Colo. Code. 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:
Colo. Code. 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] 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.
[3] 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. See Rule 3.6.
[4] 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.
ANNOTATION Judge's use of judicial chambers stationery for letters to opposing counsel in personal matter creates appearance of impropriety; objectively reasonable person would not know the difference between judicial chambers stationery and official court stationery. Judge privately reprimanded for this and other misconduct. Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 822 P.2d 1333, 1340 (Alaska 1991). Public reprimand appropriate where judge was arrested for and plead guilty to drunk driving. In re Weaver, 691 N.W.2d 725 (Iowa 2004). District court judge's two-month secret intimate relationship with assistant county attorney, who appeared before him on behalf of State on daily basis, was conduct that brought disrepute to judicial office, and warranted 60 day suspension without pay, despite lack of evidence that judge's relationship with county attorney prejudiced any defendant who appeared before him, where affair occurred with subordinate public servant, judge allowed affair to remain hidden from those who appeared before him against assistant county attorney, judge and county attorney engaged in intimate encounters in courthouse, and both parties were married to other people. In re Gerard, 631 N.W.2 271 (Iowa 2001). Juvenile court judge's retaliation and intemperate statements directed at the attorneys required by law to appear on child welfare cases was at least negligent and ran afoul of duties to give precedence to his or her judicial duties over all other activities of the judge, to be patient and courteous to all persons dealt with in a judicial capacity, and to disqualify himself if impartiality could reasonably be questioned; the judge allowed his non-judicial activities, namely his federal action against the Director of the Office of the Guardian ad Litem, to take priority over his judicial duty to hear child welfare cases, and he did so by treating the Director, the attorneys in her office, and the attorneys of the Attorney General's office with considerable disrespect, creating a continuing situation where his impartiality could reasonably be, and was, repeatedly questioned. In re Anderson, 82 P.3d 1134 (Utah 2004). ETHICS OPINIONS The judge may speak at a CLE which is, in effect, limited to only one component of the bar, provided that the judge satisfies certain conditions. In addition, the judge should consider with care the topic on which he presents, and should avoid presenting on a topic such as trial strategy, which could raise questions regarding the judge's impartiality. Colo. J.E.A.B. Op. 08-03. Judges are not permitted to be members of special bar association, as it would convey the appearance of a special relationship to one side in the adversarial process. Judges should avoid membership in even the most praiseworthy and noncontroversial organizations if they espouse or are dedicated to a particular legal philosophy or position. Alaska Ad. Op. 99-4. A judge may not participate in an infomercial for a local surgeon, which would demean the judicial office and lend the prestige of the judge's office to advance the physician's private interests. Md. Ad. Op. 2006-11. Judge may serve as a director of a non-profit corporation formed to solicit funds from the community to provide incentives for participants in a local Drug Court. Md. Ad. Op. 2005-11. Judge may make presentations before groups representing single components of the judicial system as long as the judge is careful about the contents of the discussions and does not give legal advice, comment on pending cases, or offer opinions that would indicate biases or prejudgment of certain types of cases. The judge must also be willing to accept invitations from other components in the system. Utah Ad. Op. 2006-06. Judge may maintain membership in a cycling club that is sponsored, in part, by a law firm. Utah Ad. Op. 03-01.