CJEO Formal Opinion No. 2025-030 — Participation in Inns of Court

1
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ETHICS OPINIONS
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
(855) 854-5366
www.JudicialEthicsOpinions.ca.gov
CJEO Formal Opinion 2025-030
[Issued August 20, 2025]
PARTICIPATION IN INNS OF COURT
I. Question
What are a judicial officer’s ethical obligations as they pertain to participation in
American Inns of Court?
II. Advice Provided
Judicial membership in Inns of Court is not only permitted, but encouraged, under
the provisions of the Code of Judicial Ethics 1 that discuss judicial engagement in activity
that relates to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. Membership,
1 All further references to canons, the code, and to Advisory Committee Commentary are to the California
Code of Judicial Ethics unless otherwise indicated.

2
serving on a pupilage team, and performing in a leadership role are all considered
laudable forms of judicial engagement.
Any ethical considerations relating to Inn participation can typically be addressed
through well-established tools such as disqualification, disclosure, and common sense.
Judicial participation in Inns of Court alongside attorneys is generally presumed to be in
the realm of a professional relationship or acquaintanceship that does not require
disqualification or disclosure. The mentorship aspect of Inns of Court may in some
instances give rise to ethical concerns, but this is uncommon. In the unlikely event a
judge develops a professional relationship or a friendship with a mentee lawyer that
impacts, or may appear to impact, the judge’s ability to act impartially, the judge should
consider disqualification or disclosure in accordance with Canon 3E and section 170.1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure.
Other potential ethical concerns in the context of Inns of Court include
membership solicitation (judges may solicit members so long as the solicitation could not
reasonably be perceived as coercive and is not essentially a fundraising mechanism),
educational activities (judges must remain neutral, avoid bias or the appearance of bias,
and avoid indicating prejudgment of issues), and networking in-person and online
(generally permitted, but judges must take care to avoid lending the prestige of the
judicial office, casting doubt on a judge’s ability to act impartially, and demeaning the
judicial office).
III. Authorities
A. Applicable Canons
Terminology: “‘Law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.’ When a
judge engages in an activity that relates to the law, the legal system, or the administration
of justice, the judge should also consider factors such as whether the activity upholds the
integrity, impartiality, and independence of the judiciary (Canons 1 and 2A), whether the
activity impairs public confidence in the judiciary (Canon 2), whether the judge is
allowing the activity to take precedence over judicial duties (Canon 3A), and whether
engaging in the activity would cause the judge to be disqualified (Canon 4A(4)). See
Canons 4B (Commentary), 4C(1), 4C(1) (Commentary), 4C(2), 4C(2) (Commentary),

3
4C(3)(a), 4C(3)(b) (Commentary), 4C(3)(d)(ii), 4C(3)(d) (Commentary), 4D(6)(d),
4D(6)(e), 5A (Commentary), 5D, 5D (Commentary).”
Canon 2: “A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in
all of the judge’s activities.”
Canon 2A: “Promoting Public Confidence. A judge shall respect and comply with
the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. A judge shall not make statements, whether
public or nonpublic, that commit the judge with respect to cases, controversies, or issues
that are likely to come before the courts or that are inconsistent with the impartial
performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.”
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canons 2 and 2A: “Public confidence
in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges.”
Canon 2B(1): “A judge shall not allow family, social, political, or other
relationships to influence the judge’s conduct or judgment, nor shall a judge convey or
permit others to convey the impression that any individual is in a special position to
influence the judge.”
Canon 2B(2): “A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office or use the
judicial title in any manner, including any oral or written communication, to advance the
pecuniary or personal interest of the judge or others….”
Canon 2C: “C. Membership in Organizations. A judge shall not hold membership
in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex,
gender, gender identity, gender expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual
orientation. This Canon does not apply to membership in a religious organization.”
Canon 3B(1): “B. Adjudicative Responsibilities
“(1) A judge shall hear and decide all matters assigned to the judge except those in
which he or she is disqualified.”
Canon 3E(1): “A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in
which disqualification is required by law.”
Canon 3E(2)(a): “In all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the record
as follows: (a) Information relevant to disqualification. A judge shall disclose
information that is reasonably relevant to the question of disqualification under Code of

