Section 2.10. Judicial Statements on Pending and Impending Cases

(A) A magisterial district judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.

(B) A magisterial district judge shall not, in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.

(C) A magisterial district judge shall require court staff, court officials, and others subject to the magisterial district judge’s direction and control to refrain from making statements that the magisterial district judge would be prohibited from making by paragraphs (A) and (B).

(D) Notwithstanding the restrictions in paragraph (A), a magisterial district judge may make public statements in the course of official duties, may explain court procedures, and may comment on any proceeding in which the magisterial district judge is a litigant in a personal capacity.

(E) Subject to the requirements of paragraph (A), a magisterial district judge may respond directly or through a third party to allegations in the media or elsewhere concerning the magisterial district judge’s conduct in a matter.

Comment:

(1) This Rule’s restrictions on judicial speech are essential to the maintenance of the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary. A magisterial district judge should be mindful that comments of a magisterial district judge regarding matters that are pending or impending in any court can sometimes affect the outcome or impair the fairness of proceedings in a matter. See Rule 1.2.

(2) This Rule does not prohibit a magisterial district judge from commenting on proceedings in which the magisterial district judge is a litigant in a personal capacity, or represents a client as permitted by these Rules. In cases in which the magisterial district judge is a litigant in an official capacity, such as a writ of mandamus, the magisterial district judge must not comment publicly.

(3) Depending upon the circumstances, the magisterial district judge should consider whether it may be preferable for a third party, rather than the magisterial district judge, to respond or issue statements in connection with allegations concerning the magisterial district judge’s conduct in a matter.

(4) This Rule is not intended to impede a magisterial district judge from commenting upon legal issues or matters for pedagogical purposes.