Rule 2.3. , but with the addition of “for or against an individual or party” in the

first sentence of (B). Also, recognizing that language barriers sometimes pose

particular problems, judges must endeavor to ensure that all individuals

understand and are allowed to participate fully in court proceedings, while

ensuring that the judge’s actions do not manifest any prejudice or bias.

Bias claims subjecting a judge to disciplinary complaints may arise from

either judicial or administrative actions. Although administrative decisions

such as hiring and discipline of court personnel are administrative functions,

not judicial functions, a judge may commit judicial misconduct when

performing administrative functions. In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct,

726 F.3d 1060, 1061 (9th Cir. 2013). “But any such charges of misconduct must

allege more than disagreement with the judge’s administrative decision. The

complaint must document conduct by the judge that is wrongful, independent

of whether the judge’s decision is correct. The misconduct process cannot be

used to second-guess the judge’s administrative decision; nor can it result in a

reversal of that decision.” Id.

The 1993 Advisory Committee’s Note to paragraphs (5) and (6) of Canon

3(B) stated:

Canons 3B(5) and (6) are intended “to emphasize the

requirements of impartial decision-making and the appearance of

fairness in the courtroom.” ABA Model Code (1990), Committee

Note to Sections 3B(5), (6). The Commentary to ABA Model Code

ive decision; nor can it result in a

reversal of that decision.” Id.

The 1993 Advisory Committee’s Note to paragraphs (5) and (6) of Canon

3(B) stated:

Canons 3B(5) and (6) are intended “to emphasize the

requirements of impartial decision-making and the appearance of

fairness in the courtroom.” ABA Model Code (1990), Committee

Note to Sections 3B(5), (6). The Commentary to ABA Model Code

(1990), Section 3B(5), emphasizes that the purpose is to assure

impartiality and fairness in the performance of judicial duties.

Manifestation of bias may impair “the fairness of the proceeding”

and bring “the judiciary into disrepute.” A judge “must be alert to

avoid behavior that may be perceived as prejudicial.” The

provision includes “[f]acial expression and body language, in

addition to oral communication,” all of which can convey the

appearance of bias “to parties or lawyers . . . , jurors, the media and

others.” Id. As in Canon 3B(4), the duty to control the conduct of

others is aspirational, rather than mandatory.

Canon 3B(6) is also aspirational in form. Judges “should

require” lawyers to observe the standards imposed on judges and

court personnel by Canon 3B(5). The provision is not mandatory,

because judges have no line supervisory authority over lawyers

and can control lawyers’ behavior only through the drastic

sanctions of contempt or professional discipline. This section

imposes no obligation upon judges to intervene in the exercise of

peremptory challenges in the ordinary case. The decisions of the

United States Supreme Court in Georgia v. McCollum, [505] U.S [42],

112 S.Ct. 2348 (1992); Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S.

[614], 111 S. Ct. 2077 (1991); and Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79

ctions of contempt or professional discipline. This section

imposes no obligation upon judges to intervene in the exercise of

peremptory challenges in the ordinary case. The decisions of the

United States Supreme Court in Georgia v. McCollum, [505] U.S [42],

112 S.Ct. 2348 (1992); Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S.

[614], 111 S. Ct. 2077 (1991); and Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79

(1986), prohibit discriminatory use of peremptory challenges to

exclude jurors solely on account of their race. If the objecting party

makes a prima facie showing that the challenge was based on race,

the challenging party must offer a racially neutral explanation for

the challenge. In light of the burdens placed upon the objecting

party by these cases, the judge’s only obligation is to follow the

procedure there outlined. In the absence of objection, a

peremptory challenge should be presumed to have been made

without discriminatory intent as an act of “legitimate advocacy”

permitted by the second sentence of section (6), unless other

circumstances, such as the lawyer’s demeanor in the voir dire or the

absence of any apparent tactical reason for the challenge, manifest

actual bias or prejudice.

External Influences on Judicial Conduct

(A)

A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.

(B)

A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other

interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or

judgment.