Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, Preamble
Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, Preamble
Text — As amended by the Supreme Court of California effective July 1, 2020 (the edition the Judicial Council posts, read October 22, 2026)
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 this code are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and must strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system. The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes and is a highly visible member of government under the rule of law.
The Code of Judicial Ethics (“code”) establishes standards for ethical conduct of judges on and off the bench and for candidates for judicial office.* The code consists of broad declarations called canons, with subparts, and a terminology section. Following many canons is a commentary section prepared by the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics. The commentary, by explanation and example, provides guidance as to the purpose and meaning of the canons. The commentary does not constitute additional rules and should not be so construed. All members of the judiciary must comply with the code. Compliance is required to preserve the integrity* of the bench and to ensure the confidence of the public.
The canons should be read together as a whole, and each provision should be construed in context and consistent with every other provision. They are to be applied in conformance with constitutional requirements, statutes, other court rules, and decisional law. Nothing in the code shall either impair the essential independence* of judges in making judicial decisions or provide a separate basis for civil liability or criminal prosecution.
The code governs the conduct of judges and candidates for judicial office* and is binding upon them. Whether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the degree of discipline to be imposed, requires a reasoned application of the text and consideration of such factors as the seriousness of the transgression, if there is a pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the improper activity on others or on the judicial system.
Source of truth
- Edition
- As amended by the Supreme Court of California effective July 1, 2020 (the edition the Judicial Council posts, read October 22, 2026)
- Official file
- https://courts.ca.gov/system/files/rules-court/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf (PDF pages 3)
- Text hash
- sha256 6335a91b95e35b76676e27f9587e7243cbff8ff884576436875d94edd2e7e1d1
- Composed by
- cje/build 2026-10-22: the Code's PDF (55 pages, line-numbered) read by two readers, PyMuPDF and pdfminer's layout analysis, agreeing on all 417 paragraphs character for character; 114,918 printed glyphs accounted for (110,958 composed, 3,960 margin line numbers and page numbers dropped)
Procedural information only. Not legal advice and not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. Confirm the current text with the official publisher before relying on it.