I thought it would be of general interest for all to know that all states have a code of judicial conduct. Here are excerpts from the Arizona code as applied to the SC order not to publicize the Turtle Rock HOA appellate opinion, which favored the membership on due process protections.
For more information on Turtle Rock see, AZ Supreme Court Prohibits publication of decision on HOA notice of fines; AZ SC ‘improvident’ decision in Turtle Rock HOA petition; and Turtle Rock CAI brief urged depublication.
In addition, since most people do not understand the meaning of “improvident” as used in the SC’s order and used to justify the order, here’s the highly respected Black’s Law Dictionary definition:
A judgment, decree, rule, Injunction, etc., when given or rendered without adequate consideration by the court, or without proper information as to all the circumstances affecting it, or based upon a mistaken assumption or misleading information or advice, is sometimes said to have been “improvidently” given or issued. (2nd Ed.).
Of or relating to a judgment arrived at by using misleading information or a mistaken assumption.(7th Ed.).
Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct
Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 81.
(relevant excerpts; “comments” are part of the Rule)
An independent, fair, and impartial judiciary is indispensable to our system of justice.
Judges should maintain the dignity of judicial office at all times, and avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and personal lives. They should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence.
“Impropriety” includes conduct that violates the law, court rules, or provisions of this Code, and conduct that undermines a judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality.
“Judge” means any person who is authorized to perform judicial functions within the Arizona judiciary, including a justice or judge of a court of record.
CANON 1, Rule 1.2
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
- Conduct that compromises or appears to compromise the independence, integrity, and impartiality of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary.
- The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.
CANON 2, Rule 2.4 External Influences on Judicial Conduct
(C) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.
Comment. An independent judiciary requires that judges decide cases according to the law and facts, without regard to whether particular laws or litigants are popular or unpopular with the public, the media, government officials, or the judge’s friends or family. Confidence in the judiciary is eroded if judicial decision making is perceived to be subject to inappropriate outside influences.