Rule 2.10 - Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases(a) A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending* or impending* in any court or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing. (b) A judge shall not, in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial* performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office. (c) A judge shall require court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's immediate direction and direct control to refrain from making statements that the judge would be prohibited from making by Rule 2.10(a) and Rule 2.10(b).(d) Subject to the restrictions in Rule 2.10(a), a judge may make public statements in the course of official duties, may explain court procedures, and may comment on any proceeding in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity.(e) Subject to the requirements of Rule 2.10(a), a judge may respond directly or through a third party to allegations in the media or elsewhere concerning the judge's conduct in a matter. A judge shall not discuss the rationale for a decision unless the judge is relating what was already made part of the public record. Code Comparison
The Hawai'i Revised Code of Judicial Conduct modifies ABA Model Code Rule 2.10(E) by adding the provision restricting a judge's response to relating what is already part of the public record.
Haw. Code. Jud. Cond. 2.10
COMMENT:
[1] This Rule's restrictions on judicial speech are essential to the maintenance of the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.
[2] This Rule does not prohibit a judge from commenting on proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity. In cases in which the judge is a litigant in an official capacity, such as a writ of mandamus, the judge must not comment publicly.
[3] A judge may respond to criticism by reiterating without elaboration what is set forth in the public record in a case, including pleadings, documentary evidence, and the transcript of proceedings held in open court. Depending on the circumstances, the judge should consider whether it may be preferable for a third party, rather than the judge, to respond or issue statements in connection with allegations concerning the judge's conduct in a matter.