EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES IN GENERAL

A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, except as prohibited by law* or the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct. However, when engaging in extrajudicial activities, a judge shall not: (A) participate in activities that will interfere with the proper performance of the judge’s judicial duties; (B) participate in activities that will lead to frequent disqualification of the judge; (C) participate in activities that would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge’s independence,* integrity,* or impartiality;* (D) engage in conduct that would appear to a reasonable person to be coercive; or (E) make use of court premises, staff, stationery, equipment, or other resources, except for incidental use for activities that concern the law, the legal system, the provision of legal services, or the administration of justice, or unless such additional use is permitted by law. Comment that [1] To the extent independence and impartiality are not compromised, judges are encouraged to engage in appropriate extrajudicial activities. Judges are uniquely qualified to engage in extrajudicial activities that concern the law, the legal system, the provision of legal services, and the administration of justice, such as by speaking, writing, teaching, time permits, and judicial Ch 51, p.16 IOWA CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT August 2010 or participating in scholarly research projects. In addition, judges are permitted and encouraged to engage in educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic extrajudicial activities not conducted for profit, even when the activities do not involve the law. See rule 51:3.7. [2] Participation in both law-related and other extrajudicial activities helps integrate judges into their communities and furthers public understanding of and respect for courts and the judicial system. [3] Discriminatory actions and expressions of bias or prejudice by a judge, even outside the judge’s official or judicial actions, are likely to appear to a reasonable person to call into question the judge’s integrity and impartiality. Examples include jokes or other remarks that demean individuals based upon their race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. For the same reason, a judge’s extrajudicial activities must not be conducted in connection or affiliation with an organization that practices invidious discrimination. See rule 51:3.6. [4] While engaged in permitted extrajudicial activities, judges must not coerce others or take action that would reasonably be perceived as coercive. For example, depending upon the circumstances, a judge’s solicitation of contributions or memberships for an organization, even as permitted by rule 51:3.7(A), might create the risk that the person solicited would feel obligated to respond favorably, or would do so to curry favor with the judge. [Court Order April 30, 2010, effective May 3, 2010] Rule CONSULTATION WITH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS 51:3.2: APPEARANCES BEFORE GOVERNMENTAL BODIES AND A judge shall not appear voluntarily at a public hearing before, or otherwise consult with, an executive or a legislative body or official, except: (A) in connection with matters concerning the law, the legal system, the provision of legal services, or the administration of justice; (B) in connection with matters about which the judge acquired knowledge or expertise in the course of the judge’s judicial duties; or (C) when the judge is acting pro se in a matter involving the judge’s legal or economic interests, or when the judge is acting in a fiduciary* capacity. Comment [1] Judges possess special expertise in matters of law, the legal system, the provision of legal services, and the administration of justice and may properly share that expertise with governmental bodies and executive or legislative branch officials. [2] In appearing before governmental bodies or consulting with government officials, judges must be mindful that they remain subject to other provisions of the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct, such as rule 51:1.3, prohibiting judges from using the prestige of office to advance their own or others’ interests, rule 51:2.10, governing public comment on pending and impending matters, and rule 51:3.1(C), prohibiting judges from engaging in extrajudicial activities that would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality. [3] In general, it would be an unnecessary and unfair burden to prohibit judges from appearing before governmental bodies or consulting with government officials on matters that are likely to affect them as private citizens, such as zoning proposals affecting their real property. In engaging in such activities, however, judges must not refer to their judicial positions and must otherwise exercise caution to avoid using the prestige of judicial office. [Court Order April 30, 2010, effective May 3, 2010]