Me. Code. Jud. Cond. 1.2
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary; shall avoid impropriety; and should avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Me. Code. Jud. Cond. 1.2
Advisory Notes - 2015
Rule 1.2 is based on the language in ABA Model Code Rule 1.2.7 This language expands the second phrase of 1993 Canon 2(A), which directed that a judge "shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." The reference that a judge "shall avoid impropriety and should avoid the appearance of impropriety" is new, although covered by other provisions in the 1993 Code.8 The Comments to Rule 1.2 of the ABA Model Code (2011 ed.) state:
[1] Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct and conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety. This principle applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge.
[2] A judge should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might be viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens, and must accept the restrictions imposed by the Code.
[3] Conduct that compromises or appears to compromise the independence, integrity, and impartiality of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary. Because it is not practicable to list all such conduct, the Rule is necessarily cast in general terms.
[4] Judges should participate in activities that promote ethical conduct among judges and lawyers, support professionalism within the judiciary and the legal profession, and promote access to justice for all.
[5] Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules or provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge's honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.
[6] A judge should initiate and participate in community outreach activities for the purpose of promoting public understanding of and confidence in the administration of justice. In conducting such activities, the judge must act in a manner consistent with this Code.
7 The title in the ABA version is "Promoting" rather than "Promotion of" Confidence in the Judiciary.
8 See 1993 Canons 1, 3(B)(6), 4(B), 4(C)(3), and 4(D)(2) addressing appearance issues with the directive "should" or "may" that are addressed to the reasonable exercise of a judge's discretion.
The 1993 Advisory Committee's Note to Canon 2 and 2(A) stated:
Canon 2 requires judges to serve the basic purpose of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary by avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities, both professional and personal. Because of the inevitability of "constant public scrutiny," a judge must "accept restrictions on the judge's conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly." ABA Model Code (1990), Commentary to Section 2A.
Canon 2A makes clear that the obligation includes both the duty of respect for and compliance with law and the avoidance of "irresponsible and improper conduct . . . that is harmful though not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired." Id.
In a number of cases, the Supreme Judicial Court has held that the virtually identical provisions of Canon 2A of the 1974 Code were violated by conduct that violated one or more of the specific provisions of other canons. See, e.g., Matter of Kellam, 503 A.2d 1308, 1310 ([Me.] 1986); Matter of Benoit, 523 A.2d 1381,1382 (Me. 1987). In Matter of Cox, 553 A.2d 1255, 1256, 1258 (Me. 1989), the Court articulated the reasoning for this conclusion, noting that the purpose of former Canon 3A(1), (4), to assure "fairness in the administration of justice" was in furtherance of the goal of Canon 2 to sustain public confidence in the judiciary and holding that a trial judge's violation of former Canon 3A(1), (4), by direct participation in plea negotiations "strikes at the heart of the public's perception of impartiality." The Court has also found particular conduct to be in direct violation of Canon 2A. See Matter of Ross, 428 A.2d 858 (Me. 1981) (imposing sentence without hearing, seeking to influence a witness in judicial disciplinary hearing); Matter of Cox, 532 A.2d 1017 (Me. 1987) (angry conversation with police officer concerning traffic violation by judge's son was "appearance of impropriety").