Me. Code. Jud. Cond. 3.1

As amended through September 25, 2024

Rule 3.1 - Extrajudicial Activities in General

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

(A) Participate in activities that will interfere with the proper performance of the judge's judicial duties;

(B) Participate in activities that will lead to frequent disqualification of the judge;

(C) Participate in activities that would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge's independence, integrity, or impartiality;

(D) Engage in conduct that would appear to a reasonable person to be coercive;

(E) Make use of court premises, staff, stationery, equipment, or other resources, except for incidental use and for activities that concern the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, or unless such additional use is permitted by law; or

(F) Demean the judicial office.

Me. Code. Jud. Cond. 3.1

Adopted July 1, 2015, effective 9/1/2015.

Advisory Notes - 2015

Rule 3.1 appears to have the same general introductory purpose, and the same title, as 1993 Canon 4(A), but the wording of Rule 3.1 addressing extrajudicial activities is different and much more detailed. The wording of Rule 3.1 is identical to the 2011 ABA Model Code, with the addition of paragraph (F) indicating that a judge shall not "Demean the judicial office." The 2011 ABA Model Code Comment to Rule 3.1 states, in part:

[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.

[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.

[Comments 3 and 4 address bias and solicitations addressed in more detail in Rules 2.3, 3.6, and 3.7.]

As noted in the 1993 Advisory Committee's Note to Canon 4(A), the purpose of the Canons addressing extrajudicial activities "is to encourage appropriate extrajudicial activity, rather than to forbid all such activity." As the 1990 ABA Model Code Commentary to Canon 4A noted: "Complete separation of a judge from extrajudicial activities is neither possible nor wise; a judge should not become isolated from the community in which the judge lives." See Samsara Memorial Trust v. Kelly, Remmel & Zimmerman, 2014 ME 107, ¶ 36, 102 A.3d 757 (citing precedent from other states to note that participation by a judge in community activities and knowing people in a community is not a basis for disqualification and "is not necessarily a bad thing" (citing Medley v. State, 600 So. 2d 957, 961 (Miss. 1992) and quoting Tatham v. Rogers, 283 P.3d 583, 603 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012))). Thus, new Canon 3, like 1993 Canon 4, is intended to give the maximum scope to personal freedom that is consistent with its overriding purposes.

The ABA Model Code Comment [3] to Rule 3.1 notes that judges must avoid discriminatory actions and expressions of bias or prejudice, even outside the judge's official or judicial actions and must avoid connection or affiliation with organizations that practice "invidious discrimination." This Maine Code revision, when addressing prohibited discrimination issues, uses the specific and definable term "unlawful discrimination" rather than the subjective and ambiguous term "invidious discrimination." See new Rule 3.6. The 1993 Textual Note to Canon 2 indicates that a similar wording change substituting "unlawful discrimination" for "invidious discrimination" occurred in drafting 1993 Canon 2, altering the 1990 ABA Model Code.