Ky. R. Sup. Ct. 2.9
Comment
[1] To the extent reasonably possible, all parties or their lawyers shall be included in all communications to or from a judge. See Rule 2.6(A); see also Commonwealth v. Carman, 455 S.W.3d 916, 923 (Ky. 2015) (holding that ex parte communications to modify conditions of release are improper); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 384 S.W.3d 113, 114 (Ky. 2012) (holding that Commonwealth is entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard on criminal defendant's motion to vacate or set aside arrest warrant).
[2] Whenever the presence of a party or notice to a party is required by this Rule, notice shall be given to the party's lawyer or, if the party is unrepresented, to the party.
[3] The proscription against communications concerning a proceeding includes communications with lawyers, law teachers, and other persons who are not participants in the proceeding, except to the limited extent permitted by this Rule.
[4] A judge may initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications expressly authorized by law, such as when serving on specialty or problem-solving courts, mental health courts, or drug courts. In this capacity, judges may assume a more interactive role with parties, treatment providers, probation officers, social workers, and others.
[5] A judge may consult with other judges on pending matters, but must avoid ex parte discussions of a case with judges who have previously been disqualified from hearing the matter, and with judges who have appellate jurisdiction over the matter.
[6] The prohibition against a judge investigating the facts in a matter extends to information available in all mediums, including electronic.
[7] A judge may consult ethics advisory committees, outside counsel, or legal experts concerning the judge's compliance with this Code. Such consultations are not subject to the restrictions of paragraph (A)(2).