ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES THE NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION’S MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR STATE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES: An overview of its development and content Presented by James T. McClymonds Chief Administrative Law Judge New York State Department of Environmental Conservation* May 13, 2013 * For identification purposes only. This presentation does not represent the views of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Introduction An independent and honorable administrative judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. (NYSBA Model Code of Judicial Conduct for State ALJs Canon 1.)

Introduction Definition of ALJ: An administrative law judge, hearing officer, administrative officer, hearing examiner, impartial hearing officer, referee or any other person whom a state agency has designated and empowered to conduct administrative adjudicatory proceedings.

Introduction ALJs play vital role in the administration of justice in NYS

Introduction ALJs play vital role in the administration of justice in NYS Role of ALJs as judges recognized by all three branches

Introduction ALJs play vital role in the administration of justice in NYS Role of ALJs as judges recognized by all three branches What are the ethical obligations of ALJs

Model Code of Judicial Conduct for State Administrative Law Judges Statutory, regulatory, and case law Legal Background

State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) Intent: To provide the people with simple, uniform administrative procedures and to guarantee that the actions of administrative agencies conform with sound standards developed in this State and nation since their founding through constitutional, statutory and case law (SAPA § 100).

State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) Intent: To provide the people with simple, uniform administrative procedures and to guarantee that the actions of administrative agencies conform with sound standards developed in this State and nation since their founding through constitutional, statutory and case law (SAPA § 100). “Adjudicatory proceedings” are defined as “any activity which is not a rule making proceeding or an employee disciplinary action before an agency . . . in which a determination of the legal rights, duties or privileges of named parties thereto is required by law to be made only on a record and after an opportunity for a hearing” (SAPA § 102[3]).

State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) Impartial hearings (SAPA § 303)

State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) Impartial hearings (SAPA § 303) Factual findings based upon record (SAPA § 302[2])

State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) Impartial hearings (SAPA § 303) Factual findings based upon record (SAPA § 302[2]) Recusal motion (SAPA § 303)

State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) Ex Parte Communications Rule (SAPA § 307[2]) Questions of Fact: “Unless required for the disposition of ex parte matters authorized by law, members or employees of an agency assigned to render a decision or make findings of fact and conclusions of law in an adjudicatory proceeding shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, in connection with any issue of fact, with any person or party” (SAPA § 307[2]).

State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) Ex Parte Communications Rule (SAPA § 307[2]) Questions of Fact: “Unless required for the disposition of ex parte matters authorized by law, members or employees of an agency assigned to render a decision or make findings of fact and conclusions of law in an adjudicatory proceeding shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, in connection with any issue of fact, with any person or party” (SAPA § 307[2]). Questions of Law: Agency member or employee shall not communicate “with any party or his representative, except upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. Any such agency member (a) may communicate with other members of the agency, and (b) may have the aid and advice of agency staff other than staff which has been or is engaged in the investigative or prosecuting functions in connection with the case under consideration or factually related case” (SAPA § 307[2]).

State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) In sum, SAPA establishes requirements of judicial impartiality and neutrality. No further standards defined.

Public Officers Law (POL) Public Officers Law § 74 – Code of Ethics Conflicts of interest in general

Public Officers Law (POL) Public Officers Law § 74 – Code of Ethics Conflicts of interest in general Public Officers Law § 73 – Ethics in Government Act Business and professional activities

Public Officers Law (POL) Public Officers Law § 74 – Code of Ethics Conflicts of interest in general Public Officers Law § 73 – Ethics in Government Act Business and professional activities Gifts: more than nominal value; reasonable inference intended to influence

Public Officers Law (POL) Public Officers Law § 74 – Code of Ethics Conflicts of interest in general Public Officers Law § 73 – Ethics in Government Act Business and professional activities Gifts: more than nominal value; reasonable inference intended to influence Designated policy makers

