CJEO Formal Opinion No. 2026-031 — Disclosure and Disqualification Considerations Regarding Former Judicial Mentees in the California Judicial Mentor Program

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 2026-031
[Issued March 2, 2026]
DISCLOSURE AND DISQUALIFICATION CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING
FORMER JUDICIAL MENTEES IN THE CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL MENTOR
PROGRAM
I. Question
The Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO or the committee) received a
request for advice that expands on CJEO Expedited Opinion 2022-045, Disqualification
Obligations for Participants in the California Judicial Mentor Program (CJMP)
(Opinion 2022-045). The request posed the following questions:
Once a California Judicial Mentor Program (CJMP or the program) mentorship
has concluded, if a mentee attorney appears in the mentor judge’s court, what are the
mentor judge’s disqualification or disclosure obligations? If the mentor judge must
disqualify from hearing the mentee attorney’s case, how long does that obligation last? If
the mentor judge is not required to disqualify, but must disclose the mentor/mentee

2
relationship, would that disclosure violate the canons given the CJMP’s assurance of
confidential participation?
II. Advice Provided
This opinion builds upon the guidance provided in Opinion 2022-045. As
previously advised, under the California Code of Judicial Ethics1 and the California Code
of Civil Procedure, judicial officers actively serving as mentors in the CJMP should
disqualify when their attorney mentees appear, or their attorney or trial court judge
mentee’s matters are on calendar, before them. This conclusion arises from two bases.
First, it considers the perspective of a reasonable layperson who, when aware of the
CJMP mentorship, would doubt the CJMP mentor’s impartiality in proceedings that
involve the CJMP mentee. Second, it accounts for the possibility that the CJMP mentor
may become personally invested in the mentee’s success to the point of partiality. As a
supplement to Opinion 2022-045, the committee further advises, largely as a safeguard to
the CJMP’s confidentiality, that actively serving judge mentors refrain from disclosing
their CJMP participation as the basis for the disqualification and decline to pursue or
accept the litigants’ waiver of the disqualification.
Following the conclusion of a CJMP mentorship, the considerations of whether to
disqualify or disclose, and how, become more nuanced. The former mentor should first
evaluate whether grounds for disqualification exist, such as whether the mentorship
produced an actual bias or resulted in an enduring friendship, and if so, the judge or
justice would likely need to disqualify. In those circumstances, former judge mentors are
advised to refrain from disclosing the basis of the disqualification and seeking or
accepting waiver. Where only a relationship of professional acquaintances remains at the
1 All further references to the canon(s) are to the California Code of Judicial Ethics
unless otherwise indicated.

3
conclusion of the CJMP mentorship, or a social relationship that would not create the
appearance of impropriety, former mentor judges and justices need not disqualify.
Following the determination that disqualification is not required, former mentor
judges should next consider whether disclosure is necessary. Disclosure of a prior CJMP
mentorship presents a delicate situation because of the CJMP’s confidential nature.
Nonetheless, former mentor judges should consider whether disclosure of the prior
mentorship is required. If so, the duration of the disclosure requirement will likely span
six months to two years, depending on the mentorship in question. To preserve the
CJMP’s confidentiality, judges are advised to make a tailored disclosure that excludes the
name of the program, the specific position or career inquiries pursued by the CJMP
mentee, and the contents of their conversations.
III. Authorities
A. Applicable Canons2
Canon 2A: “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.”
Canon 3B(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): “A judge shall disclose information that is reasonably relevant to
the question of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, even if the
judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification.”
Canon 3E(4): “An appellate justice shall disqualify himself or herself in any
proceeding if for any reason:
2 To enhance readability, canon citations herein omit the asterisks (*) contained in
the original to denote terms explained in the canons’ Terminology section.

4
“(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): “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
upon any issue involved in the proceeding.”
Canon 4A: “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.”
B. Statutes and Other Authorities
Code of Civil Procedure, section 170.
Code of Civil Procedure, section 170.1.
Code of Civil Procedure, section 170.3, subdivision (b)(1)–(2):
“(b)(1)[:] A judge who determines himself or herself to be disqualified after
disclosing the basis for his or her disqualification on the record may ask the parties and
their attorneys whether they wish to waive the disqualification, except where the basis for
disqualification is as provided in paragraph (2). A waiver of disqualification shall recite
the basis for the disqualification, and is effective only when signed by all parties and their
attorneys and filed in the record.

