CJEO Formal Opinion No. 2023-022 — Guidelines for Presiding Judges When Transmitting Courtwide Communications to Colleagues

1
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINIONS
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
(855) 854-5366
www.JudicialEthicsOpinions.ca.gov
CJEO Formal Opinion 2023-022
[Posted April 24, 2023]
GUIDELINES FOR PRESIDING JUDGES WHEN TRANSMITTING
COURTWIDE COMMUNICATIONS TO COLLEAGUES
I. Question
The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO or committee) has been asked
for guidance regarding whether and under what circumstances a presiding judge 1 may
send a courtwide communication at the request of an outside entity, such as another
1 While this opinion relates to presiding judge communications, the same guidance
and considerations would apply to associate presiding justices or any other judicial
officer with supervisory responsibilities who sends courtwide communications.

2
government entity, a private interest group, or a bar association, consistent with the Code
of Judicial Ethics. 2
II. Summary of Conclusions
Presiding judges have a general duty to keep the judicial officers of their courts
informed of administrative and policy developments related to the law, the legal system,
and the administration of justice. Consistent with the code, a presiding judge may send a
courtwide communication at the request of an outside entity, such as another government
agency, a private interest group, or a bar association, but is advised to keep in mind the
following considerations: (1) the substance of the communication must not undermine
public confidence in the integrity or impartiality of the judiciary; (2) the communication
must not suggest that the outside entity has a special influence over the presiding judge or
the court; (3) the communication must not lend judicial prestige to advance anyone’s
pecuniary or personal interests; (4) the communication must not constitute prohibited
political activity; and (5) the communication must not include information relating to a
specific pending or impending matter, which may expose a recipient to a prohibited ex
parte communication or interfere with a fair trial or hearing.
III. Authorities
A. Applicable Canons
Canon 1: “A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.”
Canon 2: “A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in
all of the judge’s activities.”
Canon 2A: “A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all
times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
2 All further references to the code, canons, terminology, and advisory committee
commentary are to the California Code of Judicial Ethics unless otherwise indicated.

3
judiciary. A judge shall not make statements, whether public or nonpublic, that commit
the judge with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the
courts or that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of
judicial office.”
Advisory Committee commentary following canon 2 and 2A: “The test for the
appearance of impropriety is whether a person aware of the facts might reasonably
entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to act with integrity, impartiality, and
competence.”
Canon 2B(1): “A judge shall not allow family, social, political, or other
relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment, nor shall a judge
convey or permit others to convey the impression that any individual is in a special
position to influence the judge.”
Canon 2B(2): “A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office or use the
judicial title in any manner, including any oral or written communication, to advance the
pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or others.”
Canon 3B(7): “A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a
proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law. Unless
otherwise authorized by law, a judge shall not independently investigate facts in a
proceeding and shall consider only the evidence presented or facts that may be properly
judicially noticed. This prohibition extends to information available in all media,
including electronic. A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte
communications, that is, any communications to or from the judge outside the presence
of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding, and shall make reasonable
efforts to avoid such communications, except as follows . . . .”
Canon 3B(7)(a): “Except as stated below, a judge may consult with other judges.
A judge presiding over a case shall not engage in discussions about that case with a judge
who has previously been disqualified from hearing that case; likewise, a judge who
knows he or she is or would be disqualified from hearing a case shall not discuss that
matter with the judge assigned to the case. A judge also shall not engage in discussions
with a judge who may participate in appellate review of the matter, nor shall a judge who
may participate in appellate review of a matter engage in discussions with the judge
presiding over the case.”
Canon 3B(9): “A judge shall not make any public comment about a pending or
impending proceeding in any court, and shall not make any nonpublic comment that
might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.”

