1 CCR 104-2 - JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

  1. § 1 CCR 104-2-1 - AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY
  2. § 1 CCR 104-2-2 - AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES (§ 1 CCR 104-2-2-A to 1 CCR 104-2-2-C)
  3. § 1 CCR 104-2-3 - AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY (§ 1 CCR 104-2-3-A to 1 CCR 104-2-3-D)
  4. § 1 CCR 104-2-4 - AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE SHALL REGULATE EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH JUDICIAL DUTIES (§ 1 CCR 104-2-4-A to 1 CCR 104-2-4-I)
  5. § 1 CCR 104-2-5 - AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE SHALL REFRAIN FROM POLITICAL ACTIVITY INAPPROPRIATE TO THE JUDICIAL OFFICE

Current through Register Vol. 44, No. 18, September 25, 2021

PREAMBLE AND STATEMENT OF POLICY

Pursuant to Section 24-30-1003(4)(a), C.R.S. (1994), the Division of Administrative Hearings has adopted the Code of Judicial Conduct for Administrative Law Judges of State Central Panels. The Code of Judicial Conduct for Administrative Law Judges of State Central Panels is intended to establish basic ethical conduct standards for administrative law judges or any other hearing officials, whatever their title, in any state with a central panel administrative hearing system. The Code is intended to govern the conduct of these administrative law judges and to provide guidance to assist state central panel judges in establishing and maintaining high standards of judicial and personal conduct. This Code is based upon the Model Code of Judicial Conduct as adopted by the ABA on August 7, 1990 and the February 1989 Model Code of Judicial Conduct for Federal Administrative Law Judges.

The text of the Canons is authoritative. The Commentary, by explanation and example, provides guidance with respect to the purpose and meaning of the Canons. The Commentary is not intended as statement of additional rules. When the text uses "shall" or "shall not," it is intended to impose binding obligations the violation of which can result in disciplinary action. When "should" or "should not" is used, the text is a statement of what is or is not appropriate conduct, but not as a binding rule under which a judge may be disciplined. When "may" is used, it denotes permissible discretion or, depending on the context, it refers to action that is not covered by specific proscriptions. The terms administrative law judge or judge are intended to include all hearing officers in any central panel state.

The Canons are rules of reason. They should be applied consistent with constitutional requirements, statutes, administrative rules, and decisional law and in the context of all relevant circumstances. The Code is to be construed so as not to impinge on the essential independence of judges in making judicial decisions.

The Code is designed to provide guidance to administrative law judges and to provide a structure for regulating conduct. It is not intended, however, that every transgression will result in disciplinary action. Whether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the degree of discipline to be imposed, should be determined through a reasonable and reasoned application of the text and should depend on such factors as the seriousness of the transgression, whether there is a pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the improper activity on others or on the administrative system. The Code is not designed or intended as a basis for civil liability or criminal prosecution. Furthermore, the purpose of the Code would be subverted if the Code were invoked by lawyers for mere tactical advantage in a proceeding.

Notes

1 CCR 104-2

The following state regulations pages link to this page.



State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.