American Bar Association
The American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility released a formal opinion that provides guidance on the ethical obligations of judges under the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct when exercising administrative, employment and supervisory authority.
Formal Opinion 521 says that the canons and rules governing impartiality, integrity and independence — particularly Canons 1 and 2 and associated rules — require judges to administer chambers and court staff with the same fairness and neutrality that guide adjudication. This opinion explains that ethical duties extend beyond the courtroom to include merit-based appointments, the prevention of bias and harassment and the avoidance of favoritism or the appearance of impropriety in all administrative decisions. Judges fulfill these obligations by ensuring that their use of administrative authority promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s independence and integrity.
The opinion notes that “Judges occupy a unique public trust: they must decide controversies impartially and must also administer the courts in a manner that sustains the public’s confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” The Model Code of Judicial Conduct makes plain that those obligations reach beyond adjudication to embrace the full scope of judicial administration. Canon 1 and Rule 1.2 require judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; Canon 2 and Rule 2.3 require that judges perform all duties of office — adjudicative, administrative and supervisory — without bias or prejudice; Rule 2.12 imposes affirmative supervisory duties; and Rule 2.13 requires that appointments be made impartially and on the basis of merit. Together, these provisions create an affirmative, institutionally focused ethical mandate: judges must ensure that both their own conduct and the conduct of those they supervise preserve the fairness and legitimacy of the courts.
Applied here, that mandate means (1) avoiding administrative actions that convey favoritism, partiality or the use of judicial prestige for private ends; (2) making hiring, appointment and personnel decisions on objective, merit-based criteria; and (3) actively supervising and correcting discriminatory, harassing or retaliatory conduct within chambers. The illustrations in this opinion demonstrate how apparently discrete administrative acts (or the failure to act) — when motivated by nepotism, ideology or personal loyalty —can produce precisely the appearance of partiality that the code forbids and how patterns of such conduct can erode institutional integrity even where no single act violates a particular rule.
Judges may find it useful to adopt or strengthen internal practices that promote administrative fairness — such as clear, merit-based selection criteria for appointments; transparent processes for recurring discretionary decisions; education and training for judges and staff on supervisory obligations and workplace fairness; and prompt, impartial procedures for addressing allegations of staff misconduct. These are institutional measures meant to assist judges in meeting their ethical duties under the code. They should be tailored to the resources, structure and traditions of each court and implemented in a manner that respects judicial independence and the separation of powers.
This opinion affirms that preserving public confidence in the judiciary requires attention to both substance and perception. Judicial fairness must be real, and it must be seen to be real. When judges administer their chambers with impartiality, competence and diligence, they not only fulfill individual ethical obligations but also strengthen the judiciary’s collective standing as an institution worthy of public trust.
The standing committee periodically issues ethics opinions to guide lawyers, courts and the public in interpreting and applying ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Other recent ABA ethics opinions are available at www.americanbar.org/ groups/professional_responsibili ty/publications/ethics_opinions.
(https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2026/02/formal-opinion-521-re-judicial-canons-of-ethics/)
The American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility released a formal opinion that provides guidance on the ethical obligations of judges under the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct when exercising administrative, employment and supervisory authority.
Formal Opinion 521 says that the canons and rules governing impartiality, integrity and independence — particularly Canons 1 and 2 and associated rules — require judges to administer chambers and court staff with the same fairness and neutrality that guide adjudication. This opinion explains that ethical duties extend beyond the courtroom to include merit-based appointments, the prevention of bias and harassment and the avoidance of favoritism or the appearance of impropriety in all administrative decisions. Judges fulfill these obligations by ensuring that their use of administrative authority promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s independence and integrity.
The opinion notes that “Judges occupy a unique public trust: they must decide controversies impartially and must also administer the courts in a manner that sustains the public’s confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” The Model Code of Judicial Conduct makes plain that those obligations reach beyond adjudication to embrace the full scope of judicial administration. Canon 1 and Rule 1.2 require judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; Canon 2 and Rule 2.3 require that judges perform all duties of office — adjudicative, administrative and supervisory — without bias or prejudice; Rule 2.12 imposes affirmative supervisory duties; and Rule 2.13 requires that appointments be made impartially and on the basis of merit. Together, these provisions create an affirmative, institutionally focused ethical mandate: judges must ensure that both their own conduct and the conduct of those they supervise preserve the fairness and legitimacy of the courts.
Applied here, that mandate means (1) avoiding administrative actions that convey favoritism, partiality or the use of judicial prestige for private ends; (2) making hiring, appointment and personnel decisions on objective, merit-based criteria; and (3) actively supervising and correcting discriminatory, harassing or retaliatory conduct within chambers. The illustrations in this opinion demonstrate how apparently discrete administrative acts (or the failure to act) — when motivated by nepotism, ideology or personal loyalty —can produce precisely the appearance of partiality that the code forbids and how patterns of such conduct can erode institutional integrity even where no single act violates a particular rule.
Judges may find it useful to adopt or strengthen internal practices that promote administrative fairness — such as clear, merit-based selection criteria for appointments; transparent processes for recurring discretionary decisions; education and training for judges and staff on supervisory obligations and workplace fairness; and prompt, impartial procedures for addressing allegations of staff misconduct. These are institutional measures meant to assist judges in meeting their ethical duties under the code. They should be tailored to the resources, structure and traditions of each court and implemented in a manner that respects judicial independence and the separation of powers.
This opinion affirms that preserving public confidence in the judiciary requires attention to both substance and perception. Judicial fairness must be real, and it must be seen to be real. When judges administer their chambers with impartiality, competence and diligence, they not only fulfill individual ethical obligations but also strengthen the judiciary’s collective standing as an institution worthy of public trust.
The standing committee periodically issues ethics opinions to guide lawyers, courts and the public in interpreting and applying ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Other recent ABA ethics opinions are available at www.americanbar.org/ groups/professional_responsibili ty/publications/ethics_opinions.
(https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2026/02/formal-opinion-521-re-judicial-canons-of-ethics/)