4
Canon 3C(1): “A judge shall diligently discharge the judge’s administrative
responsibilities impartially, on the basis of merit, without bias or prejudice, free of
conflict of interest, and in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of
the judiciary.”
Canon 3C(2): “A judge shall maintain professional competence in judicial
administration, and shall cooperate with other judges and court officials in the
administration of court business.”
Canon 3C(4): “A judge with supervisory authority for the judicial performance of
other judges shall take reasonable measures to ensure the prompt disposition of matters
before them and the proper performance of their other judicial responsibilities.”
Advisory Committee commentary following canon 4B: “As a judicial officer and
person specially learned in the law, a judge is in a unique position to contribute to the
improvement of the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, including
revision of substantive and procedural law and improvement of criminal and juvenile
justice. To the extent that time permits, a judge may do so, either independently or
through a bar or judicial association or other group dedicated to the improvement of the
law.”
Canon 4C(2): “A judge shall not accept appointment to a governmental
committee or commission or other governmental position that is concerned with issues of
fact or policy on matters other than the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the
administration of justice.”
Canon 4C(3): “Subject to the following limitations and the other requirements of
this code, (a) a judge may serve as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of an
organization or governmental agency devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal
system, or the administration of justice provided that such position does not constitute a
public office within the meaning of article VI, section 17 of the California Constitution.”
Canon 4C(3)(d): “[A] judge as an officer, director, trustee, nonlegal advisor, or as
a member or otherwise (i) may assist such an organization in planning fundraising and
may participate in the management and investment of the organization’s funds. However,
a judge shall not personally participate in the solicitation of funds or other fundraising
activities, except that a judge may privately solicit funds for such an organization from
members of the judge’s family or from other judges (excluding court commissioners,
referees, court-appointed arbitrators, hearing officers, temporary judges, and retired
judges who serve in the Temporary Assigned Judges Program, practice law, or provide
alternative dispute resolution services).”

5
Advisory Committee commentary following canon 4C(3)(d): “A judge may solicit
membership or endorse or encourage membership efforts for an organization devoted to
the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, or a
nonprofit educational, religious, charitable, service, or civic organization as long as the
solicitation cannot reasonably be perceived as coercive and is not essentially a
fundraising mechanism. Solicitation of funds or memberships for an organization
similarly involves the danger that the person solicited will feel obligated to respond
favorably if the solicitor is in a position of influence or control.”
Canon 5: “Judges and candidates for judicial office are entitled to entertain their
personal views on political questions. They are not required to surrender their rights or
opinions as citizens. They shall, however, not engage in political activity that may create
the appearance of political bias or impropriety. Judicial independence, impartiality, and
integrity shall dictate the conduct of judges and candidates for judicial office.”
Canon 5D: “A judge or candidate for judicial office may engage in activity in
relation to measures concerning improvement of the law, the legal system, or the
administration of justice, only if the conduct is consistent with this code.”
B. Constitutional Provisions, Statutes, and Other Authorities
California Rules of Court, rule 10.603
People v. Farmer (1989) 47 Cal. 3d 888, 923
Inquiry Concerning Platt (2002) 48 Cal. 4th CJP Supp. 227
Commission on Judicial Performance, Public Admonishment of Judge Lisa A.
Novak (2018)
Commission on Judicial Performance, Public Censure of Former Commissioner
Joseph J. Gianquinto (2018)
Commission on Judicial Performance, Annual Report (2013) Advisory Letter 21
Commission on Judicial Performance, Annual Report (2008) Advisory Letter 6
Commission on Judicial Performance, Annual Report (2007) Advisory Letter 15
Commission on Judicial Performance, Annual Report (2006) Private
Admonishment 5

6
Commission on Judicial Performance, Annual Report (2020) Private
Admonishment 4
CJEO Formal Opinion 2021-018 (2021), Providing Feedback on Attorney
Courtroom Performance, California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics
Opinions
CJEO Formal Opinion 2018-012 (2018), Providing Educational Presentations at
Specialty Bar Events, California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics
Opinions
CJEO Formal Opinion 2022-020 (2022), Judicial Consultations with Other
Judges, California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions
CJEO Expedited Opinion 2021-042 (2021), Social Media Posts About the Law,
the Legal System, or the Administration of Justice, California Supreme Court
Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions
CJEO Expedited Opinion 2022-048 (2022), Commenting on or Endorsing Legal
Education Books Written by Others, California Supreme Court Committee on
Judicial Ethics Opinions
CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2019-030 (2019), Acceptance of a Private
Testimonial Dinner and Honors, California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial
Ethics Opinions
CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2018-026 (2018), Soliciting Endorsements From
Trial Court Judges for Other Appellate Court Justices Subject to Retention
Elections, California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions
California Judges Association, Judicial Ethics Update (Jan. 2017)
California Judges Association, Judicial Ethics Update (Jan. 2016)
Rothman et al., California Judicial Conduct Handbook (4th ed. 2017) sections 6:1–
6:7 and 10:18
IV. Discussion
Presiding judges may, from time to time, receive requests to forward information
to the judicial officers in their court through courtwide email communications. For

