FAQs

CJEO is an advisory committee that issues written opinions and gives advice on judicial ethics topics of interest to judicial officers, candidates for judicial office, and members of the public.

Judicial officers and candidates for judicial office may request formal, informal, or expedited written opinions or oral advice. Members of the public and representatives of entities, such as courts, may suggest topics for the committee to address in formal written opinions.

Formal opinions are the committee’s responses to requests for advice from judicial officers and candidates for judicial office, as well as to suggestions for opinions from members of the public and entities. Draft formal opinions are generally posted on the CJEO website for public comment. The committee considers all public comments, and if the committee decides to publish the formal opinion, it is posted on the website in final form.

Informal and expedited opinions are the committee’s responses to requests for advice from judicial officers and candidates for judicial office. These opinions are not posted for public comment, but when issued by the committee, they are posted on the CJEO website.

Yes, by requesting placement on any of the CJEO distribution lists.

Yes. The committee keeps all names and identifying information strictly confidential, both within the committee during deliberations as well as outside of the committee in all circumstances, including when the committee issues and posts an opinion on the CJEO website.

Yes, under certain circumstances. For example, a judge in judicial discipline proceedings may waive confidentiality by asserting reliance on a CJEO opinion or advice they previously requested. Under no circumstances, however, may the confidentiality of committee deliberations and records be waived. 

No. The committee will not give opinions or advice on matters that are the subject of pending CJP proceedings. CJEO will similarly refrain if there are pending State Bar proceedings or pending litigation.

No. The committee does not investigate or discipline judicial misconduct. The Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) is the independent state agency responsible for disciplining judicial officers following investigations into complaints of judicial misconduct and judicial incapacity. For more information on filing a judicial misconduct complaint, please visit the CJP website.

No. The committee is not a fact-finding or adjudicatory body. The committee’s opinions are based on the premise that all relevant information has been disclosed and it provides guidance on only those facts.

No. The committee does not accept documentary evidence.

The committee is appointed and authorized by the California Supreme Court as part of the court’s constitutional responsibility to guide the conduct of judges and judicial candidates (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 18, subd. (m)). The committee’s work, however, is independent of the court, the Commission on Judicial Performance, the Judicial Council, and all other entities.

CJEO's opinions and advice rely on the California Code of Judicial Ethics, which contains commentary published by the Advisory Committee. The interpretation and application of that published commentary notwithstanding, CJEO's work is independent of the Advisory Committee.

CJA, a voluntary professional association representing the interests of the California judiciary, was actively involved in the implementation of CJEO and continues to coordinate with CJEO on tracking judicial ethics issues for CJEO to address. As part of that coordination, CJEO generally refers requests for oral advice to the CJA judicial ethics hotline, which has a long history of providing oral advice to judges. CJEO's work otherwise remains independent of CJA as with all other entities.