5
“[(b)](2)[:] There shall be no waiver of disqualification if the basis therefor is
either of the following:
“(A) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.
“(B) The judge served as an attorney in the matter in controversy, or the judge has
been a material witness concerning that matter.”
California Rules of Court, rule 10.910(b): “The judge to whose department a cause
is assigned for trial or for hearing must accept the assignment unless disqualified or, for
other good cause stated to the judge supervising the master calendar, the judge
supervising the master calendar determines that in the interest of justice the cause should
not be tried or heard before the judge . . . .”
United Farm Workers of America v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 97.
Castaneda v. Superior Court (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1434.
Eith v. Ketelhut (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 1.
In re Carlos V. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 522.
Geldermann, Inc. v. Bruner (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 662.
Wechsler v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 384.
Jolie v. Superior Court (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 1025.
Adams v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1995) 10 Cal.4th 866.
Commission on Judicial Performance, Public Admonishment of Judge Shook
(1998).
Commission on Judicial Performance, Public Admonishment of Judge Bailey,
Inquiry No. 202 (2019).
Commission on Judicial Performance, Public Admonishment of Judge DiFiglia
(2007).
Mesiwala, The California Judicial Mentor Program (Winter 2021) Sac. Law.
(Mesiwala)

6
California Judges Association, Judicial Ethics Update (April 2000, Mar. 2003,
March 2005, Jan. 2018, Jan. 2019, Jan. 2021).
California Judges Association, Formal Ethics Opinion No. 56 (2006).
California Judges Association, Formal Ethics Opinion No. 60 (2008).
California Judges Association, Formal Ethics Opinion No. 63 (2009).
California Supreme Court Committee Judicial Ethics Opinions, CJEO Oral Advice
Summary 2018-023 (2018), Disqualification Responsibilities of Appellate Court Justices.
California Supreme Court Committee Judicial Ethics Opinions, CJEO Oral Advice
Summary 2020-036 (2020), Appellate Disqualification for Judicial Council Service in
Matters Challenging COVID-19 Emergency Rules.
California Supreme Court Committee Judicial Ethics Opinions, CJEO Expedited
Opinion 2021-044 (2021), Disqualification for Civics Education Activities in Matters
Involving School District Mask and Vaccine Mandates.
California Supreme Court Committee Judicial Ethics Opinions, CJEO Expedited
Opinion 2022-045 (2022), Disqualification Obligations for Participants in the California
Judicial Mentor Program (CJMP).
California Supreme Court Committee Judicial Ethics Opinions, CJEO Expedited
Opinion 2022-046 (2022), Disqualification When a Judge’s Spouse May be a Material
Witness.
California Supreme Court Committee Judicial Ethics Opinions, CJEO Formal
Opinion 2013-003 (2013), Disqualification Based On Judicial Campaign Contributions
From A Lawyer In The Proceeding.
California Supreme Court Committee Judicial Ethics Opinions, CJEO Formal
Opinion 2015-007 (2015), Disqualification for Prior Appearance as a Deputy District
Attorney in a Nonsubstantive Matter.
California Supreme Court Committee Judicial Ethics Opinions, CJEO Formal
Opinion 2022-019 (2022), Disqualification and Disclosure Obligations When Coaching
Youth Sports.
Rothman et al., California Judicial Conduct Handbook (4th ed. 2017), sections 7:1,
7:17, 7:18, 7:24, 7:74, 7:75, 7:90, appendix G.

7
IV. Background3
As discussed in Opinion 2022-045, the CJMP is a joint program of the executive
and judicial branches that is designed “to demystify the appellate and trial court
application process and improve transparency and accessibility for all members of the
legal community throughout California[.]” (Governor Gavin Newsom, Governor
Newsom Launches California Judicial Mentor Program to Promote a Diverse and
Inclusive Judiciary (July 1, 2021) <https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/07/01/governor-
newsom-launches-california-judicial-mentor-program-to-promote-a-diverse-and-
inclusive-judiciary/> [as of Feb. 26, 2026].) In order to “expand the pool of qualified
judicial applicants from diverse legal backgrounds and diverse communities[,]” the
CJMP created a mentorship program in which prospective judicial applicants can
candidly exchange information regarding the application process with judicial officers.
(Mesiwala, supra, Sac. Law. at p. 14.)
By nature of its administration across multiple counties and regions, the CJMP
functions with some variation between the participating courts and appellate districts.
The following seeks to provide a high-level summary of the program. Upon a mentee’s
acceptance into the CJMP (the qualifications for which vary marginally across the
program), the prospective attorney applicants for superior court judgeships are partnered
with mentor trial court judges; and the trial court judges interested in applying to the
appellate bench, along with the attorneys seeking direct appointment, are paired with
mentor appellate justices. (See, e.g., Superior Court of California, County of San Luis
Obispo, Judicial Mentor Program (2026) <https://www.slo.courts.ca.gov/general-
information/judicial-mentor-program> [as of Feb. 26, 2026] (Tri-Counties Judicial
Mentor Program website); Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin,
California Judicial Mentor Program (2026) <https://www.sjcourts.org/california-judicial-
3 To the extent that this opinion’s description of the CJMP conflicts with that
reflected in Opinion 2022-045, the present description is intended, with the benefit of
additional time and experience, to update and supersede the previous description.