4
Civil Procedure section 170.1, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for
disqualification.”
Canon 3E(3)(a): “A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in accordance with
the following: (a) Statements that commit the judge to a particular result. A judge is
disqualified if the judge, while a judge or candidate for judicial office, made a statement,
other than in a court proceeding, judicial decision, or opinion, that a person aware of the
facts might reasonably believe commits the judge to reach a particular result or rule in a
particular way.”
Canon 3E(4): “An appellate justice shall disqualify himself or herself in any
proceeding if for any reason: (a) the justice believes his or her recusal would further the
interests of justice; or (b) the justice substantially doubts his or her capacity to be
impartial; or (c) the circumstances are such that a reasonable person aware of the facts
would doubt the justice’s ability to be impartial.”
Canon 3E(5)(a): “Disqualification of an appellate justice is also required in the
following instances: (a) The appellate justice has served as a lawyer in the pending
proceeding, or has served as a lawyer in any other proceeding involving any of the same
parties if that other proceeding related to the same contested issues of fact and law as the
present proceeding, or has given advice to any party in the present proceeding up any
issue involved in the proceeding.”
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 3E
“In some instances, membership in certain organizations may have the potential
to give an appearance of partiality, although membership in the organization generally
may not be barred by Canon 2C, Canon 4, or any other specific canon. A judge holding
membership in an organization should disqualify himself or herself whenever doing so
would be appropriate in accordance with Canon 3E(1), 3E(4), or 3E(5) or statutory
requirements. In addition, in some circumstances, the parties or their lawyers may
consider a judge’s membership in an organization relevant to the question of
disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification. In
accordance with this canon, a judge should disclose to the parties his or her membership
in an organization, in any proceeding in which that information is reasonably relevant to
the question of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, even if the
judge concludes there is no actual basis for disqualification.”
Canon 3E(6): “It shall not be grounds for disqualification that the justice: (a) Is or
is not a member of a racial, ethnic, religious, sexual, or similar group and the proceeding
involves the rights of such a group: (b) Has in any capacity expressed a view on a legal or
factual issue presented in the proceeding, except as provided in Canon 3E(5)(a), (b), or
(c); (c) Has as a lawyer or public official participated in the drafting of laws or in the

5
effort to pass or defeat laws, the meaning, effect, or application of which is in issue in the
proceeding unless the judge believes that his or her prior involvement was so well known
as to raise a reasonable doubt in the public mind as to his or her capacity to be impartial.”
Canon 4A: “Extrajudicial Activities in General. A judge shall conduct all of the
judge’s extrajudicial activities so that they do not (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s
capacity to act impartially, (2) demean the judicial office, (3) interfere with the proper
performance of judicial duties, or (4) lead to frequent disqualification of the judge.”
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 4A
“Complete separation of a judge from extrajudicial activities is neither possible
nor wise; a judge should not become isolated from the community in which he or she
lives…. Because a judge’s judicial duties take precedence over all other activities (see
Canon 3A), a judge must avoid extrajudicial activities that might reasonably result in the
judge being disqualified.”
Canon 4B: “Quasi-judicial and Avocational Activities. A judge may speak, write,
lecture, teach, and participate in activities concerning legal and nonlegal subject matters,
subject to the requirements of this code.”
Canon 4C: “Governmental, Civic, or Charitable Activities. (1) A judge shall not
appear at a public hearing or officially consult with an executive or legislative body or
public official except on matters concerning the law, the legal system, or the
administration of justice, or in matters involving the judge’s private economic or personal
interests.”
Canon 4C(3)(d): “Subject to the following limitations and other requirements of
this code [¶] … [¶ ] (d) a judge as an officer, director, trustee, nonlegal advisor, or as a
member or otherwise”
(i) “may assist such an organization in planning fundraising and may
participate in the management and investment of the organization’s funds.
However, a judge shall not personally participate in the solicitation of funds
or other fundraising activities, except that a judge may privately solicit
funds for such an organization from member of the judge’s family or from
other judges (excluding commissioners, referees, court-appointed
arbitrators, hearing officers, temporary judges”, and retired judges who
service in the Temporary Assigned Judges Program, practice law or provide
alternative dispute resolution services);”

