Ethics & gifts: perception counts

Judges who accept gifts — even without intent to show favoritism — can still violate ethical boundaries by creating the appearance of impropriety. This summary of a 2024 article from the Judicial Conduct Reporter explores judicial disciplinary cases and examines why impartiality must be maintained both in fact and in public perception.

Ethical considerations for judges

Drawing from research and case law compiled by our Center for Judicial Ethics, here are five key takeaways that illustrate how even well-meaning judges can cross ethical lines, and why appearances are vital to maintaining public trust. 

Inappropriate appearances are enough

Disciplinary bodies consistently emphasize what matters is how a judge's actions appear to a "reasonable observer." Accepting money, gifts, or favors can hurt public trust.

Gifts from frequent court visitors raise red flags

Accepting gifts from attorneys, litigants, or anyone frequently appearing in court can be especially risky. From football tickets to deals on cars, disciplinary commissions have found that such gifts cast doubt on judicial independence. 

Context sets a high bar for judicial responsibility

Some judges have argued that small gifts fall under "ordinary social hospitality," especially among longtime friends or colleagues. But courts have pushed back, indicating that context matters and even friendly gestures can violate ethics.

Any transactions with litigants can be a problem

A California judge was removed from the bench after buying cars from a litigant who had just won $5 million in a case he decided. Judges must avoid any situation where their impartiality could be questioned, even after a case is concluded.

Codes have changed — but judicial responsibility hasn't

A 2007 update to the ABA judicial code permits some gifts if they are reported and not improper "in appearance." Even under more flexible rules, judges must still consider how their actions look to the public.