Public Officers Law (POL) Public Officers Law § 74 – Code of Ethics Conflicts of interest in general Public Officers Law § 73 – Ethics in Government Act Business and professional activities Summary: Not applicable to all ALJs

Public Officers Law (POL) Public Officers Law § 74 – Code of Ethics Conflicts of interest in general Public Officers Law § 73 – Ethics in Government Act Business and professional activities Summary: Not applicable to all ALJs Not tailored to specific concerns and ethical issues confronting judicial officers

New York Codes of Judicial Conduct New York Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC) (1996)

New York Codes of Judicial Conduct New York Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC) (1996) Rules Governing Judicial Conduct (RGJC) (22 NYCRR part 100)

New York Codes of Judicial Conduct New York Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC) (1996) Rules Governing Judicial Conduct (RGJC) (22 NYCRR part 100) Applicability to ALJs questionable

New York Codes of Judicial Conduct New York Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC) (1996) Rules Governing Judicial Conduct (RGJC) (22 NYCRR part 100) Applicability to ALJs questionable Summary: Not clearly applicable to ALJs

New York Codes of Judicial Conduct New York Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC) (1996) Rules Governing Judicial Conduct (RGJC) (22 NYCRR part 100) Applicability to ALJs questionable Summary: Not clearly applicable to ALJs Some provisions may be authoritative

New York Codes of Judicial Conduct Rules of Conduct for Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers of the City of New York (2007) (Title 48 of Rules of the City of New York Appendix A) (City Code)

Executive Order No. 131 Codified at 9 NYCRR 4.131

Executive Order No. 131 Codified at 9 NYCRR 4.131 Ex Parte Communication Rule “Unless otherwise authorized by law . . ., a hearing officer shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, in connection with any issue that relates in any way to the merits of an adjudicatory proceeding pending before the hearing officer with any person except upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate” (Exec Order 131, II[B][1]).

Executive Order No. 131 Codified at 9 NYCRR 4.131 Ex Parte Communication Rule “Unless otherwise authorized by law . . ., a hearing officer shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, in connection with any issue that relates in any way to the merits of an adjudicatory proceeding pending before the hearing officer with any person except upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate” (Exec Order 131, II[B][1]). Allows communication on questions of law and ministerial matters.

Executive Order No. 131 Limits on agency influence Codified at 9 NYCRR 4.131 Ex Parte Communication Rule “Unless otherwise authorized by law . . ., a hearing officer shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, in connection with any issue that relates in any way to the merits of an adjudicatory proceeding pending before the hearing officer with any person except upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate” (Exec Order 131, II[B][1]). Allows communication on questions of law and ministerial matters. Limits on agency influence

Executive Order No. 131 Summary: Like SAPA, provides for impartiality and neutrality

Executive Order No. 131 Summary: Like SAPA, provides for impartiality and neutrality Adds judicial independence

Executive Order No. 131 Summary: Like SAPA, provides for impartiality and neutrality Adds judicial independence No additional standards

Case Law ALJ Disqualification – Judiciary Law § 14 “A judge shall not sit as such in, or take any part in the decision of, . . . [a] proceeding to which he [or she] is a party, or in which he [or she] has been attorney or counsel, or in which he [or she] is interested, or if he [or she] is related by consanguinity or affinity to any party to the controversy within the sixth degree.”

Case Law ALJ Disqualification – Judiciary Law § 14 “A judge shall not sit as such in, or take any part in the decision of, . . . [a] proceeding to which he [or she] is a party, or in which he [or she] has been attorney or counsel, or in which he [or she] is interested, or if he [or she] is related by consanguinity or affinity to any party to the controversy within the sixth degree.” Matter of Beer Garden, Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth. (79 NY2d 266 [1992])

Case Law Former Prosecutor Matter of Beer Garden

Case Law Former Prosecutor Matter of Beer Garden Matter of General Motors Corp. – Delco Prods. Div. v Rosa (82 NY2d 183 [1993])

