W. Va. Jud. Cond. 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:
W. Va. Jud. Cond. 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] Off-the-bench judicial leadership is essential to effective resolution of local systemic problems that impede the progress of child abuse and neglect, delinquency, and status offense cases involving at-risk children and their families. Unlike most other types of cases in the court system, these cases deal with ongoing and changing circumstances, with federal and state legal mandates assigning to the judge a series of time-specific and complex decisions that shape the course of state intervention and determine the future of the child and family. For these reasons, judges are encouraged to regularly convene meetings of local professionals routinely involved in these cases for the purpose of addressing issues in the circuit relating to effective procedures and necessary services. These collaborative meetings may address systemic problems but shall not include discussion of individual cases.
[3] 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.
[4] 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, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. For the same reason, a judge's extrajudicial activities must not be conducted in connection or affiliation with an organization that practices invidious discrimination. This Rule should be read in conjunction with Rules 3.6 and 3.7.
[5] 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.
[6] The same Rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct that govern a judicial officer's ability to socialize and communicate in person, on paper, or over the telephone also apply to the Internet and social networking sites like Facebook.
Clerk's Notes on Rule 3.1
Rule 3.1 is based entirely on the 2007 Model Code, but the comment has three additions that provide helpful guidance . Comment [2] is not in the Model Code. It relates to collaborative meetings that judges participate in or convene in cases involving child abuse and neglect, delinquency, and status offense cases involving at-risk children and their families. Comment [6] is not in the Model Code. It clarifies the applicability of conduct rules in the context of the Internet and social networking. Finally, the cross-reference at the end of Comment [4] was expanded to include a reference to Rule 3.7.