Federal judges may address 'illegitimate forms of criticism and attacks,' according to new ethics opinion

"While federal judges can publicly oppose the "persecution of lawyers and judges," they need to "favor reasoned discourse and respectful language over demeaning rhetoric or acerbic criticism" when speaking about public controversies or commenting on legal issues, according to the Committee on Codes of Conduct, which advises the Judicial Conference of the United States. In its new advisory opinion, which was published Thursday, the committee focused on ethical considerations related to the public speech and civic engagement of judges."

"This opinion and previous guidance "leave room, in at least some circumstances, for the measured defense of judicial colleagues from illegitimate forms of criticism and attacks that risk undermining judicial independence or the rule of law, whether or not they rise to the level of persecution," the committee says. It also notes that judges can make "public statements about the need for judicial security," which are in line with judicial duties."

Federal judges may publicly oppose persecution of lawyers and judges but should favor reasoned discourse and respectful language rather than demeaning rhetoric or acerbic criticism when addressing public controversies or legal issues. Judges may defend colleagues from illegitimate criticism and attacks that risk undermining judicial independence or the rule of law. Judges may make public statements about the need for judicial security and may speak or write about judicial independence and the importance of the rule of law. Civic engagement activities that allow judges to retain a measure of control create less ethical risk, while writings and public statements can present greater ethical concerns and risk appearing partisan.

Read at ABA Journal