7
example, an outside entity, such as another government agency, private interest group, or
bar association may wish to inform judges of operational or security issues that may
impact the courts, an upcoming educational or professional networking event,
opportunities to apply for an award or other recognition, legislative or budget issues
affecting the judiciary, or policy developments in the justice system. In general, the code
permits and encourages presiding judges to keep their courts informed of events and
issues relating to the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice. At the same
time, any courtwide email sent by the presiding judge reflects on both the presiding judge
and those judicial officers and staff who receive it. For this reason, presiding judges must
ensure that their courtwide communications are consistent with the code. Below, the
committee provides guidance on the canons most typically implicated and factors to
consider when a presiding judge sends a courtwide communication.
A. Presiding Judges’ Administrative Duties
Under the California Rules of Court, rule 10.603 (Rule 10.603), presiding judges
are responsible for providing administrative oversight to their courts. This includes the
duty to ensure effective court management, establish court policies consistent with
strategic plans and budgets, monitor caseloads and judicial assignments, and respond to
complaints. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 10.603(a)–(c); Rothman et al., Cal. Judicial
Conduct Handbook (4th ed. 2017) § 6:1-6:7, pp. 338–344 (Rothman) [describing the
various duties of presiding and supervising judges].) In addition to providing general
guidelines, Rule 10.603 gives presiding judges the authority to “perform all acts
necessary” to carry out their duties. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 10.603(b)(1)(G).)
In conjunction with Rule 10.603, the code provides that, “[a] judge with
supervisory authority for the judicial performance of other judges shall take reasonable
measures to ensure the prompt disposition of matters before them and the proper
performance of their other judicial responsibilities.” (Canon 3C(4).) In addition to
supervising judges’ responsibilities, judges at all levels “shall maintain professional

8
competence in judicial administration, and shall cooperate with other judges and court
officials in the administration of court business.” (Canon 3(C)(2).) Read together, these
canons permit presiding judges to send courtwide emails and other communications to
judicial officers and staff as may be necessary to ensure the efficient and effective
administration of their courts.
In addition, judges are broadly permitted to engage in extra-judicial or political
activities relating to the law, the legal system, and the administrative of justice.
(Advisory Com. commentary foll. canon 4B [because they are specially learned in the
law, judges are in a unique position to contribute to the improvement of the law, the legal
system, and the administration of justice and may do so, to the extent time permits either
independently, through a bar or judicial association, or other group dedicated to the
improvement of the law]; canon 4C(2) & (3) [judges may accept governmental
appointments or serve as officers or directors of organizations relating to the law, the
legal system, or the administration of justice]; canon 5D [judges are permitted to engage
in political activity relating to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice,
provided conduct is consistent with the code overall].) Therefore, it is appropriate and
permissible for presiding judges to share information with their colleagues about
upcoming educational events and opportunities within the legal community, as well as
updates about legislative and policy developments impacting the courts.
Presiding judges must be mindful, however, that their courtwide communications
do not violate other canons prohibiting judges from suggesting bias or special influence,
lending judicial prestige to advance someone’s pecuniary or personal interests, engaging
in partisan politics, or interfering with pending proceedings, as discussed in more detail
below.
B. Judicial Integrity and Impartiality
Before forwarding a communication on behalf of an outside entity, a presiding
judge must evaluate whether the substance of the communication is consistent with a
judge’s duty to uphold the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. (Canons 1, 2, & 2A

9
[judges must promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary
and avoid impropriety in all activities]; canon 3C(1) [a judge shall diligently discharge
administrative responsibilities impartially, without bias or prejudice, in a manner that
promotes confidence in the integrity of the judiciary].) When determining whether the
communication would undermine judicial integrity or impartiality, the presiding judge
must consider how the communication would appear to an objective observer in the
context in which it was sent. (Advisory Com. commentary foll. canon 2A [the test for
impropriety is whether a person aware of the facts might reasonably doubt the judge’s
integrity or impartiality].)
Judges have been disciplined for using court email systems to send messages that
fail to promote public confidence in the judiciary or that reflect bias or animus toward
particular groups. (Com. on Jud. Performance, Ann. Report (2013) Advisory Letter 21,
p. 23 [judge disciplined for, in addition to other misconduct, sending an email to judicial
colleagues that failed to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary]; Com. on Jud. Performance, Ann. Report (2008) Advisory Letter 6, p. 26
[judge disciplined for using court email to forward satirical email that promoted negative
stereotypes to other judicial officers]; Com. on Jud. Performance, Ann. Report (2007)
Advisory Letter 15, p. 32 [judge disciplined for circulating an email over the court’s
computer system that contained offensive material]; Com. on Jud. Performance, Ann.
Report (2006) Private Admonishment 5, p. 31 [judge disciplined for sending an email to
other judges that gave the appearance of ethnic bias in the discharge of administrative
responsibilities].)
Presiding judges are advised to be especially careful about the appearance of
impartiality when forwarding emails at the request of one side of the criminal or civil bar.
However, this does not mean that forwarding such emails is never permissible. Whether
a particular communication is permissible depends on the nature, tone, and circumstances
under which it is sent. For example, even though law enforcement officers are typically
associated with the prosecution in criminal matters, an objective observer is unlikely to