Case Law Former Prosecutor Pre-Judgment of Facts Matter of Beer Garden Matter of General Motors Corp. – Delco Prods. Div. v Rosa (82 NY2d 183 [1993]) Pre-Judgment of Facts Matter of 1616 Second Ave. Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth. (75 NY2d 158 [1990])

Case Law Former Prosecutor Pre-Judgment of Facts Matter of Beer Garden Matter of General Motors Corp. – Delco Prods. Div. v Rosa (82 NY2d 183 [1993]) Pre-Judgment of Facts Matter of 1616 Second Ave. Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth. (75 NY2d 158 [1990]) Financial Interest in Outcome of Case New York Pub. Interest Research Group, Inc. v Williams (127 AD2d 512 [1st Dept 1987])

Case Law Former Prosecutor Pre-Judgment of Facts Matter of Beer Garden Matter of General Motors Corp. – Delco Prods. Div. v Rosa (82 NY2d 183 [1993]) Pre-Judgment of Facts Matter of 1616 Second Ave. Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth. (75 NY2d 158 [1990]) Financial Interest in Outcome of Case New York Pub. Interest Research Group, Inc. v Williams (127 AD2d 512 [1st Dept 1987]) Summary

Summary Dearth of Guidance

Summary Dearth of Guidance Core Judicial Function Impartiality Avoidance of conflicts of interest Avoidance of appearances of impropriety ALJs virtually identical to Third Branch Judges

Model Code of Judicial Conduct for State Administrative Law Judges Development of the model code of judicial conduct for state administrative law judges

Development of the Model Code Committee on Attorneys in Public Service (CAPS), Subcommittee on the Administrative Law Judiciary

Development of the Model Code Committee on Attorneys in Public Service (CAPS), Subcommittee on the Administrative Law Judiciary Goals

Development of the Model Code Committee on Attorneys in Public Service (CAPS), Subcommittee on the Administrative Law Judiciary Goals Define the “Perfect Judicial Personality”

Development of the Model Code Committee on Attorneys in Public Service (CAPS), Subcommittee on the Administrative Law Judiciary Goal Define the “Perfect Judicial Personality” Who was involved

Development of the Model Code Sources: New York’s Code of Judicial Conduct (1996) Rules of Conduct for Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers of the City of New York (Title 48 of the Rules of the City of New York, Appendix A [2007]) American Bar Association’s (ABA) Model Code of Judicial Conduct for State Administrative Law Judges (1995) National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary’s (NAALJ) Model Code of Judicial Conduct for State Administrative Law Judges (1999) New York State Workers’ Compensation Board Administrative Law Judge Code of Judicial Conduct (2006).

Development of the Model Code Process Draft began Feb. 2007

Development of the Model Code Process Draft began Feb. 2007 First draft adopted in principle by NYSBA Executive Committee Jan. 2008

Development of the Model Code Process Draft began Feb. 2007 First draft adopted in principle by NYSBA Executive Committee Jan. 2008 Comment period

Development of the Model Code Process Draft began Feb. 2007 First draft adopted in principle by NYSBA Executive Committee Jan. 2008 Comment period Revisions and response to comments

Development of the Model Code Process Draft began Feb. 2007 First draft adopted in principle by NYSBA Executive Committee Jan. 2008 Comment period Revisions and response to comments Final revised Model Code adopted by NYSBA House of Delegates April 2009

Model Code of Judicial Conduct for State Administrative Law Judges Overview of the model code and its contents

Structure of the Model Code Canons (5 broad statements of principle)

Structure of the Model Code Canons (5 broad statements of principle) Sections (specific rules)

Structure of the Model Code Canons (5 broad statements of principle) Sections (specific rules) Commentaries (explanation and examples)

Structure of the Model Code Canons (5 broad statements of principle) Sections (specific rules) Commentaries (explanation and examples) Miscellaneous Provisions Preamble Definition Section Application Section

Structure of the Model Code Shall/Should/May

Structure of the Model Code Shall/Should/May Rules of Reason

Application Applicable to all ALJs broadly defined includes all ALJs, hearing officers, administrative officers, hearing examiners, impartial hearing officers, referees or any other person a state agency has designated and empowered to conduct administrative adjudicatory proceedings.