6
(ii) “may make recommendations to public and private fund-granting
organizations on projects and programs concerning the law, the legal
system of the administration of justice;”
(iii) “shall not personally participate in membership solicitation if the
solicitation might be reasonably perceived as coercive or if the membership
solicitation is essentially a fundraising mechanism, except as permitted in
Canon 4C(3)(d)(i);”
(iv) “shall not permit the use of the prestige or his or her judicial office for
fundraising or membership solicitation but may be a speaker, guest of
honor, or recipient of an award for public or charitable service provided the
judge does not personally solicit funds and complies with Canons 4A(1),
(2), (3), and (4).”
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTARY: Canon 4C(3)(d)
“A judge may solicit membership or endorse or encourage membership efforts of
an organization devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the
administration of justice, or a nonprofit educational, religious, charitable, service, or
civic organization as long as the solicitation cannot reasonably be perceived as coercive
and is not essentially a fundraising mechanism. Solicitation of fund or memberships for
an organization similarly involves the danger that the person solicited will feel obligated
to respond favorably if the solicitor is in a position of influence or control.
Canon 4D(6): “A judge shall not accept and shall discourage members of the
judge’s family residing in the judge’s household from accepting a gift, bequest, favor, or
loan from anyone except as hereinafter set forth. Gifts that are permitted by Canons
4D(6)(a) through (i) may only be accepted if the gift, bequest, favor, or loan would
neither influence nor reasonably be perceived as intended to influence the judge in the
performance of judicial duties:
“(a) a gift, bequest, favor, or loan from a person whose preexisting relationship
with the judge would prevent the judge under Canon 3E from hearing a case
involving that person;”
Canon 4G: “A judge shall not practice law.”
Canon 5D: “Measures to Improve the Law. A judge or candidate for judicial
office may engage in activity in relation to measures concerning improvement of the law,
the legal system, or the administration of justice, only if the conduct is consistent with
this code.”

7
B. Constitutional Provisions, Statutes, and Other Authorities
American Inns of Court, Membership Structure and Recruitment, p. 2
<https://www.innsofcourt.org/aic_pdfs/summits/membership_structure_and_recruitment.
pdf> [as of Aug. 20, 2025].
American Inns of Court, Strategic Plan (May 2016)
<https://home.innsofcourt.org/AIC_PDFs/Documents/AIC_Strategic_Plan_Vision_Missi
on_Goals_May2016_OnePage_SEC.pdf> [as of Aug. 20, 2025].
American Inns of Court, What is an American Inn of Court
<https://home.innsofcourt.org/AIC/About_Us/What_Is_an_American_Inn_of_Court/AIC
/AIC_About_Us/What_Is_An_American_Inn_of_Court.aspx?hkey=d3aa9ba2-459a-
4bab-aee8-f8faca2bfa0f> [as of Aug. 20, 2025].
Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 170.9.
Cal. Judges Assn., Judicial Ethics Update (2014).
Cal. Judges Assn., Judicial Ethics Update (2016).
Cal. Judges Assn., Opinion No. 47 (1997) Propriety of Judges Associating with
Attorneys at Social and Educational Settings.
CJEO Formal Opinion 2014-006 (2014) Judicial Comment at Public Hearings and
Consultation with Public Officials and Other Branches of Government, Cal. Supreme Ct.
Com. Jud. Ethics Opns.
CJEO Informal Opinion Summary 2018-005 (2018) Disqualification for Spouse’s
Political Campaign Services, Cal. Supreme Ct. Com. Jud. Ethics Opns.
CJEO Formal Opinion 2018-012 (2018) Providing Education Presentations at
Specialty Bar Events, Cal. Supreme Com. Jud. Ethics Opns.
CJEO Oral Advice Summary No. 2019-030 (2019) Acceptance of a Private
Testimonial Dinner and Honors, Cal. Supreme Ct. Com. Jud. Ethics Opns.
CJEO Formal Opinion 2021-018 (2021) Providing Feedback on Attorney
Courtroom Performance, Cal. Supreme Ct. Com. Jud. Ethics Opns.