10
doubt the impartiality of the judiciary because a presiding judge forwarded a
memorandum from the sheriff’s office advising the court of an anticipated protest that
may impact security, traffic, or parking around the courthouse. Similarly, an objective
observer may not be concerned about a presiding judge forwarding a flyer from the
district attorney’s office concerning a holiday toy drive. In contrast, the same observer
may suspect judicial bias if the presiding judge were to forward a newspaper editorial by
a criminal defense association in favor of lighter sentences for drug-related crimes. The
act of forwarding such an editorial, without explanation, may suggest that the presiding
judge or the court agrees with the criminal defense association’s viewpoint or will be
prone to render decisions consistent with it. 3
As general guidance, a communication is less likely to suggest bias the more it
relates to operational or administrative issues, rather than substantive policy matters.
(CJEO Expedited Opinion 2021-042 (2021), Social Media Posts About the Law, the
Legal System, or the Administration of Justice, Cal. Supreme Ct. Com. Jud. Ethics Opns.,
p. 7 [judges’ online statements are more likely to be permissible the more they relate to
administrative issues, such as court budgets, facilities, and docketing impacts, rather than
substantive policies].) In addition, a communication must be “equally applicable to and
appropriate to say in the presence of attorneys on opposing sides of the same case.”
(CJEO Formal Opinion 2021-018 (2021), Providing Feedback on Attorney Courtroom
Performance, Cal. Supreme Ct. Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 8 [when providing feedback
to attorneys, judges must not imply a particular affinity or dislike for certain attorneys or
parties].)
3 A presiding judge may properly decide to disseminate a newspaper editorial for
the purpose of informing judges about potential operational impacts on the court. In such
a case, the presiding judge is advised to consider including prefatory language as to how
the editorial may relate to operational impacts without expressing an opinion on any
controversial or substantive policy issues that are beyond the court’s purview.

11
C. Special Influence
In addition, a presiding judge must consider whether forwarding a communication
on behalf of an outside entity will improperly suggest that the outside entity has a special
influence over the presiding judge or the court. Judges must not allow “family, social,
political, or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgement, nor
shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that any individual is in a
special position to influence the judge.” (Canon 2B(1).) Applying one of the examples
above, forwarding a newspaper editorial advocating for lighter punishments for drug-
related crimes may suggest that the court will be influenced by the editorial when
presiding over cases or rendering sentencing decisions in matters involving those crimes.
In the civil context, if a presiding judge were to forward a flyer encouraging attendance at
an environmental law seminar put on by a plaintiff-side environmental law firm, this may
suggest that the law firm has a special relationship with or influence over the presiding
judge or the court.
However, providing information about or encouraging attendance at educational
events sponsored by bar associations is consistent with the canons broadly permitting
judges to be involved in legal education and community activities, provided that the
presiding judge’s communications do not appear to favor certain bar associations over
others and the presiding judge’s prefatory remarks do not coerce others to attend, as
discussed further below. (Advisory Com. commentary foll. canon 4B; canons 4C(2) &
(3); CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2019-030 (2019), Acceptance of a Private Testimonial
Dinner and Honors, Cal. Supreme Ct. Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 3 [recognizing the
importance of judicial involvement in legal community activities]; CJEO Formal Opinion
2018-012 (2018), Providing Educational Presentations at Specialty Bar Events, Cal.
Supreme Ct. Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 2, 7–8 [judges may give educational
presentations to specialty bar associations, provided they are equally available to bar
associations having opposing interests or viewpoints]; CJEO Oral Advice Summary
2018-026 (2018), Soliciting Endorsements From Trial Court Judges for Other Appellate