8
mentor-program/> [as of Feb. 26, 2026] (County of San Joaquin website); California
Courts, Courts of Appeal, California Judicial Mentor Program (2026)
<https://appellate.courts.ca.gov/programs/california-judicial-mentor-program-appellate>
[as of Feb. 26, 2026] (CJMP website).) The matching process prioritizes the avoidance
of conflicts of interest and promotes connections along areas of common legal practice,
affinity bar memberships, and other interests. (See, e.g., Tri-Counties Judicial Mentor
Program website, supra.) Participation in the program is confidential. (Ibid; CJMP
website, supra.)
In terms of CJMP logistics, some program iterations advertise a year-long
commitment with at least four hours of mentorship during the year, but not all
predetermine that structure. (Compare County of San Joaquin website, supra with CJMP
website, supra.) The CJMP sets a broad expectation that mentors will be available to
respond to their mentees’ inquiries, provide leadership and guidance to mentees as the
latter prepare their applications for judicial office, share their personal experiences and
advice about how to become a successful judicial officer, and counsel mentees on steps
they can take to enhance their chances for appointment to the bench. (See, e.g., Superior
Court of California, County of Napa, CA Judicial Mentor Program - North Bay (2026)
<https://www.napa.courts.ca.gov/general-information/cajmentor> [as of Feb. 26, 2026];
CJMP website, supra.) Naturally, the exact substance of those conversations, the level of
familiarity reached within the confines of the mentorship, and the depth of any resulting
personal relationship will depend upon the individual participants. Upon the submission
of an application for judicial appointment, the formal CJMP mentorship ends. (See, e.g.,
Tri-Counties Judicial Mentor Program website, supra.)
V. Discussion
The CJMP endeavors to prevent conflicts of interest through a matching system in
which a mentee is, for example, paired with a retired judge or an appellate justice from
outside the prospective mentee’s county or appellate district. (See, e.g., Tri-Counties

9
Judicial Mentor Program website, supra; California Courts, Courts of Appeal CJMP
website, supra.) This conflict-conscious administrative approach sets a prudent standard
for mentorships that involve judicial officers. Knowledge of that programmatic
safeguard, however, does not absolve participating judges of their independent obligation
to conduct their extrajudicial activities in a manner that does not cast reasonable doubt on
their capacity to act impartially, demean the judicial office, interfere with the proper
performance of judicial duties, or lead to frequent disqualification. (Canon 4A.) Before
accepting a proposed CJMP mentor role, therefore, a participating judge should carefully
consider whether mentoring a particular mentee could conflict with their obligations
under canon 4A. If the prospective mentor recognizes the potential for a conflict of
interest with a proposed mentorship opportunity, the judge should decline to accept it.
Even the best efforts at conflict screening by the CJMP administration and the
participating mentors will not be able to prevent all possible circumstances in which the
need for disqualification or disclosure could arise. This opinion addresses the disclosure
and disqualification issues that may arise from the expectedly rare instances in which
former CJMP mentees appear, or their matters are on calendar, before former CJMP
mentors.
A. CJMP and Confidentiality
Participation in the CJMP is confidential. (See, e.g., Superior Court of California,
County of San Mateo, California Judicial Mentor Program (2026)
<https://sanmateo.courts.ca.gov/general-information/judicial-mentor-program> [as of
Feb. 26, 2026] (County of San Mateo website); CJMP website, supra.) Of the county
and appellate court websites that provide information on the CJMP, some specify that the
program’s confidentiality applies to the submission of the CJMP application,
participation in the program, and/or the contents of the conversations between mentors
and mentees. (See, e.g., County of San Mateo website, supra; CJMP website, supra.)
Beyond the written assurances of CJMP confidentiality, prospective applicants or

10
orienting participants may receive similar guarantees from CJMP administrators or their
eventual CJMP mentors.
These assurances of confidentiality, written or otherwise, provide the foundation
for the confidential nature of the program. (See Castaneda v. Superior Court (2015) 237
Cal.App.4th 1434, 1451 [“An expectation of confidentiality can arise whenever a
communication is made with promises that it will, in fact, be kept in confidence.”].) The
available information regarding CJMP’s confidentiality does not indicate, however, that
the program’s confidentiality arises as a matter of law. This distinction is relevant in
consideration of guidance that a judge may be required to disqualify rather than disclose
information that is confidential by law. (Cal. Judges Assn., Judicial Ethics Update
(March 2005) p. 1 [advising recusal by a judge who filed a State Bar complaint under
confidential terms against an appearing attorney because disclosure was prohibited].)4
As discussed in detail below, former CJMP judge mentors may encounter
instances in which their former CJMP mentees appear before them. In those
circumstances, and where the judge determines that disclosure of the former mentorship
is required, the judge is advised to make a tailored disclosure that honors the CJMP’s
confidentiality and conveys only “information that is reasonably relevant to the question
of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1[.]” (Canon 3E(2)(a),
italics added.) Fortunately, existing guidance reflects that disclosures need not be
exhaustively detailed to be ethically sufficient. (Rothman et al., Cal. Jud. Conduct
Handbook, supra, § 7:74, p. 496 (Rothman or the Handbook) [“canon 3E(2)(a), does not
require disclosure of anything and everything necessary to satisfy the insatiable curiosity
of litigants and lawyers about the judge in their case. . . . All the possible things that
might be of interest to litigants and lawyers are not things which would be considered, in
reason, relevant to the question of disqualification . . . .”].) Specific instances in which
4 Although not cited in the judicial ethics update, the confidentiality of State Bar
investigations arises as a matter of law. (See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6086.1, subd. (b).)