8
CJEO Expedited Opinion 2021-041 (2021) Service on a Governmental Task
Force, Cal. Supreme Ct. Com. Jud. Ethics Opns.
CJEO Expedited Opinion 2021-042 (2021) Social Media Posts About the Law, the
Legal System, or the Administration of Justice, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns.
CJEO Expedited Opinion 2021-043 (2021) Service on the California Access to
Justice Commission Child Welfare Council, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics Opns.
Rothman, California Judicial Conduct Handbook (2020 supp.) sections 2:24, 7:32,
9:34, 9:54, 10.5, 10:16, and 10.38.
IV. Discussion
A. Background
The American Inns of Court is an association of legal professionals from a variety
of backgrounds, with different positions and levels of experience, including lawyers, law
professors, judges, and law students. Today, there are more than 400 chartered Inns in 48
states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Tokyo. The American Inns of Court espouse
six primary values – collegiality, connection, education, innovation, mentorship, and
respect. Discussed in greater detail below, the Inns’ primary principles promote civil and
legal professionalism, principles that are affirmatively encouraged by the Code.
Nevertheless, there are ethical considerations relating to the Inns’ core activities of which
judges should be mindful, as they could lead a judge to modify the judge’s participation,
disclose on the bench the judge’s involvement in the Inn, or even warrant
disqualification.
B. Ethical Considerations
i. Membership
The Code permits judges to participate in extrajudicial activities relating to “the
improvement of the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.” (Advisory
Com. com. foll. Canon 4B.) Indeed, judges are in a “unique position to contribute” to
these activities, provided that their involvement does not run afoul of the Code. (Id.; see

9
also Canon 5D [recognizing that judicial officers are permitted to engage in extrajudicial
activities, provided they are consistent with the Code].)
A variety of subjects, ranging from administrative and procedural concerns to
substantive legal issues, may relate to “the improvement of the law, the legal system, or
the administration of justice,” provided that judicial involvement does not “impermissibly
‘encroach[] into the political (policy making) domain of the other branches’ [of
government].” (CJEO Formal Opinion 2014-006 (2014) Judicial Comment at Public
Hearings and Consultation with Public Officials and Other Branches of Government,
Cal. Supreme Ct. Com. Jud. Ethics Opns., pp. 7, 9 [“The clearest examples of permissible
[extrajudicial] activities are those addressing the legal process; however, comment and
consultation about substantive legal issues, where the purpose is to benefit the law and
legal system itself rather than any particular cause or group would also be permissible”]).
Judicial membership is permissible in a variety of organizations and governmental
bodies with a narrow focus directly related to the law, the legal system, and the
administration of justice, provided membership does not raise ethical concerns under
other canons. (CJEO Expedited Opinion 2021-042 (2021) Social Media Posts About the
Law, the Legal System, or the Administration of Justice, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud.
Ethics Opns., p. 7; CJEO Expedited Opinion 2021-043 (2021) Service on the California
Access to Justice Commission Child Welfare Council, Cal. Supreme Ct., Com. Jud. Ethics
Opns., pp. 6-7.) Based on the description offered by the Inns’ national website, most of
the Inns’ activities and goals relate to the “improvement of the law, the legal system, or
the administration of justice.” (Advisory Com. com. foll. Canon 4B.) For example, the
national website states that
Through regular meetings, members are able to build and strengthen
professional relationships; discuss fundamental concerns about
professionalism and pressing legal issues of the day; share experiences and
advice, exhort the utmost passion and dedication for the law; provide

10
mentoring opportunities; and advance the highest levels of integrity,
ethics, and civility. 2
In Opinion Number 47, the California Judges Association notes: “Judges are
encouraged to participate in the activities of organizations such as state and local bar
associations and their sections, specialty bar associations such as business trial lawyer
associations, family lawyer groups, inns of court, and similar organizations. Judges’
participation in the educational activities of such groups is particularly desirable.” (Cal.
Judges Assn., Opn. No. 47 (1997) Propriety of Judges Associating with Attorneys at
Social and Educational Settings, p. 2, emphasis added.) Accordingly, judicial
membership in the Inns of Court is not only permitted, it is encouraged.
Such professional interaction with attorneys does not usually require
disqualification or disclosure. (Rothman, supra, § 7:32, p. 433 [“The fact that a judge
and an attorney are members of the same professional legal organization, or that the
judge has only a professional relationship with the attorney, does not normally require the
judge to either recuse or disclose when the attorney appears before the court”].)
However, “[i]f a judge and a lawyer serve on the same board of such a professional legal
organization, the judge should consider disclosure.” (Id.; but see Cal. Judges Assn.,
Judicial Ethics Update (2016) p. 3 [a judge who is on the board of an Inn of Court,
composed of judges and attorneys, does not have to disqualify or disclose if an attorney is
nominated to serve on the Board, so long as the nomination is from the inn (or a
subcommittee of the same), and not from that judge personally].)
Finally, a judge “shall not personally participate in membership solicitation if the
solicitation might reasonably be perceived as coercive or if the membership solicitation is
essentially a fundraising mechanism….” (Canon 4C(3)(d)(iii).) The Code goes on to say
a judge “shall not permit the use of the prestige of the judicial office for fundraising or
2 American Inns of Court, What is an American Inn of Court
<https://home.innsofcourt.org/AIC/About_Us/What_Is_an_American_Inn_of_Court/AIC/AIC_About_Us
/What_Is_An_American_Inn_of_Court.aspx?hkey=d3aa9ba2-459a-4bab-aee8-f8faca2bfa0f> [as of Aug.
20, 2025].

