By Manny Marotta

Today, Fix the Court submitted a comment to the California Supreme Court on a proposed rule that would formally establish a Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics.

The proposal, Rule 9.81 of the California Rules of Court, would codify the structure and procedures of a committee that has historically advised the court on amendments to the California Code of Judicial Ethics. While the committee has existed de facto for several years, it has never been governed by a formal rule.

We are encouraged by the Court’s effort to formalize the committee’s role, but we are urging several changes designed to strengthen transparency and public confidence in the process.

In our comment, we recommended that the court modify its proposal in the following ways:

Include a non-judicial member

The current proposal limits committee membership to judges and justices. We suggested that at least one seat be reserved for a non-judicial member, such as a law school professor, experienced attorney, journalist, retired judge or other public representative. Including an outside perspective could strengthen public trust in the committee’s deliberations.

 Allow greater transparency in public comments

The proposed rule would automatically make all public comments to the committee confidential. We recommend making confidentiality optional so that comments can be published in redacted form when appropriate, preserving transparency while protecting sensitive information.

Permit independent solicitation of public input

Under the proposal, the committee would need permission from the California Supreme Court before seeking public comment on proposed ethics changes. We suggested allowing the committee to solicit public input independently, subject to redactions of PII.

 Require regular public reporting

The proposal does not require the committee to publicly report on its activities. We recommended that the committee publish an annual (if not more frequent) report summarizing its meetings, topics under consideration and any recommendations submitted.

Our comment also encourages the committee to periodically review issues related to judicial financial disclosures and ethics training to ensure that transparency standards keep pace with evolving public expectations and other states.

We’d like to emphasize that California’s work complements the role of the California Commission on Judicial Performance, which investigates and disciplines judicial misconduct. While the commission enforces the state’s ethics rules, the advisory committee would help ensure that the rules themselves remain current.

The California Supreme Court is accepting public comments on the proposal through April 24.