11
disclosure is necessary, and the varied details that will be relevant to the question of
disqualification, will be discussed in the following sections.
B. Disqualification
Judges have a duty to hear all cases in which they are not disqualified. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 170; Canon 3B(1).) As the committee has previously emphasized, “ ‘[t]he duty
of a judge to sit where not disqualified is equally as strong as the duty not to sit when
disqualified.’ ” (CJEO Formal Opinion 2022-019, p. 6 [citing CJEO Formal Opinion
2015-007, p. 5, quoting United Farm Workers of America v. Superior Court (1985) 170
Cal.App.3d 97, 100].) Appellate justices are subject to substantially similar rules as
judges regarding the grounds on which disqualification is necessary. (CJEO Oral Advice
Summary 2018-023, p. 3 [the grounds for disqualification of appellate justices in canon 3
largely track the statutory requirements for trial judges]; compare canon 3E(1), (4)–(5)
with Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1.)
The Code of Civil Procedure and canons provide mandatory and discretionary
grounds for disqualification that judicial officers must consider when making
disqualification decisions in each matter before them.5 (CJEO Formal Opinion 2022-019,
p. 6; CJEO Expedited Opinion 2021-044, p. 4; CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2020-036, p.
4.) If a judicial officer determines that a basis for disqualification has been met, then the
judicial officer must disqualify. (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1 [trial court judge
disqualification is required if any specified grounds are met]; canon 3E(1), (4)–(5)
5 The terms mandatory and discretionary are used to distinguish between: (a)
grounds that require disqualification when a judicial officer identifies mandatory criteria
set by the statute or code that have been met in any proceeding (mandatory grounds), and
(b) grounds that require disqualification when a judicial officer exercises discretion after
evaluating whether objective or subjective disqualifying circumstances have been met in
any proceeding (discretionary grounds). (CJEO Expedited Opinion 2022-046, p. 3, fn. 3;
see Eith v. Ketelhut (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 1, 13-14 [citing CJEO Formal Opinion 2013-
003 regarding disqualification and quoting a portion of that opinion using the terms
“mandatory disqualification” and “discretionary disqualification”].)

12
[appellate disqualification is required if any specified grounds are met]; Rothman, supra,
§ 7:1, p. 388 [canons governing disqualification for appellate justices parallel Code Civ.
Proc., § 170.1 et seq., so appellate justices may look to statutory analysis for guidance].)
i. Active CJMP Mentorship6
The committee affirms the conclusion reached in Opinion 2022-045, which
advises that, although no mandatory basis for disqualification is implicated by the
appearance of a CJMP mentee in a matter presided over by the corresponding CJMP
mentor, a discretionary basis for disqualification does arise under that circumstance. This
affirmation is reached alongside the recognition of greater variation in the structure and
substance of the CJMP and its mentorship relationships than previously acknowledged by
Opinion 2022-045. For example, even if a CJMP mentorship is active for less than a year
and the participants maintained professional distance rather than fostering a personal
connection, the reasonable outside observer may nonetheless have cause to doubt the
impartiality of an active CJMP mentor when adjudicating a matter in which the CJMP
mentee appears. Additionally, as previously observed, the mentor judge or justice may
have in fact developed a personal investment in the mentee’s success, such that the
judicial officer no longer impartially views the mentee as a legal advocate. Under either
circumstance, discretionary disqualification is advised for the duration of the mentorship.
6 The references to a CJMP “mentee” in this section encompass the prospective
attorney applicants for superior court judgeships and for direct appointment to the court
of appeal, and the trial court judges interested in applying to the appellate bench. The
references to a CJMP “mentor” encompass the appellate justices who mentor the judges
and attorneys pursuing positions on the appellate court, and the trial court judges who
mentor prospective attorney applicants to the trial court bench.

13
ii. Former CJMP Mentorship7
1. Mandatory Grounds
The Code of Civil Procedure and canon 3E require disqualification without further
balancing or consideration of circumstances when, for example, a judicial officer has
personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts at issue in the proceeding; previously
served as a lawyer in the proceeding; or has a financial interest in the subject matter of or
a party to the proceeding. (Canon 3E(5)(a)–(d), (f)(ii); Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1, subd.
(a)(1)–(3).) Standing alone, a former CJMP mentorship does not implicate any of the
mandatory disqualification circumstances under the code or canons. (See canon 3E(1),
(3), (5)(a)–(f); Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1, subd. (a)(1)–(5).)
2. Discretionary Grounds
The discretionary grounds for disqualification require a judicial officer to
determine whether certain circumstances weigh against hearing a particular matter,
namely: (a) whether the interests of justice require disqualification; (b) the judicial officer
substantially doubts their capacity to be impartial; or (c) a person reasonably aware of the
facts would doubt the judicial officer’s ability to be impartial. (Canon 3E(4)(a)–(c); Code
Civ. Proc., § 170.1, subd. (a)(6)(A).) When assessing whether to disqualify on a
discretionary basis, judicial officers must recall that disqualification is only appropriate
“when lawfully required [].” (Rothman, supra, § 7:17, p. 413.) For example, if a judge
feels uncomfortable about the prospect of deciding a case tried by an attorney whose
acquaintance was made outside the courtroom, the applicable canons and Code of Civil
Procedure must guide disqualification, rather than any personal discomfort felt by the
judge. (Cal. Judges Assn., Formal Ethics Opn. No. 63 (2009) p. 2 [discomfort does not
render disqualification a “foregone conclusion.”].)
7 See footnote 6, ante.