Application Applicable to all ALJs broadly defined includes all ALJs, hearing officers, administrative officers, hearing examiners, impartial hearing officers, referees or any other person whom a state agency has designated and empowered to conduct administrative adjudicatory proceedings. Not applicable to agency heads, boards, commissions

Overview The Five Canons Canon 1: Integrity and Independence Canon 2: Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence Canon 4: Extra-Judicial Activities Canon 5: Political Activities

Canon 1: Integrity and Independence Canon 1 -- A State ALJ shall uphold the integrity and independence of the administrative judiciary.

Canon 2: Impropriety Canon 2 -- A State ALJ shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.

Canon 2: Impropriety Canon 2 -- A State ALJ shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Promote public confidence

Canon 2: Impropriety Canon 2 -- A State ALJ shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Promote public confidence Avoid inappropriate influences

Canon 2: Impropriety Canon 2 -- A State ALJ shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Promote public confidence Avoid inappropriate influences Avoid lending prestige of office to advance private interests

Canon 2: Impropriety Canon 2 -- A State ALJ shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Invidious Discrimination A state administrative law judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, or any other protected status enumerated by law. (Section 2D.)

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence Canon 3 -- A State ALJ shall perform the duties of administrative judicial office impartially and diligently.

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence Canon 3 -- A State ALJ shall perform the duties of administrative judicial office impartially and diligently. Judicial duties to take precedence

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence Canon 3 -- A State ALJ shall perform the duties of administrative judicial office impartially and diligently. Judicial duties to take precedence Sections further divided into: Adjudicative Duties Administrative Responsibilities Disciplinary Responsibilities Disqualification Remittal of Disqualification

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence Canon 3 -- A State ALJ shall perform the duties of administrative judicial office impartially and diligently. Adjudicative Responsibilities General requirements that ALJs act with: Diligence Competence Patience, dignity, courtesy Fairness Without bias or prejudice

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence Canon 3 -- A State ALJ shall perform the duties of administrative judicial office impartially and diligently. Adjudicative Responsibilities General requirements that ALJs act with: Diligence Competence Patience Fairness Without bias or prejudice Afford interested parties full opportunity to be heard

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence Ex Parte Communication Rule (Section 3B[6])

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence Ex Parte Communication Rule (Section 3B[6]) A state administrative law judge shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, in connection with any issue that relates in any way to the merits of an adjudicatory proceeding pending or impending before the judge with any person except upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate.

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence Ex Parte Communication Rule (Section 3B[6]) Ex parte communications that are made for scheduling or administrative purposes and that do not affect a substantial right of any party are authorized, provided: (i) the state administrative law judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication, and (ii) the state administrative law judge, insofar as practical and appropriate, makes provision for prompt notification of other parties, or their lawyers or representatives of the substance of the ex parte communication and allows an opportunity to respond.

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence Ex Parte Communication Rule (Section 3B[6]) A state administrative law judge may consult on questions of law with supervisors, agency attorneys or other state administrative law judges, provided that such supervisors, state administrative law judges or attorneys have not been engaged in investigative or prosecuting functions in connection with the adjudicatory proceeding under consideration or a factually related adjudicatory proceeding.

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence Ex Parte Communication Rule (Section 3B[6]) A state administrative law judge may consult on questions of law with supervisors, agency attorneys or other state administrative law judges, provided that such supervisors, state administrative law judges or attorneys have not been engaged in investigative or prosecuting functions in connection with the adjudicatory proceeding under consideration or a factually related adjudicatory proceeding. A state administrative law judge may consult with supervisors, other state administrative law judges, support staff or court reporters on ministerial matters such as scheduling or the location of a hearing.

