Me. Code. Jud. Cond. 1.3
A judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a special position to influence the judge.
Me. Code. Jud. Cond. 1.3
Advisory Notes - 2015
The language that appears after "judge or others" is much more detailed than the phrase "or allow others to do so" that appears in Rule 1.3 of the ABA Model Code. Rule 1.3 also incorporates the provision in ABA Model Code Rule 2.4(C) that prohibits a judge from allowing persons to suggest they have special influence with the judge.
A Comment to the 2011 ABA Model Code states that Rule 1.3 allows a judge to provide a reference or recommendation for an individual based upon a judge's personal knowledge.
[2] A judge may provide a reference or recommendation for an individual based upon the judge's personal knowledge. The judge may use official letterhead if the judge indicates that the reference is personal and if there is no likelihood that the use of the letterhead would reasonably be perceived as an attempt to exert pressure by reason of the judicial office.
See also Advisory Committee on the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct Opinion 98-3 (concluding that under certain circumstances the Code does not prohibit the judge from writing a letter of recommendation on official court stationery).
Model Code Comment [3] to Rule 1.3 indicates that participation in a judicial selection process is not prohibited by the rule.
[3] Judges may participate in the process of judicial selection by cooperating with appointing authorities and screening committees, and by responding to inquiries from such entities concerning the professional qualifications of a person being considered for judicial office.
Participation in judicial selection and election processes is addressed in this Code in Canon 4 and its Rules and Advisory Notes.
Model Code Comment [4] to Rule 1.3 addresses judges writing for certain publications:
[4] Special considerations arise when judges write or contribute to publications of for-profit entities, whether related or unrelated to the law. A judge should not permit anyone associated with the publication of such materials to exploit the judge's office in a manner that violates this Rule or other applicable law. In contracts for publication of a judge's writing, the judge should retain sufficient control over the advertising to avoid such exploitation.
Rule 1.3 is the replacement for 1993 Canon 2(B), but it is more broadly worded. The 1993 Canon 2(B) states:
B. Preventing Improper Influence. A judge shall not allow family, social, political, or other relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment. A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge shall not testify voluntarily as a character witness.
The 1993 Advisory Committee's Note to Canon 2(B) states:
Canon 2B forbids a number of specific actions that are in effect per se improprieties because they diminish the prestige of the judicial office so essential to the proper functioning of an independent judiciary. Examples of improper activities offered in ABA Model Code (1990), Commentary to Section 2B, include alluding to judicial status in an effort to gain deferential treatment when stopped for a traffic offense, use of judicial letterhead for personal business, use of judicial status to gain advantage for a family member in a civil suit, and allowing exploitation of the judge's office in the advertising of published writings. Proper activities identified in the ABA Commentary include serving as a reference or writing a letter of recommendation based on personal knowledge, and supplying names and responding to official inquiries regarding judicial appointments. In particular, the ABA Commentary notes, it would be improper for a judge voluntarily to supply information to a probation officer or sentencing judge, and Canon 2B specifically forbids formal testimony as a character witness because of the impact of the office and the effect on lawyers involved. A judge may, however, engage in such activities when formally requested or summoned, though the judge should ordinarily discourage a party from summoning the judge as a character witness.
The Supreme Judicial Court found violations of the similar provisions of Canon 2B of the 1974 Code in two decided cases. Matter of Ross, supra, 428 A.2d at 864-65 (causing traffic infraction complaints against personal acquaintances to be filed); Matter of Cox, supra, 532 A.2d at 1019 (angry conversation with police officer concerning traffic violation by judge's son).
A 1993 Textual Note to Canon 2, referencing Canon 2(A) and 2(B) observed:
Canon 2 adopts ABA Model Code (1990), Canon 2 and Sections 2A-2 C, with variations appropriate to Maine. The principal change from the 1974 Maine Code is the addition of Canon 2C. Canons 2A and 2B are identical to the provisions of ABA Model Code (1990), Sections 2A, 2B. There are no substantial changes from Canon 2A of the 1974 Maine Code. Canon 2B departs from Canon 2B of the 1974 Maine Code in adding political relationships to those by which a judge must not be influenced and in including the judge's own private interests among those which the judge may not seek to benefit through the prestige of the judicial office. See ABA Model Code (1990), Committee Note to Section 2B.
.