Several judicial ethics committees have advised that a judge may maintain a blog but added caveats about being cautious and not violating the code of judicial conduct provisions relevant to communications by judges. (Merriam-Webster’s on-line dictionary defines a “blog” as “a Web site on which someone writes about personal opinions, activities, and experiences.”) The Arizona committee, for example, stated that a judge must ensure that no statements on her blog will negatively affect judicial proceedings, be perceived as prejudiced or biased, or necessitate frequent disqualification. Arizona Advisory Opinion 2014-1. See also New York Advisory Opinion 2010-138 (a judge may maintain an internet blog that comments on current events).
The Florida advisory committee stated that a judge could publish a blog that would alert readers to state appellate decisions as they were released because the judge did not plan to editorialize, criticize, or otherwise evaluate the opinions but only to briefly describe them. Florida Advisory Opinion 2012-7. Noting it had frequently approved judges’ speaking, writing, or teaching, the committee stated it would not make a distinction based on the technology used but warned the judge to exercise caution. Acknowledging it was “not practicable to list all the provisions of the Code that could apply” and reminding the judge to expect “constant public scrutiny,” the committee directed the judge to “carefully examine all provisions of the Code that relate to the blog and its topics, to insure that the judge is not publishing on the blog something the judge could not ethically say in person.” Finally, noting “that an interactive blog may invite inappropriate comment by the judge,” the committee suggested that the judge consider adding a disclaimer “that clarifies the judge does not endorse or vouch for the comments of others . . ., and that such comments do not represent the views of the judge.”
The Washington advisory committee stated that a judge may have a blog promoting “a more fair, just and benevolent society” and could respond to comments made by others on the essay the judge planned to post on the site. Washington Advisory Opinion 2009-5. The committee suggested that the judge should include a disclaimer that the opinions “are only those of the author and should not be imputed to other judges” and should describe the constraints on judges, such as the prohibitions on commenting on pending cases and discussing cases with persons appearing before the judge’s court. The committee also advised the judge to consider:
- “[T]he impression that may be conveyed when responding to comments that are posted on the blog;”
- “[H]ow to tailor those comments to avoid any impression that the judicial officer’s impartiality might be called into question;” and
- “[W]hether readers might perceive that the judge’s impartiality is impaired by the volume and content of the comments received.”
The committee recommended that the judge, if possible, review any comments from others before they are published on the blog or “regularly monitor the responses to make sure that the thread of the discussion does not change” into something that is prohibited.
The Connecticut advisory committee stated that a judge may be listed, including her judicial position, as an expert on a non-profit, non-partisan organization’s electronic “answer board” established to provide journalists with information on legal and constitutional. Connecticut Advisory Opinion 2011-14. However, the committee cautioned, the judge’s answers must be factual and instructive without expressing her opinion, indicating a predisposition with respect to particular cases, or providing legal advice. The committee directed the judge to:
- Monitor the web-site to ensure that it does not link to commercial or advocacy groups;
- Stay abreast of new features on the site; and
- Retain the right to review and pre-approve the use of biographical information.
See also Utah Informal Advisory Opinion 2012-1 (a judge may follow a blog on legal or political issues that is also followed by lawyers or politicians and need not continually monitor the contents and comments to prevent association with material that might reflect poorly on the judiciary); U.S. Advisory Opinion 112 (2014) (before commenting on a blog, a judge should analyze the post, comment, or blog to take into account the canons that prohibit judges from endorsing political views, demeaning the prestige of the office, commenting on issues that may arise before the court, or sending the impression that another has unique access to the court).