[1] Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair, and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us. The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of justice and the rule of law. Intrinsic to all sections of this Code are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system. [2] Every judge should strive to maintain the dignity appropriate to the judicial office. The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes and a highly visible symbol of government under the rule of law. Judges should avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and personal lives. They should at all times exhibit behavior that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence. As a result, judges should be held to a higher standard, and should conduct themselves with the dignity accorded their esteemed position. [3] The Code of Judicial Conduct establishes standards for ethical conduct of judges and judicial candidates. It consists of broad statements called Canons, specific Rules as well as Commentary set forth under each Canon, a Preamble, a Scope, a Terminology section, and an Application section. The text of the Canons and the Rules, including the Terminology and Application sections, is authoritative. The Commentary and the Preamble and Scope, by explanation and example, provide guidance with respect to the purpose and meaning of the Canons and the Rules. Neither the Preamble and Scope nor the Commentary is intended as a statement of additional Rules. When the text uses "shall" or "shall not," it is intended to impose binding obligations the violation of which are grounds for disciplinary action. When "should" or "should not" is used, the text is intended as an advisory statement of what is or is not appropriate conduct, and the violation of which may be grounds for disciplinary action. When "may" is used, it denotes permissible discretion or, depending on the context, it refers to action that is not covered by specific proscriptions.Ga. Code. Jud. Cond. Canon Preamble
Adopted effective January 1, 2016; Paragraph [3] amended effective September 22, 2016.