Herald of Civil Procedure
EN
main-photo

We in a citing index:

JUDICIAL CODES OF CONDUCT AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST OF AN ELECTED JUDICIARY: A COMPARATIVE APPROACH IN THE ELEVATION OF JUDGES

FOREIGN CIVIL PROCEDURE


ZIA AKHTAR

ZIA AKHTAR,
LLB (University of London),
LLM (University of London), Gray’s Inn, PhD Candidate,
University of Sussex (United Kingdom)

DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2019-9-5-154-185

The apparent bias vitiates the decision of the judge in common law systems. This is
particularly relevant where judges are elected as in the US and it has implications for faith
in an impartial judiciary. In some states of the US the judges are elected and their decisions
have led to appeals in the Supreme Court on grounds the decision was tainted with bias
and the due process clause of the US constitution to be invoked. The dissatisfaction with
an electoral based judiciary at state level has caused the issue of recusal to be viewed in
the context of the election system because its potential to cause a conflict of interest. The
question is whether the politicisation of the judiciary can lead to justice for all in the legal
framework and when judges are elected rather than appointed is the political bias inevitable?
This paper analysis the US judicial Code and its implications and compares it with the UK
system where is an independent appointment of judges, and it argues that despite its electoral
system makes judges in the US more accountable than those selected confidentiality by the
appointments system in the UK.

Keywords: ABA Model Rules; FCR 455; Canons 1–5; judicial election; pecuniary interest;
recusal; merits based selection.

References

American Judicature Society. Judicial Selection in the States: Appellate and General
Jurisdiction Courts (updated 2013). URL: http://www.judicialselection.us/uploads/
documents/Judicial_Selection_Charts_1196376173077.pdf.
Bales S. Why Arizona Has Some of America’s Best Judges. URL: https://www.azcentral.
com/story/opinion/op-ed/2014/09/12/arizona-judicial-performance-review/15515743/.
Bindman G., Monaghan K. Judicial Diversity: Accelerating Change. URL: https://
www.judicialappointments.gov.uk/sites/default/files/sync/news/accelerating_change_
finalrev.pdf.
Bonneau Ch.W., Cann D.M. Party Identification and Vote Choice in Partisan and
Nonpartisan Elections. Political Behavior, 2015, vol. 37, iss. 1.
Caufield R.P. The Curious Logic of Judicial Elections. Arkansas Law Review, 2011,
vol. 64.
Davidow R.P. Judicial Selection: The Search for Quality and Representativeness.
Case Western Reserve Law Review, 1981, vol. 31, iss. 3.
Fitzpatrick B.T. The Politics of Merit Selection. Missouri Law Review, 2009, vol. 74, iss. 3.
Flamm R.E. Judicial Disqualification: Recusal and Disqualification of Judges. Berkeley,
Calif.: Banks & Jordan Law Pub., 2007.
Gee G.D. Judging the JAC: How Much Judicial Influence Over Judicial Appointments
Is Too Much? In Gee G., Rackley E. (eds.). Debating Judicial Appointments in an
Age of Diversity. New York: Routledge, 2017.
Geyh Ch.G. Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law. 2nd ed. Washington,
D.C.: Federal Judicial Center, 2010.
Geyh Ch.G. Why Judicial Disqualification Matters. Again. Review of Litigation, 2011,
vol. 30, iss. 4.
Geyh Ch.G., Lynk M., Peck R.S., Clarke T. The State of Recusal Reform. N.Y.U. Journal
of Legislation & Public Policy, 2015, vol. 18, iss. 2.
Gibb F. Supreme Ambition, Jealousy and Outrage. URL: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/
article/supreme-ambition-jealousy-and-outrage-rv8fzvbx536.
Guide to Judiciary Policy. Vol. 2: Ethics and Judicial Conduct. Pt. A: Codes of Conduct.
Ch. 2: Code of Conduct for United States Judges. URL: https://www.uscourts.gov/
sites/default/files/vol02a-ch02_0.pdf.
Guide to Judiciary Policy. Vol. 2: Ethics and Judicial Conduct. Pt. B: Ethics Advisory
Opinions. Ch. 2: Published Advisory Opinions. URL: https://www.uscourts.gov/
sites/default/files/vol02b-ch02.pdf.
Jennings I. The Queen’s Government. London: Penguin Books, 1961.
Jolly R.L. Judges as Politicians: The Enduring Tension of Judicial Elections in the
Twenty-First Century. Notre Dame Law Review Online, 2016, vol. 92, iss. 6.
Judicial Selection in the States: A Critical Study with Proposals for Reform. Hofstra
Law Review, 1976, vol. 4, iss. 1.
Masterman R. The Separation of Powers in the Contemporary Constitution: Judicial
Competence and Independence in the United Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2011.
Menendez M. The Supreme Court Should Uphold Reasonable Regulations on Judicial
Campaigns. URL: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supremecourt-
should-uphold-reasonable-regulations-judicial-campaigns.
Paterson A., Paterson Ch. Guarding the Guardians? Towards an Independent, Accountable
and Diverse Senior Judiciary. URL: https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/40759/.
Presser S.B. et al. The Case for Judicial Appointments. URL: https://fedsoc.org/
commentary/publications/the-case-for-judicial-appointments.
Rutkus D.S. Questioning Supreme Court Nominees About Their Views on Legal or
Constitutional Issues: A Recurring Issue. URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41300.pdf.
Stevens R. Reform in Haste and Repent at Leisure: Lolanthe, the Lord High Executioner
and Brave New World. Legal Studies, 2003, vol. 24, iss. 1-2.

Information about the author

Zia Akhtar (Sussex, United Kingdom) – LLB (University of London), LLM (University
of London), Gray’s Inn, PhD Candidate, University of Sussex (United Kingdom)
(Sussex House, Brighton, East Sussex, BN1 9RH, United Kingdom; e-mail: pflawgraduate@
gmail.com).

Recommended citation

Akhtar Z. Judicial Codes of Conduct and Conflict of Interest of an Elected Judiciary:
A Comparative Approach in the Elevation of Judges. Herald of Civil Procedure,
2019, vol. 9, no. 5, p. 154–185. (In Russian) https://doi.org/10.24031/2226-0781-2019-
9-5-154-185

 el_.png   it_.png   book.png

Keywords