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence Ex Parte Communication Rule (Section 3B[6]) Unless otherwise prohibited by law, a state administrative law judge may obtain the advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to a proceeding before the judge if the judge gives notice to the parties of the person consulted and a copy of such advice if the advice is given in writing and the substance of the advice if it is given orally, and affords the parties reasonable opportunity to respond.

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence Pro Se Litigants (Section 3B[8]) A state administrative law judge shall take appropriate steps to ensure that any party not represented by an attorney or other relevant professional has the opportunity to have his or her case fully heard on all relevant points.

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence Pro Se Litigants (Section 3B[8]) A state administrative law judge shall take appropriate steps to ensure that any party not represented by an attorney or other relevant professional has the opportunity to have his or her case fully heard on all relevant points. Appropriate measures include: Liberally construing papers Providing information concerning procedural and substantive rules Providing information about evidence Assisting in questioning witnesses Making referrals to available resources

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence Language Barriers (Section 3B[7]) A state administrative law judge shall be attentive to language barriers that may affect parties or witnesses, and provide such qualified interpreter services as are available or otherwise required by law to provide meaningful access and participation in administrative proceedings.

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence Language Barriers (Section 3B[7]) A state administrative law judge shall be attentive to language barriers that may affect parties or witnesses, and provide such qualified interpreter services as are available or otherwise required by law to provide meaningful access and participation in administrative proceedings. Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964: form of national origin discrimination; agency obligations tied to federal funding; Department of Justice Guidance (67 Fed Reg 41455 [June 18, 2002])

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence Language Barriers (Section 3B[7]) A state administrative law judge shall be attentive to language barriers that may affect parties or witnesses, and provide such qualified interpreter services as are available or otherwise required by law to provide meaningful access and participation in administrative proceedings. Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964: form of national origin discrimination; agency obligations tied to federal funding; Department of Justice Guidance (67 Fed Reg 41455 [June 18, 2002]) New York: Executive Order No. 26 (2011); Uniform Rules for New York State Trial Courts (22 NYCRR part 217); Benchcard for Judges

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence Canon 3 -- A State ALJ shall perform the duties of administrative judicial office impartially and diligently. Administrative responsibilities

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence Canon 3 -- A State ALJ shall perform the duties of administrative judicial office impartially and diligently. Administrative responsibilities Disciplinary responsibilities

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence ALJ Disqualification (Section 3E) A state administrative law judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence ALJ Disqualification (Section 3E) A state administrative law judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Specific grounds include: Personal bias or prejudice Personal knowledge of disputed facts Served as lawyer Associated with lawyer on matter when in private practice Material witness Sixth-degree relationship with party having an interest Fourth-degree relationship with lawyer

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence ALJ Disqualification (Section 3E) A state administrative law judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. ALJ is disqualified whenever impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless whether any specific rules apply.

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence Remittal of Disqualification (Section 3F) Procedure

Canon 3: Impartiality and Diligence Remittal of Disqualification (Section 3F) Procedure No remittal allowed if ground for disqualification is: Personal bias or prejudice Served as lawyer in the matter when in private practice Material witness Judge or spouse is a party

Canon 4: Extra-Judicial Activities Canon 4 -- A State ALJ shall so conduct the judge’s extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.

Canon 4: Extra-Judicial Activities Canon 4 -- A State ALJ shall so conduct the judge’s extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations. Shall conduct all of the judge’s extra-judicial activities so that they: (1) do not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge; (2) do not detract from the dignity of judicial office; (3) do not interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties; and (4) are not incompatible with judicial office.