14
a. Interests of Justice
This basis concerns the judicial officer’s subjective belief about whether the
interests of justice require disqualification in a certain case. (Rothman, supra, appen. G,
p. 916.) Although the Handbook suggests that a good faith determination to disqualify in
the interests of justice would likely not be questioned, it also acknowledges that a clear
definition of “interests of justice” is difficult to find. (Id. at pp. 916-917.) The Handbook
reflects that judges have disqualified on this basis after engaging in improper conduct,
such as conducting an improper ex parte communication that prompted the judge’s
declaration of a mistrial (In re Carlos V. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 522, 524-525); and where
a judge entered into, and later terminated, a contract to sell his home to one of the
attorneys appearing before him (Geldermann, Inc. v. Bruner (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 662,
664). (Rothman, supra, appen. G, p. 916.) In both examples, the occurrence of improper
judicial conduct underpinned the determination to disqualify in the interests of justice.
By contrast, a judge’s or justice’s circumspect provision of professional guidance to a
candidate for judicial office does not, by the CJMP’s design, entail judicial misconduct.
Without the presence of any complicating facts, the interests of justice would not require
a former CJMP mentor to disqualify from a case in which a former mentee appears.
Complicating facts, however unlikely, could arise in the confines of a CJMP
mentorship. CJMP mentors must consider whether a prior CJMP mentorship expanded
beyond the intended purpose of sharing information to demystify the judicial application
process. For example, it is possible that one or both CJMP participants could divulge
such highly sensitive personal information that the judge or justice would find it
challenging to conduct fair proceedings that involved the former CJMP mentee, or for a
former mentor judge to render an adequate disclosure (if required) that would not cause
significant embarrassment. If such a circumstance arose, it could be appropriate for the
judicial officer to disqualify in the interests of justice until the anomalous sensitivity
abated. (Cal. Judges Assn., Formal Ethics Opn. No. 56 (2006) p. 4 [if a required
disclosure would “subject the judge to such humiliation that the judge would be unable to

15
conduct a fair hearing[,]” recusal would be appropriate because “the interests of justice
are served by transferring a case from a judge who is unable to fairly decide the matter
due to the extreme discomfiture of being required to disclose a highly personal matter.”];
see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 10.910(b) [where disqualification would not typically
be necessary, a trial court judge may be relieved from hearing a matter where “for other
good cause stated to the judge supervising the master calendar, the judge supervising the
master calendar determines that in the interest of justice the cause should not be tried or
heard before the judge.”].)
b. Judicial Officer Doubts Impartiality
In a much more straightforward analysis, this basis requires judges and justices to
make a subjective determination regarding whether they harbor actual bias or can
impartially decide the matter based solely on the law and the facts presented. The CJMP,
by design, does not require or invite judicial officer mentors to develop biases for or
against their mentees. Each former CJMP mentor should inquire of themselves whether
any actual bias toward their former mentee arose during or after the mentorship, and if
not, then no disqualification under this basis is required.
c. Reasonable Person’s Perspective
This final basis requires an objective analysis of whether “a fully informed,
reasonable member of the public would fairly entertain doubts that the judge is
impartial,” and if so, the judge or justice must disqualify. (See Wechsler v. Superior
Court (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 384, 391; accord, Jolie v. Superior Court (2021) 66
Cal.App.5th 1025, 1040-1041.) This assessment must occur from the vantage point of
the layperson outside of the judicial system, as opposed to the “partisan litigant
emotionally involved in the controversy underlying the lawsuit[,]” or the judicial insider
who “ ‘ “accustomed to the process of dispassionate decision making and keenly aware of
[a judicial officer’s] [c]onstitutional and ethical obligations to decide matters solely on

