Answer to Question 1
Because of the special role that judges occupy in the adversary system, they are subject to additional ethical constraints beyond those imposed on lawyers. The American Bar Association developed the Model Canons of Judicial Ethics, similar to the codes of legal ethics, but each state has adopted its own canons of judicial ethics. The purpose of these codes of judicial conduct is to preserve the integrity of the judicial system and to foster public confidence in the system (Gray, 2003). A study of A State Judicial Discipline Sanctions by the Center for Judicial Ethics of the American Judicature Society found that the baseline cases for sanctions involve judges who drive while intoxicated or are unduly slow in issuing decisions (Gray, 2003). Overall, the study concluded that public assumptions about levels of judicial misconduct are not borne out by the evidence. Interestingly, a failure of the judge to cooperate with the state's judicial conduct commission was a contributing factor to a judge's removal (Gray, 2003). Prohibition on conduct that brings the judicial office into disrepute is another requirement of canons of judicial ethics. Typically, this applies to situations in which the judge is having an extramarital affair or the like. The tension between electing judges and appearances of impropriety is emerging as a major issue in judicial ethics. In Republican Party v. White (2002) the Supreme Court allowed candidates for judicial office to discuss issues that might come before the court and to criticize past court decisions. The result has been a new dynamic in judicial elections, with some races featuring negative political ads and contentious campaigns (Fortune and White, 2008). Judges play a key role in enforcing legal ethics. During the course of a lawsuit, a judge may be called on to enforce rules of professional conduct. In such cases, the judge may find the lawyer in contempt of court and impose a small fine or a brief jail term.
Answer to Question 2
False