12
Court Justices Subject to Retention Elections, Cal. Supreme Ct. Com. Jud. Ethics Opns.,
pp. 3–4 [presiding judges should be cognizant of their heightened leadership position and
cautious not to appear coercive when making requests of other judicial officers].)
D. Lending Prestige to Advance Interests
When sending courtwide communications on behalf of outside entities, a presiding
judge must also be cautious not to lend judicial prestige to advance anyone’s pecuniary or
personal interests. (Canon 2B(2) [judges must not lend judicial prestige or use judicial
title in any manner to advance the pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or others];
Com. on Jud. Performance, Ann. Report (2020) Private Admonishment 4, p. 54 [judge
admonished for using court email, which included the judge’s title, to advance a personal
interest].) For example, it would be improper for a presiding judge to circulate an
advertisement for goods or services for sale, even if it relates to the law, the legal system,
or the administration of justice. (CJEO Expedited Opinion 2022-048 (2022),
Commenting on or Endorsing Legal Education Books Written by Others, Cal. Supreme
Ct. Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 4–5 (CJEO Expedited Opinion 2022-048) [judge may not
use judicial title to promote a book written by a friend or colleague, even if the book is
law-related].)
It would also be improper for a presiding judge to use the court email system to
engage in fundraising for the presiding judge’s own friends and family or on behalf of
others. (Canon 4C(3)(d)(i) [judges shall not personally participate in the solicitation of
funds or other fundraising activities, except that a judge may privately solicit funds from
family members or judges who are not subordinate judicial officers].) For instance, it
would be improper to circulate a flyer for a fundraiser to benefit a school or a charitable
organization. Such conduct would not fall within the exception to the general fundraising
prohibition for private fundraising among one’s colleagues, because a courtwide email is
not private and would reach subordinate judicial officers and staff, which may have the
appearance of being coercive. (Advisory Com. commentary foll. canon 4C(3)(d) [the
purpose of the general fundraising prohibition is to prevent the danger that the person

13
being solicited will feel obligated to respond favorably if the solicitor is in a position of
influence or control].)
As discussed above, a presiding judge may be asked to circulate information about
bar association events, which in some cases have admittance fees to cover the cost of
meals; this raises the question of whether by circulating the information a presiding judge
is lending prestige to advance the bar associations’ pecuniary interest. In the committee’s
view, disseminating such information is permissible, as the educational value of such
events is an overriding factor and any pecuniary benefit to the bar association is
incidental. (CJEO Expedited Opinion 2022-048, supra, at p. 5 [while a judge writing a
positive review of a legal education book may incidentally lead to increased sales, the
primary purpose of the review is educational and therefore permissible]; Rothman, supra,
§ 10:18, p. 689 [judicial title may be used to promote legal education programs because
the importance of judges contributing to the law, the legal system, and the administration
of justice far outweighs any arguable use of the prestige of office to advance the
pecuniary interests of others].)
However, a presiding judge must be cautious not to add any commentary that may
be interpreted as coercive or imply that attendance is required in order to stay in the
presiding judges’ favor, particularly when circulating flyers that will reach subordinate
judicial officers and staff. (Canon 4C(3)(d)(i); Cal. Judges Assn., Jud. Ethics Update
(Jan. 2017) p. 7 [judge may not directly invite staff or attorneys to purchase tickets for a
banquet at which the judge will be honored but may supply names for the banquet
organizer to invite them]; Cal. Judges Assn., Jud. Ethics Update (Jan. 2016) p. 9
[commissioner may not sell dinner tickets to nonjudicial officers to honor a judge who is
retiring]; id. at p. 11 [judge who serves on a nonprofit board may not solicit others to
purchase tickets to a dinner and concert, except for members of the judge’s family and
other judges].)

14
E. Political Activity
Presiding judges must also ensure that any courtwide communication does not
constitute improper political activity. Judges are prohibited from engaging in political
activity unless it relates to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice and
does not violate any other canons. (Canon 5 [judges shall not engage in political activity
that may create the appearance of political bias or impropriety]; canon 5D [judges may
engage in activity relating to measures concerning improvement of the law, the legal
system, or the administration of justice provided the activity is consistent with the code].)
Therefore, it is permissible for a presiding judge to disseminate information
relating to legislation directly impacting the courts, but impermissible to use the court
email systems to engage in partisan politics. (Com. on Jud. Performance, Public Censure
of Former Commissioner Joseph J. Gianquinto (2018), pp. 33–34 [judge disciplined for
making online statements relating to presidential policies, immigration, racial issues, and
political views]; In re Kwan (Utah 2019) 443 P.3d 1228, 1232, 1237–1239 [judge
suspended for social media posts extensively criticizing a sitting president, among other
ethics violations].) As this committee has previously advised, “the distinction between
permissible statements concerning the law, the legal system, or the administration of
justice and prohibited political statements may not be a bright line.” (CJEO Expedited
Opinion 2021-042, supra, at p. 7.) However, communications are more likely to be
permissible the more they relate to administration or operational impacts rather than
substantive policies not directly linked to the courts. (Id. at p. 8.) For example, a
presiding judge may circulate a neutral update on legislation affecting court budgets but
may not disseminate a position paper from an outside entity espousing a certain political
view on substantive policy issue.
F. Pending Matters
Finally, presiding judges must refrain from sending any courtwide communication
that specifically relates to a pending or impending matter. This is due to the risk that