11
membership solicitation.” (Canon 4C(3)(d)(iv).) However, the Advisory Committee
commentary to Canon 4C(3)(d) specifically carves out an exception that allows judges to
“solicit membership or endorse or encourage membership efforts for an organization
devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice
… as long as the solicitation cannot reasonably be perceived as coercive and is not
essentially a fundraising mechanism.” (Advisory Com. commentary foll. Canon
4C(3)(d).)
American Inns are generally self-supporting through membership fees. These fees
commonly cover the cost of members’ meals and any administrative costs. As such,
solicitation of membership is just that and not fundraising; and, because Inns of Court
membership solicitation cannot reasonably be perceived as coercive, it does not violate
the Code.
ii. Mentoring
Mentoring is an important aspect of the Inns of Court. The mission of the
American Inns of Court is to “inspire the legal community to advance the rule of law by
achieving the highest level of professionalism through example, education, and
mentoring.” 3 One of the American Inns of Court’s strategic goals is “[t]o be a primary
resource for mentoring and education focused on professionalism, which includes ethics,
civility, and excellence. 4 This includes the subgoals “[h]ave more Inns of Court with
mentoring programs,” and “[a]ssist new lawyers in finding a mentor.” 5
Individual Inns are afforded significant autonomy in how to organize their
mentoring opportunities, but most Inns promote a “pupillage team” structure. “For
example, each pupillage team might have one judge, two or three additional masters, two
3 American Inns of Court, Strategic Plan (May 2016)
<https://home.innsofcourt.org/AIC_PDFs/Documents/AIC_Strategic_Plan_Vision_Mission_Goals_May2
016_OnePage_SEC.pdf> [as of Aug. 20, 2025].
4 Id.
5 Id.

12
barristers, two associates and two pupils.” 6 “This allows the less-experienced attorneys
to become more effective advocates and counselors by learning from the more
experienced attorneys and judges.” 7 The teams may meet monthly, but they may also
gather informally outside of the Inn setting.
The Inns of Court mentorship program is generally seen as a straightforward
professional relationship or acquaintanceship that would normally not warrant
disqualification. (See Rothman, supra, § 7:32, p. 433.) However, should a judge’s
professional relationship with a mentee develop, for example, into a more enduring
personal friendship that may affect, or give the appearance of affecting, the judge’s
ability to act impartially, the judge should consider disqualification, or at a minimum,
disclosure, if that attorney mentee appears in the judge’s court. (See Canons 1, 2, and 2A
[advising that judges must preserve public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of
the judiciary in all activities]; 2B [advising that judges must not convey or permit others
to convey the impression that any individual is in a special position to influence the
judge]; 3E(2)(a) [advising that when a trial judge determines that disqualification is not
required in a matter, the judge must disclose on the record all facts “reasonably relevant”
to the decision not to disqualify]; CJEO Informal Opinion Summary 2018-005 (2018)
Disqualification for Spouse’s Political Campaign Services, Cal. Supreme Ct. Com. Jud.
Ethics Opns., p. 8 [noting the circumstances requiring disclosure are broader than those
requiring disqualification].)
iii. Education
Much of the education within an Inn generally revolves around monthly meetings,
with one team responsible for conducting an educational demonstration every month.
Such presentations customarily focus on some aspect of the litigation process or an
interesting ethical challenge, and the aim is to learn by watching, engaging, and doing.
6 American Inns of Court, Membership Structure and Recruitment, p. 2
<https://www.innsofcourt.org/aic_pdfs/summits/membership_structure_and_recruitment.pdf> [as of Aug.
20, 2025].
7 American Inns of Court, What is an American Inn of Court, supra.

