(1) These Rules Governing Standards of Conduct (''Conduct Rules'') shall constitute the ''canon of . . . judicial ethics'' referenced in Article V, Section 17(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which states, in pertinent part: ''Justices of the peace (now magisterial district judges) shall be governed by rules or canons which shall be prescribed by the (Pennsylvania) Supreme Court.''(2) An independent, fair, honorable and impartial judiciary is indispensable to our system of justice. The Pennsylvania legal system is founded upon the principle that an independent, fair, impartial, and competent judiciary, composed of persons of integrity, will interpret and apply the law that governs our society. The judiciary consequently plays a fundamental role in ensuring the principles of justice and the rule of law. The rules contained in these Conduct Rules necessarily require magisterial district judges, individually and collectively, to treat and honor the judicial office as a public trust, striving to preserve and enhance legitimacy and confidence in the legal system.(3) Magisterial district judges should uphold the dignity of judicial office at all times, avoiding both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and personal lives. They should at all times conduct themselves in a manner that garners the highest level of public confidence in their independence, fairness, impartiality, integrity, and competence.(4) The Conduct Rules denote standards for the ethical behavior of magisterial district judges and judicial candidates. It is not an all-encompassing model of appropriate conduct for magisterial district judges and judicial candidates, but rather a complement to general ethical standards and other rules, statutes and laws governing such persons' judicial and personal conduct. The Conduct Rules are designed to assist magisterial district judges in practicing the highest standards of judicial and personal conduct and to establish a basis for disciplinary agencies to regulate magisterial district judges' conduct. (5) The Conduct Rules are rules of reason that should be applied consistently with constitutional requirements, statutes, other court rules, and decisional law, and with due regard for all relevant circumstances. The Conduct Rules are to be construed so as not to impinge on the essential independence of magisterial district judges in making judicial decisions.(6) Where a Rule contains a permissive term, such as ''may'' or ''should,'' the conduct being addressed is committed to the personal and professional discretion of the magisterial district judge or candidate in question, and no disciplinary action should be taken for action or inaction within the bounds of such discretion. Moreover, it is not intended that disciplinary action would be appropriate for every violation of the Conduct Rules' provisions. Whether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the degree of discipline to be imposed, should be determined through a reasonable application of the text and should depend on such factors as the seriousness of the violation, the intent of the magisterial district judge, whether there is a pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the improper activity on others or on the judicial system.(7) These Conduct Rules are not designed or intended as a basis for civil or criminal liability. Neither are they intended to be the basis for litigants to seek collateral remedies against each other or to obtain tactical advantages in proceedings before a court.(8) The Pennsylvania Judicial Ethics Advisory Board is designated as the approved body to render advisory opinions and general guidance regarding ethical concerns involving magisterial district judges and judicial candidates subject to the Conduct Rules. action taken in reliance thereon and pursuant thereto shall be treated as set forth in Rules 103 and 206 of the Pennsylvania Judicial Ethics Advisory Board in determining whether discipline should be recommended or imposed.(9) In 2014, these Conduct Rules were reformatted and revised in material respects, upon guidance taken from the 2011 edition of the American Bar Association's Model Code of Judicial Conduct, other states' codes, and experience.