15
such a communication may expose a recipient judicial officer to information that
constitutes an ex parte communication or that might interfere with a fair trial or hearing.
(Canon 3B(7) [judges shall not consider ex parte communications, defined as any
communication to or from the judge outside the presence of the parties, concerning a
pending or impending proceeding]; canon 3B(9) [judges shall not make public comments
about pending or impending proceedings or nonpublic comments that might substantially
interfere with a fair trial or hearing].)
While there is an exception to the ex parte rule for judges to consult with their
colleagues, a courtwide information “blast” is unlikely to qualify as consultation. (Canon
3B(7)(a) [a judge may consult with other judges on matters, except for judges who are
disqualified or may be involved in appellate review of the matter]; Com. on Jud.
Performance, Public Admonishment of Judge Lisa A. Novak (2018), pp. 7–9 [judge
disciplined for, in addition to other misconduct, making indiscriminate comments at a
judges’ meeting about the credibility of a witness, which was not done for consultative
purposes and implied bias and embroilment].) In addition, disseminating information
about a pending or impending matter may interfere with the recipient judge’s duty to
avoid such information. (Canon 3B(7)(a) [in any discussion with judges or court
personnel, a judge shall make reasonable efforts to avoid receiving factual information
that is not part of the record or an evaluation of that factual information]; CJEO Formal
Opinion 2022-020 (2022), Judicial Consultations with Other Judges, Cal. Supreme Ct.
Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., p. 2 [judicial consultation is a broad permission that may include
a discussion of the facts or legal issues in a case; however, judges must make reasonable
efforts to avoid receiving facts outside the record in their own matters].)
Whether or not a particular communication relates to a pending or impending
proceeding is a fact-specific inquiry. A general comment that does not specify any
particulars of a matter, or the parties or witnesses involved in a matter, does not
“concern[] a pending or impending proceeding” (canon 3B(7)) and therefore does not
constitute an ex parte communication. (Inquiry Concerning Platt (2002) 48 Cal.4th CJP

16
Supp. 227, 245, fn. 4 [a general procedural inquiry does not become an ex parte
communication until or unless it is linked to a specific case]; People v. Farmer (1989) 47
Cal.3d 888, 923, disapproved on separate grounds [collegial interchanges on abstract
legal matters are not improper].) For example, disseminating information about a
Judicial Council form change that may affect pending juvenile matters is permissible
because it is a procedural issue relating to all juvenile matters rather than any particular
matter, party, or litigant. However, it would be improper for a presiding judge to widely
circulate a news article about a specific juvenile matter pending before the court.
V. Conclusion
Under the code, it is necessary and permissible for presiding judges to disseminate
information for the efficient and effective administration of the court. At the request of
outside entities, presiding judges may circulate information related to the law, the legal
system, and the administration of justice but must ensure that any courtwide
communications do not undermine the integrity or impartiality of the judiciary, suggest
that any outside entity is in a position of special influence, lend judicial prestige to
advance someone’s pecuniary or personal interest, engage in partisan politics, or relate to
a specific pending or impending matter.

This opinion is advisory only (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.80(a), (e); Cal. Com.
Jud. Ethics Opns., Internal Operating Rules & Proc. (CJEO) rule 1(a), (b)). It is based
on facts and issues, or topics of interest, presented to the California Supreme Court
Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions in a request for an opinion (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 9.80(i)(3); CJEO rule 2(f), 6(c)), or on subjects deemed appropriate by the
committee (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.80(i)(1); CJEO rule 6(a)). The conclusions
expressed in this opinion are those of the committee and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the California Supreme Court or any other entity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
9.80(b); CJEO rule 1(a)).)