[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

opportunity to engage in the campaign and election process. These technologies may
encourage a discourse that is principled and informed. The Internet, in particular, has
increased in a dramatic way the rapidity and pervasiveness with which ideas may spread.
Whether as a result of disclosure laws or a candidate’s voluntary decision to make the
campaign transparent, the Internet can reveal almost at once how a candidate sought funds;
who the donors were; and what amounts they gave. Indeed, disclosure requirements offer a
powerful, speech-enhancing method of deterring corruption — one that does not impose
limits on how and when people can speak. . . . The speech the Court now holds foreclosed
might itself have been instructive in this regard, and it could have been open to the
electorate’s scrutiny. Judicial elections, no less than other elections, presuppose faith in
democracy. . . .
The candidate who is not wealthy or well connected cannot ask even a close friend or
relative for a bit of financial help, despite the lack of any increased risk of partiality and
despite the fact that disclosure laws might be enacted to make the solicitation and support
public. This law comes nowhere close to being narrowly tailored. . . .
Problem
16-4. Fox decides to run for a county judicial office. He asks Martyn to chair his
campaign committee, and agrees to draft and sign the letters Martyn will send seeking
contributions. He also tells Martyn that he will publicly support the State Trial Lawyers’
Association, which Martyn chairs. Do they have it right?
1. Ronald D. Rotunda & John S. Dzienkowski, Legal Ethics: The Lawyer’s Deskbook on Professional Responsibility §
10.0-1 (West 2016).
2. Model Rules Preamble [8].
3. ABA Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 1. The same “three I’s” inform judicial standards around the world. James
Moliterno & George Harris, Global Issues in Legal Ethics 169-190 (West Academic 2d ed. 2014).
4. CJC Rule 1.1.
5. CJC Rule 1.2.
6. CJC Rule 1.3. Cf. MR 3.5.
7. See ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct (2011), Application, Parts II (Retired Judge Subject to Recall), III
(Continuing Part-Time Judge), IV (Periodic Part-Time Judge), and V (Pro Tempore Part-Time Judge).
8. The first model, the 1924 Canons of Judicial Ethics, was promulgated in response to a scandal created by Judge
Kenesaw Mountain Landis, who earned six times his federal judicial salary in the private practice of law while sitting as
a federal judge. Rotunda & Dzienkowski, supra note 1, at § 10.0-2.
9. Available at http://www.uscourts.gov/rulesandpolicies/codesofconduct/codeconductunitedstatesjudges.aspx (last
visited July 15, 2016). Supreme Court Justices are not governed by these rules. See 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal
Judiciary (2011), available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2011year-endreport.pdf. (last visited
July 15, 2016).
10. 28 U.S.C. § 454 (2012).
11. 28 U.S.C. § 144 (2012) (bias or prejudice of a judge); § 455 (2012) (disqualification).
12. Jeffrey M. Shaman, Steven Lubet, & James J. Alfini, Judicial Conduct and Ethics § 14.07 (5th ed. LexisNexis
2015).
13. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991); Stump v. Sparkman, 433 U.S. 349 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547
516