[New code
effective January 19,
2010.]
Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct
(To read the Terminology or the specific Canon, simply click
on the desired option at the bottom of this page.)
PREAMBLE
[1] An
independent, fair and
impartial judiciary is
indispensable to our
system of justice. The
United States legal
system is based upon the
principle that an
independent, impartial,
and competent judiciary,
composed of men and
women of integrity, will
interpret and apply the
law that governs our
society. Thus, the
judiciary plays a
central role in
preserving the
principles of justice
and the rule of law.
Inherent in all the
Rules contained in this
Code are the precepts
that judges,
individually and
collectively, must
respect and honor the
judicial office as a
public trust and strive
to maintain and enhance
confidence in the legal
system.
[2] Judges
should maintain the
dignity of judicial
office at all times, and
avoid both impropriety
and the appearance of
impropriety in their
professional and
personal lives. They
should aspire at all
times to conduct that
ensures the greatest
possible public
confidence in their
independence,
impartiality, integrity,
and competence.
[3] The Code
of Judicial Conduct
establishes standards
for the ethical conduct
of judges and judicial
candidates. It is not
intended as an
exhaustive guide for the
conduct of judges and
judicial candidates, who
are governed in their
judicial and personal
conduct by general
ethical standards as
well as by the Code. The
Code is intended,
however, to provide
guidance and assist
judges in maintaining
the highest standards of
judicial and personal
conduct, and to provide
a basis for regulating
their conduct through
disciplinary agencies.
SCOPE
[1] The Code
of Judicial Conduct
consists of four Canons,
numbered Rules under
each Canon, and Comments
that generally follow
and explain each Rule.
Scope and Terminology
sections provide
additional guidance in
interpreting and
applying the Code. An
Application section
establishes when the
various Rules apply to a
judge or judicial
candidate.
[2] The
Canons state overarching
principles of judicial
ethics that all judges
must observe. Although a
judge may be disciplined
only for violating a
Rule, the Canons provide
important guidance in
interpreting the Rules.
Where a Rule contains a
permissive term, such as
“may” or “should,” the
conduct being addressed
is committed to the
personal and
professional discretion
of the judge or
candidate in question,
and no disciplinary
action should be taken
for action or inaction
within the bounds of
such discretion.
[3] The
Comments that accompany
the Rules serve two
functions. First, they
provide guidance
regarding the purpose,
meaning, and proper
application of the
Rules. They contain
explanatory material
and, in some instances,
provide examples of
permitted or prohibited
conduct. Comments
neither add to nor
subtract from the
binding obligations set
forth in the Rules.
Therefore, when a
Comment contains the
term “must,” it does not
mean that the Comment
itself is binding or
enforceable; it
signifies that the Rule
in question, properly
understood, is
obligatory as to the
conduct at issue.
[4] Second,
the Comments identify
aspirational goals for
judges. To implement
fully the principles of
this Code as articulated
in the Canons, judges
should strive to exceed
the standards of conduct
established by the
Rules, holding
themselves to the
highest ethical
standards and seeking to
achieve those
aspirational goals,
thereby enhancing the
dignity of the judicial
office.
[5] The
Rules of the Code of
Judicial Conduct are
rules of reason that
should be applied
consistent with
constitutional
requirements, statutes,
other court rules, and
decisional law, and with
due regard for all
relevant circumstances.
The Rules should not be
interpreted to impinge
upon the essential
independence of judges
in making judicial
decisions.
[6] Although
the black letter of the
Rules is binding and
enforceable, it is not
contemplated that every
transgression will
result in the imposition
of discipline. Whether
discipline should be
imposed should be
determined through a
reasonable and reasoned
application of the
Rules, and should depend
upon factors such as the
seriousness of the
transgression, the facts
and circumstances that
existed at the time of
the transgression, the
extent of any pattern of
improper activity,
whether there have been
previous violations, and
the effect of the
improper activity upon
the judicial system or
others. Ordinarily,
judicial discipline will
not be premised upon
appearance of
impropriety alone but
must also involve the
violation of another
portion of the Code as
well.
[7] The Code is
not designed or intended
as a basis for civil or
criminal liability.
Neither is it intended
to be the basis for
litigants to seek
collateral remedies
against each other or to
obtain tactical
advantages in
proceedings before a
court.
