While it is important to ask in any given situation whether a judge's communications to individuals outside of court compromises their independence/impartiality in any matter they are hearing or may hear in the future, this would not seem to be only relevant consideration (2/10)
"Integrity" is also a central principle of judicial ethics. It is one of the six principles listed in the Ethical Principles for Judges https://cjc-ccm.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_judicialconduct_Principles_en.pdf (3/10)
One challenge with integrity is that it can be hard to pin down its specifics. The Ethical Principles note "While the ideal of integrity is easy to state in general terms, it is much more difficult and perhaps even unwise to be more specific." (4/10)
Also state "a judge should exhibit respect for the law, integrity in his or her private dealings and generally avoid the appearance of impropriety" and acknowledge "judges must therefore accept some restrictions on their activities [that others do not have]" (5/10)
It strikes me that if a judge attempts to influence the governance or other decision-making of a public or private institution this raises concerns about a judge using one's judicial status for ends outside the judicial role. This relates to both integrity & impartiality. (6/10)
In this way, a scenario of this nature may have analogies to concerns raised about judges writing reference letters. I note that the topic of reference letters is now expressly covered in draft revised Ethical Principles. https://cjc-ccm.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2019/EPJ%20-%20PDJ%202019-11-20.pdf (7/10)
New guidance states in part:"It is important that the prestige of judicial office not be used to advance another person’s private interests or create an impression that certain persons stand in a particular position of influence or favour w/ the judge." Reverse is true too?(8/10)
Using the prestige of the judicial office to advance other ends is also one reason why I have been critical of retired judges practicing law. http://www.slaw.ca/2019/03/29/against-supreme-lawyering/ (9/10)
A full set of facts is absolutely needed to assess the particular situation that is reported and I am not offering an opinion on it, but I do think it is important to note that there does seem to be legitimate reasons to be asking questions relating judicial ethics (10/10)
You can follow @AmySalyzyn.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: