We use cookies to improve security, personalize the user experience,
enhance our marketing activities (including cooperating with our marketing partners) and for other
business use.
Click "here" to read our Cookie Policy.
By clicking "Accept" you agree to the use of cookies. Read less
Proscription Against Communications Concerning a Proceeding
Understanding Proscription Against Communications Concerning a Proceeding
Definition & Meaning
The proscription against communications concerning a proceeding refers to the ethical rule that prohibits judges from engaging in discussions about ongoing legal cases with anyone outside the official court proceedings. This rule ensures that judges remain impartial and do not receive outside influence that could affect their decisions. The intent is to maintain fairness in the judicial process, allowing all parties involved in a case to present their arguments in a transparent environment.
Table of content
Legal Use & context
This term is primarily used in the context of judicial ethics and conduct. It is relevant across various areas of law, including civil, criminal, and family law. The rule is designed to uphold the integrity of the judicial system by preventing any form of bias or external influence. Legal professionals, including lawyers and law educators, must adhere to these standards when communicating about cases. Users can manage related legal processes using templates from US Legal Forms to ensure compliance with these ethical standards.
Key legal elements
Real-world examples
Here are a couple of examples of abatement:
(Hypothetical example) A judge presiding over a family law case cannot discuss the case with a friend who is a lawyer, as this would violate the proscription against communications concerning a proceeding. Instead, if the judge needs legal advice, they may invite an expert to submit a brief as an amicus curiae.
State-by-state differences
Examples of state differences (not exhaustive):
State
Key Differences
California
Judges are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest related to communications.
New York
Judges must adhere to stricter guidelines on discussing cases with colleagues.
This is not a complete list. State laws vary, and users should consult local rules for specific guidance.
Comparison with related terms
Term
Definition
Differences
Ex parte communication
Communication with the judge by one party without the other party being present.
Proscription against communications is broader, encompassing all unauthorized communications, not just ex parte.
Amicus curiae
A person or entity that offers information to the court on a matter of law.
Amicus curiae submissions are permitted, while other forms of communication are restricted.
Common misunderstandings
What to do if this term applies to you
If you find yourself involved in a legal proceeding, it is essential to understand the implications of the proscription against communications. Ensure that all discussions about your case occur in the presence of all parties involved. If you need legal assistance, consider using templates from US Legal Forms to help you navigate the process. For complex matters, seeking professional legal advice is recommended.
Find the legal form that fits your case
Browse our library of 85,000+ state-specific legal templates.
Applicable across civil, criminal, and family law.
Amicus curiae briefs are allowed for expert advice.
State laws may vary regarding specific communication rules.
Key takeaways
Frequently asked questions
Ex parte communication refers to any communication with a judge by one party without the other party being present, which is generally prohibited.
Judges can only consult with lawyers or experts in specific circumstances, such as through amicus curiae briefs, and must avoid unauthorized communications.
Violating the proscription against communications can result in disciplinary action against the judge, including censure or removal from the bench.