16
the merits, may regard asserted conflicts to be more innocuous than an outsider
would.” ’ ” (Wechsler, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at p. 391.)
Importantly, the analysis of this basis pertains to a distinctly different moment in
time than in Opinion 2022-045. At this relevant point in time, the CJMP mentorship has
ended and the former CJMP mentor is no longer “committed to and work[ing] toward an
appearing mentee’s success.” (Id. at p. 5.) Absent that active commitment, it appears far
less likely that a fully informed, reasonable member of the public would consider the
former CJMP mentor to be “personally invested in his or her mentee’s success” to the
detriment of impartiality, or to perceive the former CJMP mentee to be “in a position of
special influence” over the former mentor’s decisionmaking. (See ibid.) Instead, the
former CJMP mentorship would be reasonably compared to other former professional
mentorship or educational relationships for which disqualification is not typically
advised. (See Cal. Judges Assn., Judicial Ethics Update (Jan. 2018) p. 1 [when a judge’s
former extern passes the bar and makes a court appearance in the judge’s courtroom, the
judge need not disqualify if able to be fair]; Cal. Judges Assn., Judicial Ethics Update
(Mar. 2003) p. 2 [the fact that a judge has only a professional relationship with an
attorney does not normally require the judge to recuse when the attorney appears before
the judge’s court]; Cal. Judges Assn., Judicial Ethics Update (April 2000) p. 1 [a judge is
not disqualified from hearing a case when counsel was a former law student or legal
extern of the judge].)
Although not a scripted component of the program, it is possible that a CJMP
mentorship could foster an enduring social relationship between mentor and mentee. In
that circumstance, the pertinent disqualification analysis would shift from evaluating a
former professional mentorship program to a current social relationship or friendship. If
the former mentor and mentee maintained a close personal relationship from which the
appearance of impropriety arose, then the judge or justice should consider disqualifying
for the duration of the disqualifying relationship. (See Cal. Judges Assn., Formal Opn.
No. 63, supra, pp. 3-4 [where a hearing judge and their judicial colleague “know one

17
another well” or are friends, the judge should recuse from a case in which the judicial
colleague has an interest]; Cal. Judges Assn., Judicial Ethics Update (April 2000) p. 2) [a
judge should recuse if there is any appearance of impropriety regarding a judge’s close
personal relationship with an attorney]; see also Com. Jud. Performance, Public
Admonishment of Judge Shook (1998) p. 3 [finding a violation of canon 3E based on the
judge’s failure to disqualify from cases involving an attorney with whom the judge had a
social relationship that might reasonably call the judge’s impartiality into question].)
iii. Disclosure of the Basis for Disqualification8
Once a judge has determined that disqualification is necessary, the judge is not
required to disclose the reason(s) for the disqualification determination to the presiding
judge unless the latter requests them; or to disclose the reason(s) on the record, even if
the disqualification occurred on the record. (Rothman, supra, § 7:18, p. 415; Cal. Judges
Assn., Judicial Ethics Update (Jan. 2021) p. 1.) The Handbook advises that, although it is
generally good practice for a judge to disclose the reasons for disqualification to the
litigants, it is also appropriate for a judge to refrain from that disclosure to protect the
judge’s personal privacy and to broadly discourage any potential hesitancy for judges to
disqualify when necessary. (See Rothman, supra, § 7:18, p. 415.) Due to the
confidential nature of participation in the CJMP, and absent a general requirement to
disclose the reasons for disqualification, the committee advises that judges refrain from
disclosure of their participation in the CJMP as the basis for disqualification unless faced
with a specific requirement to disclose.
8 The committee notes that Opinion 2022-045 did not address the issue of a
judge’s disclosure of the basis for disqualification. The inclusion of that discussion here,
as it relates to a current CJMP mentorship, is intended to supplement the prior decision.

18
iv. Waiver of Disqualification9
Once a judge determines that disqualification is required, the judge must next
decide whether the disqualification is waivable, and if so, whether to pursue and/or
accept waiver of the disqualification. (Rothman, supra, §§ 7:17, 7:24, pp. 414, 418; see
also Code Civ. Proc., § 170.3, subd. (b)(1)–(2).) A judge is prohibited from seeking or
accepting waiver if the disqualification arises from the judge’s personal bias or prejudice
concerning a party, prior service as an attorney in the matter or controversy, or former
role as a material witness concerning the matter.10 (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.3, subd.
(b)(2).) An effective waiver “shall recite the basis for the disqualification” and “[be]
signed by all parties and their attorneys and filed in the record.” (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 170.3, subd. (b)(1).).
Where the disqualification arises from a current CJMP mentor’s consideration of a
reasonable layperson’s doubt in the judge’s impartiality, or perception of the attorney
mentee’s special influence over the mentor, seeking or accepting waiver of the
disqualification is not advised. This guidance arises from the practical consideration of
how much detail the judge would need to reveal to dissuade a litigant’s concerns of
partiality or undue influence, and the tension between that degree of description and
CJMP confidentiality. Imagine, for instance, what judges would need to explain to
disavow that they are “invested” in their mentees’ career success, not to mention the
detrimental impact this may have on the effectiveness of the remaining period of
mentorship. Conversely, if in the interest of maintaining CJMP confidentiality, the judge
9 The committee acknowledges that Opinion 2022-045 did not address the
question of whether a judicial officer should seek or accept a waiver of disqualification.
The present discussion of waiver, in the context of a current CJMP mentorship, is
intended to supplement the prior decision.
10 The committee notes that, apart from addressing an appellate justice’s authority
to seek waiver of a disqualification arising from the justice’s prior receipt of a campaign
contribution of $5,000 or more from a litigant before the appellate court (canon 3E(5)(j)),
the law and canons are not settled regarding the application of waiver principles to
appellate justices.

