Vol. 5, Issue 2 │ December 2025
| |
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMITTEE:
“What’s next?” ask friends and colleagues when retirement is around the corner. A new teaching gig? More pickleball, perhaps? A post-judicial career in alternative dispute resolution, and specifically, employment by a private mediation firm, is an increasingly popular route.
In this edition of The Source, the California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) explores issues of judicial ethics that may arise in this context. Read on to learn more.
| |
|
Retirement from the bench is a momentous time in the career of a judicial officer. For some, retirement heralds a season of much deserved rest and relaxation. For others, stepping away from the bench ushers in the next stage of professional endeavors. Among the many possibilities available, an enduringly popular option is employment with a private alternative dispute resolution (ADR) firm. One need only open the Daily Journal to see the growing list of announcements that a retired judge or justice has joined a private ADR firm. With all the change and excitement that retirement brings, what better moment to recall that preretirement conduct to secure prospective employment is still judicial conduct that requires the same degree of prudence as any other era of service on the bench.
Click here for the full article.
| |
Ethics Standards for Neutrals
California has forged its own path when it comes to disqualification and disclosure requirements related to neutral arbitrators. Enacted by the Judicial Council of California in 2002, California’s Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitration (Standards) ushered in an exacting ethical framework designed to ensure impartiality, transparency, and public confidence in private dispute resolution. The Standards, adopted under the authority of section 1281.85 of the Code of Civil Procedure, require neutral arbitrators to make detailed, ongoing disclosures of financial, familial, and professional relationships that could raise questions of bias. (See standard 7.) They also set clear grounds for disqualification that parallel the California Code of Judicial Ethics provisions on judicial recusal. (See standard 10.) The Standards bring judicial-level ethical rigor to private adjudication.
Working in tandem with the Code of Judicial Ethics, the Standards extend the same principles of fairness and integrity that govern the bench to those serving in contractual arbitration. While judges and arbitrators differ in function—judges are public officers, arbitrators are private adjudicators—their ethical duties converge around impartiality, full disclosure, and the avoidance of even the appearance of bias. By contrast, party arbitrators (meaning an arbitrator selected unilaterally by a party) are generally exempt from these standards unless expressly designated as neutral. Collectively, these overlapping ethical guardrails have transformed arbitration in California into a more transparent and accountable process, aligning private dispute resolution with the judicial system’s highest ethical ideals.
Click here for the full article.
| |
HAVE YOU SEEN CJEO'S ANNOTATED CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS?
| |
CJEO committee meeting, July 2025. Back row from left: Judge Michael T. Garcia (Ret.), Judge
Samantha P. Jessner, Judge Erica R. Yew, Commissioner Belinda A. Handy, Staff Counsel
Jennifer Caballero, Judge D. Brett Bianco. On screen top left to bottom right: Judge
George J. Abdallah, Jr. , Judge Robert J. Trentacosta, Justice Douglas P. Miller, Justice
Judith L. Haller (Ret.), Front row from left: Justice Shama Hakim Mesiwala, Justice
Marla J. Miller, Justice Ronald B. Robie, Chief Committee Counsel Jody Vakili.
| |
About Us
CJEO is an independent California Supreme Court committee of 12 judicial officers, appointed by the Court, with delegated constitutional authority to issue opinions on judicial ethics. These ethics advisory opinions are for the benefit of the judiciary and members of the public. CJEO accepts requests for ethics opinions from judicial officers and candidates for judicial office. CJEO also welcomes suggestions from the public on judicial ethics topics that are of general interest and importance to the community.
| |
CJEO opinions go through a lengthy collaborative writing process, which usually includes a public comment period before finalization and publication. For quick, informal responses to questions about the Code of Judicial Ethics, judicial officers and candidates may contact the California Judges Association (CJA) Ethics Hotline:
CJA Judicial Ethics Hotline: 916-239-4068
Toll free: 866-432-1CJA (1252)
Email: info@caljudges.org
Monday–Friday, 9a.m. to 5p.m., excluding holidays
Please see the CJA website for more information.
| |
Thank You to Our Readers from Our Members
Justice Ronald B. Robie (Chair), Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
Justice Douglas P. Miller (Vice-Chair), Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two
Judge George J. Abdallah, Jr., Superior Court of San Joaquin County
Judge D. Brett Bianco, Superior Court of Los Angeles County
Judge Michael T. Garcia (Ret.), Superior Court of Sacramento County
Justice Judith L. Haller (Ret.), Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One
Commissioner Belinda A. Handy, Superior Court of Riverside County
Presiding Judge Samantha P. Jessner, Superior Court of Los Angeles County
Justice Shama Hakim Mesiwala, Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
Justice Marla J. Miller, Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two
Judge Robert J. Trentacosta, Superior Court of San Diego County
Judge Erica R. Yew, Superior Court of Santa Clara County
Jody M. Vakili, Chief Committee Counsel and Editor, The Source
Jennifer Caballero, Staff Counsel and Assistant Editor, The Source
| |
|
|
|
|