13
The Code recognizes that a judge’s education and experience make judges
uniquely qualified to contribute to the improvement of the law, particularly in an
educational setting. (Advisory Com. com. foll. Canon 4B [noting a judge is specially
learned in the law and in a unique position to contribute to its improvement]; CJEO
Formal Opinion 2018-012, supra, p. 8 [recognizing that when presenting to a specialty
bar association, judges may utilize their unique judicial perspective for the benefit of the
audience and may also rely on their experience as an attorney].)
Judges are encouraged to keep several education-related ethical tenets in mind.
For example, a judge must ensure that when discussing prior attorney experience, the
judge remains impartial, particularly if the judge is addressing former colleagues or
attorneys from the judge’s previous practice area. (Cal. Judges Assn., Jud. Ethics Com.,
Opn. No. 47 (1997) Propriety of Judges Associating with Attorneys at Social and
Educational Settings.) A judge may discuss legal issues in neutral terms, including
addressing legal matters of interest to both sides of the issue in a manner that does not
benefit one side over another or advocate for a particular position on unsettled areas of
law. (Rothman, supra, § 9:20, p. 602.) To achieve a sufficiently neutral presentation that
conforms to the canons, the committee has advised that the presentation should be offered
“from a judicial perspective, [and should] avoid coaching or providing a tactical
advantage to the audience, and [] statements that might cast doubt on the judge’s capacity
to act impartially.” (CJEO Formal Opinion 2018-012, supra, p. 7.)
A judge must also avoid bias or the appearance of bias towards the association’s
members who may represent a particular class of clients, engage in a particular practice
area, or reflect a particular group of people. (See Canons 2, 2A; Advisory Com. com.
foll. Canon 2A [“A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes the impartiality
of the judiciary and shall not make statements that are inconsistent with the impartial
performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office”]; 4A(1).) Any legal discussion
or advice cannot identify the judge’s leanings or biases, or suggest prejudgment of legal
issues, as such statements could cast doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially in

14
pending or future proceedings. (See Canons 2A, 4A; Rothman, supra, § 10:16, pp. 686-
87.)
iv. Networking & Socializing
As discussed above, professional interaction with attorneys does not usually
require disqualification or disclosure. (Rothman, supra, § 7:32, p. 433.) “There is no
ethical rule prohibiting judges from interacting with lawyers who appear before them ….
Judges are not only allowed but are encouraged to participate in bar associations and
other groups dedicated to the improvement of the law. Judges are permitted to participate
in organizations such as the American Inns of Court where judges and lawyers interact
socially in an effort to foster civility and professionalism.” (Cal. Judges Assn., Opinion
No. 66, supra, p. 6.) However, “in some circumstances the parties or their lawyers may
consider a judge’s membership in an organization relevant to the question of
disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification. In
accordance with this canon, a judge should disclose to the parties his or her membership
in an organization, in any proceeding in which that information is reasonably relevant to
the question of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, even if the
judge concludes there is no actual basis for disqualification.” (Advisory Com. com. foll.
Canon 3E.)
V. Conclusion
Judicial participation in a program such as Inns of Court is not only permissible
but encouraged under the Code of Judicial Ethics, which endorses judicial engagement in
activities that pertain to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.
Participation in Inns of Court is a time-honored way for judges to contribute to the legal
community by fostering professionalism, ethics, civility, and excellence in the field.
While ethical concerns do occasionally arise, they can typically be addressed through
disqualification, disclosure, and common sense.

15

This opinion is advisory only (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.80(a), (e); Cal. Com. Jud.
Ethics Opns., Internal Operating Rules & Proc. (CJEO) rule 1(a), (b)). It is based on facts
and issues, or topics of interest, presented to the California Supreme Court Committee on
Judicial Ethics Opinions in a request for an opinion (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.80(i)(3);
CJEO rule 2(f), 6(c)), or on subjects deemed appropriate by the committee (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 9.80(i)(1); CJEO rule 6(a)). The conclusions expressed in this opinion are
those of the committee and do not necessarily reflect the views of the California Supreme
Court or any other entity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.80(b); CJEO rule 1(a)).)