Rule 18-100.1 - General Provisions(a)Source and Structure of the Code. The substantive provisions and much of the structure of this Code are based in large part on the 2007 Model Code of Judicial Conduct proposed by the American Bar Association (ABA Model Code), although some of those provisions and some of the style and organization of this Code differ from the ABA Model Code. Most of the differences are necessary for consistency with the Maryland Constitution, Maryland statutes, and other Maryland Rules. Committee note: This Code is divided into five parts: an introductory part consisting of Rules 18-100.1 through 18-100.4; a part consisting of Rules 18-101.1 through 18-101.3 that deal with judicial integrity and the avoidance of impropriety; a part consisting of Rules 18-102.1 through 18-102.16 that deal with the performance of judicial duties; a part consisting of Rules 18-103.1 through 18-103.15 that deal generally with extrajudicial activities; and a part consisting of Rules 18-104.1 through 18-104.6 that deal with political activity.
This structure conforms generally to that of the ABA Model Code but differs from the ABA Model Code in the following principal respects:
(1) This Code assigns each Rule of Judicial Conduct a Maryland Rule number, but, the Maryland Rule numbering conforms to that of the ABA Model Code so that the parallel will be obvious. Thus, for example, ABA Rule 1.1 (Compliance with the Law) is Maryland Rule 18-101.1, which also is captioned "Compliance with the Law.(2) This Code consolidates and reorganizes the Preamble, Scope, Application, and Terminology provisions of the ABA Model Code into Rules 18-100.1 through 18-100.4. Although the Preamble is aspirational in nature, the Scope, Application, and Terminology provisions are more substantive and should be in the form of Rules.(3) The 2007 ABA Code proposed a new and much different structure and format. The enforceable ethical commands in previous Codes were stated in the form of specific Canons, to which were appended interpretative Comments. The enforceable ethical commands in the 2007 ABA Code are stated in the form of Rules that are supplemented by interpretative Comments and headed by very brief and general statements denominated as Canons. The 2007 ABA Code acknowledges that a judge may be disciplined only for violating a Rule, but it regards the Canons as providing guidance in interpreting the Rules. That guidance, however, is more precisely the function of the Comments under each Rule. The Canons themselves appear to be merely descriptive of the subject matter of the Rules. To avoid any ambiguity over the significance of the Canons and to make clear that attention must be focused on the Rules and the Comments, this Code eliminates the Canons and uses instead a descriptive statement of the Rules in each part.
(4) The 2007 ABA Code contains provisions regarding political activity and financial disclosure by judges. This Code reorganizes those provisions and conforms them to the different methods by which judges in Maryland are selected and retained and to requirements enacted by the Maryland General Assembly or adopted by the Supreme Court. The intent is to make more clear to each judge and candidate for judicial office what is allowed and what is not allowed. (b)Interpretive Provisions.(1)Discipline.(A) A judge may be disciplined only for violating a Rule. If 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 judge or candidate in question, and no disciplinary action should be taken for action or inaction within the bounds of that discretion.(B) Although the text of the Rules is binding and enforceable, it is not contemplated that every transgression will result in the imposition of discipline. Whether discipline should be imposed should be determined through a reasonable and reasoned application of the Rules and should depend upon factors such as the seriousness of the transgression, the facts and circumstances at the time of the transgression, the extent of any pattern of improper activity, whether there have been previous violations, and the effect of the improper activity upon the judicial system or others.(2)Accompanying Comments.(A) The Comments that accompany the Rules contain explanatory material and, in some instances, provide examples of permitted or prohibited conduct.(B) Comments neither add to nor subtract from the binding obligations set forth in the Rules. Therefore, when a Comment contains the term "must, it does not mean that the Comment itself is binding or enforceable but merely signifies that the Rule in question, properly understood, is obligatory as to the conduct at issue.(C) The Comments also may identify aspirational goals for judges. To implement fully the principles of this Code, judges should hold themselves to the highest ethical standards and seek to achieve those aspirational goals, thereby enhancing the dignity of the judicial office.(3)Rules of Reason. The Rules in this Code are rules of reason that should be applied in a manner that is consistent with Constitutional requirements, statutes, other Court Rules, and decisional law and that gives due regard for all relevant circumstances. The Rules should not be interpreted to impinge upon the essential independence of judges in making judicial decisions.(4)Collateral Effect. This Code is not designed or intended as a basis for civil or criminal liability. It is also not intended to be the basis for litigants to seek collateral remedies against each other or to obtain tactical advantages in proceedings before a court.(5)Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion. In interpreting this Code, attention should be given to the opinions of the Judicial Ethics Committee and, if appropriate, that Committee should be asked for a written letter of advice or a binding opinion.Md. R. Jud. & Judi. Appts. 18-100.1
This Rule is new but is derived from paragraphs A-101 through A-108 of former Rule 16-813(2016).
Adopted June 6, 2016, eff. 7/1/2016; amended April 21, 2023, eff. 4/1/2023. See Rule 18-308, protecting a judge from a charge of violating an ethics provision in this Code if the judge has requested and received an opinion or advice letter from the Committee and is in compliance with that opinion or advice letter or is in compliance with a published opinion of the Committee.