Judge Albright, presiding over a contentious boundary dispute, received an unsolicited email from a former law school classmate, who was a non-party and non-witness to the case. The email contained an article from a local historical society journal discussing land demarcation practices in the region during the 19th century, relevant to a historical easement claim raised by one of the parties. The classmate explicitly stated, 'Thought this might be interesting background reading, no need to respond.' Judge Albright read the article but did not rely on it for any factual findings or legal conclusions in the case. After issuing her ruling, the losing party discovered the email exchange through a public records request. Did Judge Albright's actions violate the Code of Judicial Conduct?
- ANo, because the article was publicly available and did not contain case-specific factual information or legal arguments from a party.
- BYes, because receiving and reading unsolicited information from a non-party related to the merits of a pending case constitutes an improper ex parte communication.
- CNo, because the email explicitly stated 'no need to respond,' indicating it was not an attempt to influence the judge.
- DYes, but only if the article was demonstrably biased in favor of one of the parties to the dispute.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: B. Yes, because receiving and reading unsolicited information from a non-party related to the merits of a pending case constitutes an improper ex parte communication.
Judges are generally prohibited from engaging in ex parte communications, which include communications concerning a pending or impending matter received from a non-party outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers. Even if the information is publicly available or not relied upon, the act of receiving and considering it without giving all parties an opportunity to respond is improper.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. While the article may be publicly available, receiving it from a non-party outside the presence of the parties is still an ex parte communication if it relates to the merits of the case.
- C. The intent of the sender or the lack of a need to respond does not negate the fact that it was an ex parte communication concerning a pending matter.
- D. The impropriety of an ex parte communication does not depend on the bias of the information; it depends on the nature of the communication itself and the circumstances under which it was received.
Ex Parte Communication (Judicial)
A communication made to a judge concerning a pending or impending matter without the presence or knowledge of all parties or their lawyers, generally prohibited unless specific exceptions apply.
- Prohibited to ensure fairness and impartiality.
- Includes both oral and written communications.
- Exceptions exist for scheduling, administrative matters, or with party consent.
Memory trick: Judges must never 'text' outside the 'courtroom' with 'secret' info.