texas' Canon 4 is substantively similar to Model Rule 3.7, but does not include any information regarding judicial promotion of pro bono.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin's Canon 5 is substantively similar to Rule 3.7, but does not include any information regarding judicial promotion of pro bono.