On Wednesday, February 18, 2026, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility released Formal Opinion 521, providing guidance on the ethical obligations of judges when exercising administrative, employment, and supervisory authority. The opinion addresses the application of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct in these contexts.
Formal Opinion 521 emphasizes that the canons and rules ensuring impartiality, integrity, and independence apply not only to courtroom adjudication but also to the administration of chambers and court staff. Judges are expected to maintain fairness and neutrality in all administrative decisions, mirroring the standards applied during adjudication.
The opinion clarifies that ethical duties extend beyond the courtroom, encompassing merit-based appointments, prevention of bias and harassment, and avoidance of favoritism or impropriety in administrative functions. By ensuring their administrative authority promotes public confidence, judges uphold the judiciary’s independence and integrity.
The ABA notes that judges hold a unique public trust, requiring them to impartially decide controversies and administer courts in a manner that sustains public confidence in the judiciary’s independence, integrity, and impartiality. The Model Code of Judicial Conduct extends these obligations beyond adjudication to the broader scope of judicial administration.
Canon 1 and Rule 1.2 of the code require judges to avoid impropriety and its appearance, while Canon 2 and Rule 2.3 mandate the performance of all duties—adjudicative, administrative, and supervisory—without bias or prejudice. Rule 2.12 imposes affirmative supervisory duties, and Rule 2.13 requires appointments to be based impartially on merit. These provisions collectively establish an ethical mandate, ensuring judges preserve the fairness and legitimacy of the courts through their conduct and the conduct of those they supervise.
The mandate includes avoiding administrative actions that convey favoritism, partiality, or the use of judicial prestige for private ends; making hiring, appointment, and personnel decisions on objective, merit-based criteria; and actively supervising and correcting discriminatory, harassing, or retaliatory conduct within chambers. The opinion illustrates how actions motivated by nepotism, ideology, or personal loyalty can create the appearance of partiality, potentially eroding institutional integrity.
The opinion suggests that judges adopt or strengthen internal practices that promote administrative fairness, such as clear, merit-based selection criteria for appointments, transparent processes for recurring discretionary decisions, education and training for judges and staff on supervisory obligations and workplace fairness, and prompt, impartial procedures for addressing allegations of staff misconduct. These measures aim to assist judges in meeting their ethical duties under the code.
The opinion concludes by affirming that preserving public confidence in the judiciary requires attention to both substance and perception. Judicial fairness must be real and be seen to be real. Judges fulfill individual ethical obligations and strengthen the judiciary’s collective standing as an institution worthy of public trust when they administer their chambers with impartiality, competence, and diligence.