Canon 4: Extra-Judicial Activities Canon 4 -- A State ALJ shall so conduct the judge’s extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations. Sections further divided into categories: Avocational activities Governmental, civic, or charitable activities Financial activities Fiduciary activities Service as arbitrator, mediator or hearing officer Practice of law Compensation and reimbursement Financial Disclosure

Canon 4: Extra-Judicial Activities Canon 4 -- A State ALJ shall so conduct the judge’s extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations. Sections further divided into categories: Avocational activities

Canon 4: Extra-Judicial Activities Canon 4 -- A State ALJ shall so conduct the judge’s extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations. Sections further divided into categories: Avocational activities Governmental, civic or charitable activities

Canon 4: Extra-Judicial Activities Canon 4 -- A State ALJ shall so conduct the judge’s extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations. Sections further divided into categories: Avocational activities Governmental, civic or charitable activities Financial activities

Canon 4: Extra-Judicial Activities Canon 4 -- A State ALJ shall so conduct the judge’s extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations. Sections further divided into categories: Avocational activities Governmental, civic or charitable activities Financial activities Service as arbitrator, mediator or hearing officer

Canon 4: Extra-Judicial Activities Canon 4 -- A State ALJ shall so conduct the judge’s extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations. Sections further divided into categories: Avocational activities Governmental, civic or charitable activities Financial activities Service as arbitrator, mediator or hearing officer Practice of law

Canon 4: Extra-Judicial Activities Canon 4 -- A State ALJ shall so conduct the judge’s extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations. Sections further divided into categories: Avocational activities Governmental, civic or charitable activities Financial activities Service as arbitrator, mediator or hearing officer Practice of law Compensation and reimbursement

Canon 4: Extra-Judicial Activities Canon 4 -- A State ALJ shall so conduct the judge’s extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations. Sections further divided into categories: Avocational activities Governmental, civic or charitable activities Financial activities Service as arbitrator, mediator or hearing officer Practice of law Compensation and reimbursement Gifts

Canon 5: Political Activities Canon 5 -- A State ALJ shall refrain from inappropriate political activity.

Canon 5: Political Activities Canon 5 -- A State ALJ shall refrain from inappropriate political activity. A State ALJ shall not directly or indirectly engage in any political activity that detracts from, or reduces public confidence in, the fairness, impartiality, or dignity of the office.

Canon 5: Political Activities Canon 5 -- A State ALJ shall refrain from inappropriate political activity. A State ALJ shall not directly or indirectly engage in any political activity that detracts from, or reduces public confidence in, the fairness, impartiality, or dignity of the office. Specific prohibitions: Leader or office holder in political party or organization

Canon 5: Political Activities Canon 5 -- A State ALJ shall refrain from inappropriate political activity. A State ALJ shall not directly or indirectly engage in any political activity that detracts from, or reduces public confidence in, the fairness, impartiality, or dignity of the office. Specific prohibitions: Leader or office holder in political party or organization Soliciting funds

Canon 5: Political Activities Canon 5 -- A State ALJ shall refrain from inappropriate political activity. A State ALJ shall not directly or indirectly engage in any political activity that detracts from, or reduces public confidence in, the fairness, impartiality, or dignity of the office. Specific prohibitions: Leader or office holder in political party or organization Soliciting funds Public endorsements or opposition

Canon 5: Political Activities Canon 5 -- A State ALJ shall refrain from inappropriate political activity. A State ALJ shall not directly or indirectly engage in any political activity that detracts from, or reduces public confidence in, the fairness, impartiality, or dignity of the office. Specific prohibitions: Leader or office holder in political party or organization Soliciting funds Public endorsements or opposition Public speech on behalf of candidate or organization

Canon 5: Political Activities Canon 5 -- A State ALJ shall refrain from inappropriate political activity. A State ALJ shall not directly or indirectly engage in any political activity that detracts from, or reduces public confidence in, the fairness, impartiality, or dignity of the office. Specific prohibitions: Leader or office holder in political party or organization Soliciting funds Public endorsements or opposition Public speech on behalf of candidate or organization ALJ as candidate: judicial vs. non-judicial office

Model Code of Judicial Conduct for State Administrative Law Judges Status of the model code and conclusion