Actual irregularities include violations of laws, judicial regulations or the provisions of this Code. The test for the appearance of inadequacy is whether the conduct would give the reasonable impression that the judge has violated this Code or engaged in any other conduct that impairs the honesty, impartiality, temperament or ability of the judge to act as a judge. Polls tell us that people are generally concerned that justice is for sale, but a similar majority does not want to change the current system. How do you explain the incongruity? Polls seem to tell us that people don`t care about their judges – the ones who elect them – but they are concerned about judicial elections in general. Maybe when the pollster asked a person if there was any semblance of inadequacy, many people think they should say yes because they don`t want to appear uninformed. Nevertheless, this is only a guess. (h) Remuneration, reimbursement and financial information. A judge may accept compensation and reimbursement of costs for legal and extrajudicial activities permitted under this Code if the source of payments does not give the impression of influencing the judge in the judicial functions of the judge or otherwise giving the appearance of insufficiency, subject to the following restrictions: The “appearance of insufficiency” must refer to the event from the perspective of an informed observer. If this is true, we must ask ourselves what is not inappropriate, but which seems inappropriate by someone who knows all the facts. It is difficult to develop a test that allows us to define this situation. Although Canon 2C only refers to membership in organizations that maliciously discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion, or national origin, a judge`s membership in an organization that engages in harmful discriminatory membership practices prohibited by applicable law violates Canons 2 and 2A and gives the appearance of inadequacy. In addition, it would be a violation of canons 2 and 2A if a judge held a meeting in a club that he knew was maliciously discriminating on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin in his membership or other policies, or if the judge regularly used such a club. In addition, the public manifestation of the judge`s deliberate consent to malicious discrimination on any basis gives the appearance of inadequacy according to Canon 2 and reduces public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, which violates Canon 2A.
Canon 4A (5). A judge can act effectively in all legal matters, including cases involving litigation and matters involving appearances before or other relationships with government agencies. In doing so, a judge may not abuse the reputation of the office in order to promote the interests of the judge or his or her family. It`s easy to think of “the appearance of inadequacy” as a reason for a general rule rather than a rule itself. For example, a rule that a judge must disqualify himself or herself in a case if he or she holds even a stake in a company involved in the litigation (by the way, this is the law for federal judges), is a rule that we justify by the “appearance of inadequacy.” We do not want a judge to decide a case based on the potential impact on his or her equity holdings, so we are telling the judge that the judge must always disqualify out of an abundance of caution. This rule is also a clear line rule. It is easy to apply and easy to apply. The “appearance of inadequacy” is an unusual concept.
He tells us that something is not inappropriate, but seems to be. Does this seem inappropriate for someone who knows all the facts or someone who is not well informed? If it were the latter, there would be a lot of inappropriate appearances. For example, suppose a disgruntled person sues John Roberts, the correspondent for Fox News (formerly CBS and CNN), for defamation. Defamation cases raise questions of free speech, and let`s assume that this case is taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. If that is the case, we could have a situation where John Roberts, the Chief Justice, would decide a case called John Doe v. John Roberts. The uninformed person (the one who simply makes headlines or surfs the Internet) would conclude that the Chief Justice is involved in a semblance of inadequacy because he decides his own case. The informed person knows that there is no problem.  Public confidence in the judiciary is undermined by inappropriate behaviour and behaviour that gives the impression of being inappropriate. This principle applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge.
Canon 2A A semblance of inadequacy occurs when reasonable minds who know all the relevant circumstances discovered by a reasonable investigation would conclude that the honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament or ability of the judge to act as a judge are impaired. Public confidence in the justice system is undermined by irresponsible or inappropriate behaviour by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate behaviour in the workplace. A judge must avoid any insufficiency or appearance of inadequacy. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge should expect to be subject to constant public scrutiny and to freely and voluntarily accept restrictions that might be considered incriminating by the ordinary citizen. Since it is not possible to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily formulated in general terms that extend to judicial conduct that is prejudicial, although they are not expressly mentioned in the Code. Actual irregularities under this Standard include violations of laws, court rules or other specific provisions of this Code. On the other hand, it is much more difficult to imagine the “appearance of inadequacy” as a rule, because the rule is simply too vague. To tell a judge that he should be disqualified because something is not really inappropriate for someone who knows all the facts, but seems “inappropriate” for others, is to impose a rule that, frankly, is quite elusive. Canon 4H A judge is not required by this Code to disclose income, debts or investments, except as provided in this canon. The Ethics Reform Act 1989 and the implementing provisions issued by the Judicial Conference impose additional restrictions on obtaining compensation from judges. These laws and regulations should be consulted before a judge reaches an agreement on the receipt of compensation.
The restrictions imposed in this way include, but are not limited to: (1) a prohibition on receiving “honoraria” (defined as something of value received for a speech, appearance or article), (2) a prohibition on receiving remuneration for services as a director, trustee or officer of a for-profit or not-for-profit organization, (3) a requirement that remunerated teaching activities receive prior authorization; and (4) a restriction on the receipt of “income from external activity”. (b) where circumstances so require, permit unilateral notification for timely, administrative or urgent purposes, but only if the unilateral communication does not address material matters and the judge has reasonable grounds to believe that neither party will obtain a procedural, material or tactical advantage as a result of the unilateral notification; (c) other political activities. A judge should not engage in other political activities. This provision does not prevent a judge from participating in the activities described in Canon 4. (d) consult separately with the parties and their legal counsel, with the consent of the parties, in order to mediate or resolve outstanding issues. Appropriate measures may include direct communication with the judge or lawyer, other direct actions, if any, reporting the conduct to the competent authorities or, if the judge considers that the conduct of a judge or lawyer is caused by drugs, alcohol or illness, a confidential referral to an assistance program. Appropriate measures may also include responding to a subpoena or cooperating with or participating in judicial or legal disciplinary proceedings; A judge must be open and honest with disciplinary authorities. A pro tempore judge is a person who is appointed to act temporarily as a judge or as a special master. A decade ago, the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin focused on crime reports and contributions to the judiciary`s campaign. He found no correlation between campaign donations and favoritism to defraud lawyers for plaintiffs who had contributed to the Illinois Supreme Court justices` legal campaigns. Plaintiffs have lost nearly two-thirds of the offense cases the judges have decided since February 2001, even though the plaintiffs` lawyers have contributed heavily to the Democratic-controlled Illinois Supreme Court.