Ohio Jud. Cond. R. 2.10

As amended through October 29, 2024

Rule 2.10 - Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases

(A) A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.

(B) A judge shall not, in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.

(C) A judge shall require court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control to refrain from making statements that the judge would be prohibited from making by divisions (A) and (B) of this rule.

(D) Notwithstanding the restrictions in division (A) of this rule, a judge may make public statements in the course of official duties, may explain court procedures, and may comment on any proceeding in which the judge is a litigant in a personal, nonjudicial capacity.

(E) Subject to the requirements of division (A) of this rule, a judge may respond directly or through a third-party to allegations in the media or elsewhere concerning the judge's conduct in a matter.

Ohio. Jud. Cond. R. 2.10

Comment

[1] This rule's restrictions on judicial speech are essential to the maintenance of the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.

[2] This rule does not prohibit a judge from commenting on proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a personal, nonjudicial capacity. In cases in which the judge is a litigant in a judicial capacity, such as a writ of mandamus, the judge must not comment publicly.

[3] Depending upon the circumstances, the judge should consider whether it may be preferable for a third party, rather than the judge, to respond or issue statements in connection with allegations concerning the judge's conduct in a matter.

Comparison to Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct

Rule 2.10(A) corresponds to Ohio Canons 3(B)(9) and 7(B)(2)(e).

Rule 2.10(B) corresponds to Ohio Canons 7(B)(2)(c) and (d), except that it does not encompass judicial candidates and it is narrower with respect to its prohibitions. Placing this particular restriction in Rule 2.10 makes it clear that the prohibition applies to pledges and promises made by a judge even when made outside the context of a political campaign. However, in light of the decision issued by the United States Supreme Court in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U. S. 765 (2002), the prohibition is limited to pledges, promises, or commitments that are made in connection with cases, controversies, or issues likely to come before the court and that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of a judge's adjudicative duties. For the same reason, the reference in Canon 7(B)(2)(d) to "statements that commit or appear to commit the judge" is not retained in this rule.

Rule 2.10(C) corresponds to the second sentence of Ohio Canon 3(B)(9), but replaces the phrase "court personnel" with "court staff, court officials, and others" so as to include all persons subject to the judge's direction and control.

Rule 2.10(D) corresponds with the third and fourth sentences of Ohio Canon 3(B)(9).

Rule 2.10(E) is new and is intended to allow a judge to respond to allegations in the media or elsewhere concerning the judge's conduct in a particular matter, so long as the response would not affect the outcome or impair the fairness of that proceeding.

Comparison to ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct

Rule 2.10 is identical to ABA Model Rule 2.10, except for the addition of wording in Rule 2.10(D) and Comment [2]. The added language distinguishes between lawsuits in which a judge may be named personally, but arising out of his or her judicial conduct, and those in which a judge is involved in a purely personal, nonjudicial capacity.