The Twilight Zone: Have We Gone Nose Blind to Ethical Issues from the Bench and In the Practice - 2024 NCBJ Annual Meeting

Oct 1, 2026

Ethics-focused program material for the 2024 NCBJ Annual Meeting, using the framing “The Twilight Zone” to examine how ethical issues can be overlooked in both the judicial bench and legal practice. Covers mandatory versus discretionary recusal, handling observations of questionable conduct, relevant codes and advisory guidance, and best practices for judges. Includes case and fact-pattern outlines, plus curated legal ethics and behavioral ethics readings addressing disclosure, conflicts, cognitive errors, and human decision-making factors in professional settings.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryExam

FormatPDF

Pages246

Reading Time10 h 20 min

AccessFree to download

Mandatory vs. Discretionary Recusal

Observing Questionable Conduct

Guidelines

Best Practices

Outline: Am I My Colleague’s Keeper When it Comes to Disclosing Connections?

OUTLINE: BEHAVIORAL LEGAL ETHICS

2024 NCBJ Annual Meeting The Twilight Zone: Have We Gone Nose Blind to Ethical Issues from the Bench and In the Practice I. Outline: Ethical Issues, Guidelines and Best Practices for Judges (Hon. Sims Crawford) II. Outline: Am I My Colleague’s Keeper When it Comes to Disclosing Connections (Prof. Nancy B. Rapoport) III. Outline: Psychological Issues Impacting Lawyers (Prof. Jennifer K. Robbennolt) IV. Case Summaries: Examining Ethical Issues Involving Judges and Attorneys (Monique D. Hayes, Esq. and Aditi Paranjpye, Esq.) V. Fact Patterns: Mitigating Ethical Conundrums (Prof. Nancy B. Rapoport and Aditi Paranjpye, Esq.) VI. Additional Included Resources (a) Jennifer K. Robbennolt and Jean R. Sternlight, Behavioral Legal Ethics, Arizona Law Journal (b) Nancy B. Rapoport, Nuance or Necessity for Conflicts in Bankruptcy Cases? Creditor Rights Coalition,(June 5, 2024) (c) Nancy B. Rapoport, Draft Failing to See What’s in Front ofOur Eyes: The Effect of Cognitive Errors on Corporate Scandals, WM. & MARY BUS. L. REV. (forthcoming 2025, or maybe 2024) VII. Suggested Readings (a) Jennifer K. Robbennolt & Jean R. Sternlight, Psychology For Lawyers: Understanding The Human Factors In Negotiation, Litigation And Decision Making (2012) (b) Nancy B. Rapoport, Turning and Turning in the Widening Gyre: The Problem of Potential Conflicts of Interest in Bankruptcy, 26 Conn. L. Rev. 913, 975-76 (1994) 2024 NCBJ Annual Meeting The Twilight Zone: Ethical Issues from the Bench and In the Practice Friday, September 20, 2024 9:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m. D. Sims Crawford United States Bankruptcy Judge Northern District of Alabama Southern Division 1. Mandatory vs. Discretionary Recusal o Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with this Code. Commentary to Canon 1. o The Code is to be construed so it does not impinge on the essential independence of judges in making judicial decisions. Id. o A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court. Canon 3A(5) . The Code imposes a duty upon a judge to sit and hear assigned cases, absent a legitimate basis for disqualification. o The judge is in the best position to evaluate specific facts and determine whether recusal is required. o How should a judge examine reasonable questions about impartiality under Canon 3C(1) in general; versus the mandatory recusal rules of Canon 3C(1)(a) through (e)? o The Committee on Codes of Conduct (“COCC”) is available to offer guidance and assistance to judges making recusal decisions. 2. Observing Questionable Conduct o Canon 3B(6). A judge should take appropriate action upon receipt of reliable information indicating the likelihood that a judge’s conduct contravened this Code, that a judicial employee’s conduct contravened the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, or that a lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct. o Appropriate action. o Reliable information. o Likelihood that conduct contravened this Code. o Commentary to Canon 3B(6) . Guidance on appropriate action. o Failure to Report or Disclose. Is there reliable information of judicial misconductor disability that a judge must call to the attention of the chief district or circuit judge? 3. Guidelines o Code of Conduct for United States Judges. o Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees. o Advisory Opinions issued by the COCC. o Relation to 28 U. S.C. § 455 4. Best Practices o Judges may contact the COCC for confidential guidance and assistance with ethics issues. o The importance of talking with colleagues and mentors about ethics questions. o Judges can take advantage of ethics training and seminars offered regularly by NCBJ, FJC, ABI, and other national, regional, and local seminars. o For ethics, there is no such thing as a point of no return; it is never too late to reverse course. Outline: Am I My Colleague’s Keeper When It Comes to Disclosing Connect

FAQs

What is the core distinction between mandatory and discretionary recusal for judges?

Judges must comply with the law and the applicable code. The material contrasts general impartiality inquiries with mandatory recusal rules under Canon 3C(1)(a) through (e).

What should a judge do when receiving reliable information about questionable conduct?

The program specifies that a judge should take appropriate action upon reliable information indicating a judge’s conduct violates the code, a judicial employee violates the code of conduct, or a lawyer violates professional conduct rules.

Which resources and best practices are recommended to support ethics decisions?

Judges may contact the Committee on Codes of Conduct (COCC) for confidential guidance, discuss ethics with colleagues and mentors, and use ethics training and seminars offered by NCBJ, FJC, ABI, and other organizations.

Oct 1, 2026

Uploaded by anakgang17