19
adheres to a tailored disclosure, the unveiling of an active-yet-nondescript mentorship
may raise more concerns than it quells. Therefore, in the expectedly rare circumstances
that CJMP attorney mentees appear before their CJMP mentors, the judges should decline
to seek or accept waiver of the resulting disqualification. (See Canon 2A [a judge must
“act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary.”].)
Where the disqualification determination arises from a current CJMP mentor’s
actual partiality based on their personal investment in a mentee’s success, the Handbook
specifically cautions against a judge seeking a waiver:
“Where the judge determines that a relationship requires
disqualification, the parties and counsel may, if they wish,
waive the disqualification in writing (except in the three
circumstances described above). The judge, however, needs to
be cautious in such circumstances. Events may occur in the
course of the proceedings that cannot be fully anticipated at the
time of waiver and could affect the impartiality of judicial
actions and decisions. The issue is not only whether the judge
will be able to be tough on a friend, but also what happens
when the judge is faced with having to render an extremely
favorable ruling in favor of the friend: ‘Will I hold back doing
the right thing for fear of how it will look to give my pal a big
judgment including huge punitive damages?’ Visualize
dropping the axe on your friend’s opponent in the case before
considering whether to accept the waiver. Did this
visualization cause some hesitancy?”
(Rothman, supra, § 7:24, p. 418.) Even where CJMP mentors may not specifically
consider themselves “friends” of their CJMP mentees, the Handbook’s counsel applies,
because the partiality that arises from any personal investment in a mentee’s professional
success may garner unforeseen strains on judges’ neutral decisionmaking.
Last, where the disqualification determination arises from former CJMP mentors
and mentees developing a friendship or other close personal relationship, the same advice
cautions against waiving the disqualification. (Rothman, supra, § 7:24, p. 418.)

20
C. Disclosure
i. Disclosure of Former CJMP Mentorship11
When trial court judges determine that there are no mandatory or discretionary
grounds for disqualification, they must still disclose on the record information that is
reasonably relevant to the question of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure
section 170.1.12 (Canon 3E(2)(a).) Reasonably relevant information generally includes
any facts that the judge considered when deciding not to disqualify. (Rothman, supra,
§ 7:75, p. 500 [the definition of “relevant” requires objectivity about whether the
information may reasonably prove or disprove a matter].) Appellate justices, however,
are not bound by the disclosure rules. (Canon 3E(2) [limiting disclosure rules to trial
proceedings]; Rothman, supra, § 7:90, pp. 502–503 [acknowledging that disclosure for
appellate justices is complicated by the fact that a justice may not appear before the
parties until after a case has been fully briefed].)
Acknowledging that each CJMP mentorship will be as unique as its participants,
the available program information reflects a baseline experience of legal professionals
seeking career advancement through guidance from judicial officers with real-world
experience and insight. This sort of relationship, characterized by expertise-based
11 As discussed above, the committee affirms the conclusion of Opinion 2022-045,
which advised that an active CJMP mentor should disqualify, as a matter of discretion,
from a matter in which the CJMP mentee appears. For that reason, the committee does
not reach the issue of whether trial judges must disclose an active CJMP mentorship.
12 In a proceeding that is being reported or electronically recorded, an oral
disclosure on the record is appropriate. (CJEO Formal Opn. 2013-002.) If the
proceeding is not so reported or recorded, then a written disclosure may be made part of
the case file through the entry of a document, such as a minute order or the official court
minutes, that accurately reflects the disclosure and its nature. (Ibid.; see also Adams v.
Commission on Judicial Performance (1995) 10 Cal.4th 866, 906 [failure to disclose on
the record in general terms the nature of the disqualifying relationship was improper for
purposes of waiver].)

21
instruction, is similar to other professional mentorships and educational relationships for
which disclosure is commonly recommended. (See Cal. Judges Assn., Judicial Ethics
Update (Jan. 2018) p. 1 [when a judge’s former extern passes the bar and makes a court
appearance in the judge’s courtroom, the judge must disclose]; Cal. Judges Assn.,
Judicial Ethics Update (April 2000) p. 1 [a judge should disclose when counsel was a
former law student or legal extern of the judge].)
There is a wide variation in actual mentorship experiences. As previously noted, a
CJMP mentorship could result in an enduring friendship between the former mentor and
mentee. In those instances, the judge should disclose the personal relationship. (Cal.
Judges Assn., Judicial Ethics Update (April 2000) p. 2 [judge should always disclose
close personal relationships with attorneys].) Even where former CJMP mentors consider
their relationship with former mentees to be more professional than social, the social
component of that relationship may nonetheless be relevant to the question of
disqualification and should be disclosed. (See Com. Jud. Performance, Public
Admonishment of Judge Bailey, Inquiry No. 202 (2019) pp. 12–13 [discipline included
the judge’s failure to disclose a relationship with an attorney, despite a finding that the
relationship was “more professional than social,” where “the totality of these
circumstances was reasonably relevant to disqualification and required disclosure[]”]; see
also Com. Jud. Performance, Public Admonishment of Judge DiFiglia (2007) pp. 1–2
[discipline included the judge’s failure to disclose a personal relationship with an attorney
who appeared before him, which included the judge accepting gifts from the attorney,
golfing together, and socializing].)
Conversely, it is also possible that the mentorship relationship involved few
contacts, little exchange of personal information, or simply mirrored the kind of
professional acquaintance that a judge and attorney would regularly hold within the legal
profession. In those circumstances, a judge may reasonably decide that no disclosure is
necessary. (See Cal. Judges Assn., Judicial Ethics Update (Mar. 2003) p. 2 [the fact that
a judge and an attorney are members of the same professional legal organization, or that

