The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions has fully adopted ethical guidance for outside speakers invited by the court.
The opinion advises courts to invite outside speakers and groups to give presentations as long as:
- The presentation does not undermine judicial impartiality
- The speakers represent a balance of interests and viewpoints
- The presentation would not lend judicial prestige to advance the outside speaker’s interests
- The presentation does not include improper political activity
- The outside speaker is not involved, or likely to become involved, in litigation before the court.
“Being exposed to a variety of educational speakers with different perspectives helps judges become better decisionmakers. However, judges also have a responsibility to assure the public that the judiciary is fair, impartial and not subject to special influence. This opinion provides helpful parameters to ensure educational programs meet both of these objectives,” said committee chair Justice Ronald Robie in the announcement of the decision.
The adopted opinion is identical to a draft opinion that was released for comment in April. Six entities commented on the draft.
San Joaquin Superior Judge Barbara Kronlund said the draft opinion was well written and useful to judges.
Bryan Borys, representing Los Angeles Superior Court, recommended additional guidance for presenters who might become expert witnesses in future cases. He recommended that the relationship be disclosed.
Attorney Marina Meyere, representing the Sixth District Court of Appeal, said the draft created vague and unrealistic expectations, and that it should be edited to create a distinction between legal scholars and advocates.
The Sixth District created a series of remote presentations by legal scholars that has been used by districts across the state, Meyere wrote. The opinion puts that educational series in question, she claimed.
“Would we now need to require the speaker to present a detailed outline of the presentation in advance for vetting? Would we need to strike any topic that may suggest that the speaker has a particular viewpoint or opinion? It is unlikely that any speaker, agreeing to present free of charge would agree to such conditions, and it may come across as onerous, insulting and possibly violative of their free speech rights,” she wrote.
