Canons of Judicial Ethics
Adopted by the Montana Supreme Court May 1, 1963
Canon 35 Amended April 18, 1980.

The Supreme Court of Montana being mindful that the character and conduct of a judge should never be objects of indifference, and that declared ethical standards tend to become habits of life, deems it desirable to set forth its views respecting those principles which should govern the personal practice of members of the judiciary in the administration of their office. The Court accordingly adopts the following Canons, the spirit of which it suggests as a proper guide and reminder for judges, and as indicating what the people have a right to expect from them.

4. Avoidance of Impropriety.
A judge’s official conduct should be free from impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; he should avoid infractions of law; and his personal behavior, not only upon the Bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach.

In a review of the Canons for the Judicial Conduct Reporter, Vol 25, No 3, Fall 2003, Cynthia Gray wrote “the test for the appearance of impropriety is that of a reasonable person, a standard familiar to judges. The “reasonable person” has been defined in the judicial discipline context as a reasonably intelligent and informed member of the public: an objective observer: the average person encountered in society: and the thinking public. The reasonable person is neither a “highly sophisticated observer of public affairs” nor a “cynic skeptical of the government and the courts” and neither “excessively indulgent, nor excessively jaundiced”.

She illustrated these points with relevant cases, which I am not going to type out. If you want more detailed info, e-mail me. Or try Google.

I am posting this for two reasons.

1. I was curious what the standard for “appearance” was, and thought others might be also.
2. I think it is important to be informed. I mentioned that in a previous post. I have seen no other media define what “appearance of impropriety” is. Maybe I missed it.