22
the judge has only a professional relationship with the attorney, does not normally require
the judge to disclose when the attorney appears before the court.].)
Where disclosure of a former CJMP mentorship is required, judges are reminded
of the confidential nature of the CJMP and advised to tailor their disclosures to only
“information that is reasonably relevant to the question of disqualification under Code of
Civil Procedure section 170.1.” (Canon 3E(2)(a), italics added; see also Rothman, supra,
§ 7:75, p. 500 [the definition of “relevant” requires objectivity about whether the
information may reasonably prove or disprove a matter].) As advised above, a
confidentiality-conscious, tailored disclosure will exclude the name of the program
(CJMP), the specific position or career inquiries pursued by the CJMP mentee, and the
content of any conversations that arose during the mentorship. The remaining details to
disclose will depend on the individual mentorship and the relationship resulting from it.
Notably, if the judge is disclosing a friendship or other close personal relationship, that
disclosure need not mention the relationship’s genesis in the CJMP. (See Rothman,
supra, § 7:74, p. 496 [observing that canon 3E(2)(a) “does not require disclosure of
anything and everything necessary to satisfy the insatiable curiosity of litigants and
lawyers about the judge in their case.”].) Where judges decide that a tailored disclosure
of the CJMP mentorship is merited when former CJMP mentees appear before them, that
disclosure could include reference to a “former professional mentorship,” the judges’
provision of “career advice/guidance” to the mentees, or a similar generalized
characterization of the mentorship conferred during their particular CJMP relationship.
ii. Duration of Disclosure Requirement
The substantive basis for the disclosure determination will dictate the duration of
the disclosure requirement. Where the disclosure arises from a former CJMP mentorship
that adhered to the program’s central purpose of demystifying the judicial application
process, the resulting relationship between the former mentor and mentee is one of
professional acquaintances. In that circumstance, a tailored disclosure for a period of two

23
years after the mentorship is advisable. (See Cal. Judges Assn., Formal Ethics Opn. No.
60 (2008) p. 5 [recommending a judge disclose for a period of two years where a former
law student (regarding the judge’s role as a part time law professor) appears as a lawyer
or party, and where the contacts between the two are neither social nor continuing]; Cal.
Judges Assn., Judicial Ethics Update (Jan. 2019) p. 1 [a judge must disclose that an
attorney served as an extern in the judge’s courtroom for two years after the attorney
worked in the judge’s courtroom].)
Where the disclosure pertains to an enduring personal relationship between the
former mentor and mentee, which includes ongoing social contacts between the two, a
disclosure period of two years is also recommended. (See Cal. Judges Assn., Judicial
Ethics Update (Jan. 2018) pp. 1–2 [judge, who was a former deputy public defender
several years ago, may go on a back-packing trip with former colleagues from the public
defenders’ office but must disclose for a reasonable amount of time, usually two years, in
matters where deputy public defenders who participated in back-packing trip appear].) If
the former mentor and mentee maintain a primarily professional relationship, and in only
an isolated postmentorship event engaged in a more personal social contact, existing
guidance suggests that the judge need only disclose the social contact for six months
following the social event. (See Cal. Judges Assn., Formal Opn. No. 60, supra, p. 4.)
VI. Conclusion
Disqualification and disclosure determinations arising from CJMP mentorships
will require careful consideration by the judicial officers serving in this program.
Although variation in each individual mentorship may require an approach that differs
from the advice provided in this opinion, a generalized set of considerations establishes
the following guidance. Active CJMP mentors should disqualify when their mentees
appear, or the mentees’ matters are on calendar, in the judicial officers’ court. Further, as
a safeguard to the CJMP’s assurance of confidentiality, CJMP mentors should refrain

24
from disclosing the CJMP mentorship as the basis for the disqualification, and from
pursuing or accepting the litigants’ waiver of the disqualification.
Following the conclusion of a CJMP mentorship, a judge or justice should first
evaluate whether grounds for disqualification exist, such as the CJMP mentorship having
produced an actual bias or resulted in an enduring friendship, and if so, the judicial
officer would likely need to disqualify. If disqualification is necessary, the former CJMP
mentor should refrain from disclosing the CJMP mentorship as the basis and refrain from
waiving that disqualification. Where only a relationship of professional acquaintances
remains at the conclusion of the CJMP, or a social relationship that would not create the
appearance of impropriety, the judicial officer need not disqualify. Former mentor judges
should next consider whether disclosure is necessary. If so, the disclosure should be
carefully tailored to protect CJMP confidentiality and meet the judge’s obligations under
canon 3E(2)(a). The duration of the disclosure requirement will likely span six months to
two years, depending on the specific circumstances.

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)).)