Vt. Admin. Ord. Of. Sup. Ct. 3.1
A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, except as prohibited by law or this Code. However, when engaging in extrajudicial activities, a judge shall not:
Vt. Admin. Ord. Of. Sup. Ct. 3.1
Comment
[1] To the extent that time permits, and judicial 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, and the administration of justice, such as by speaking, writing, teaching, 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 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, color, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, ancestry, place of birth, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, socioeconomic status, or other grounds that are illegal or prohibited under federal or state law. See Rules 2.3(B), (C), and Comment [3]; Rule 3.6(A). 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 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 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.
Reporter's Notes
Rule 3.1 is derived from Vermont Code 1994, Canon 4A, restructured to permit extrajudicial activities, subject to a more extensive list of restrictions focused on judicial independence, impartiality, and integrity and with verbal changes. Rule 3.1(A) carries forward Vermont Code 1994, Canon 4A(3). Rule 3.1(C) adds independence and integrity to impartiality, which is covered in former Canon 4A(1). The language "appear to a reasonable person" replaces "reasonable doubt" to provide a more common standard not associated with criminal law. New Rule 3.1(B) is a specific instance of the conduct interfering with judicial performance prohibited by Rule 3.1(A). New Rule 3.1(D) arises from concerns based on coercion that may occur in smaller communities. New Rule 3.1(E) strikes a balance between activities intended to gain favor for personal reasons, as prohibited by former Canon 2B, from those that may serve the purposes of increasing public understanding of the courts. See ABA Reporter's Explanation 111-13.
Comments [1]-[3] are derived from the Commentary to ABA Code 1990. New Comment [4] is intended to elaborate on new Rule 3.1(D). See ABA Reporter's Explanation 112, 113-14.