Rule 3.11. Financial Activities.
(A) A judge may hold and manage investments of the judge and members of the judge’s family.
(B) A judge shall not serve as an officer, director, manager, general partner, advisor, or employee of any business entity except that a judge may manage or participate in:
(1) a business closely held by the judge or members of the judge’s family; or
(2) a business entity primarily engaged in investment of the financial resources of the judge or members of the judge’s family.
(C) A judge shall not engage in financial activities permitted under paragraphs (A) and (B) if they will:
(1) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties;
(2) lead to frequent disqualification of the judge;
(3) involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with lawyers or other persons likely to come before the court on which the judge serves; or
(4) result in violation of other provisions of this Code.
Comment: (1) Judges are generally permitted to engage in financial activities, including managing real estate and other investments for themselves or for members of their families. Participation in these activities, like participation in other extrajudicial activities, is subject to the requirements of this Code. For example, it would be improper for a judge to spend so much time on business activities that it interferes with the performance of judicial duties. See Rule 2.1. Similarly, it would be improper for a judge to use his or her official title or appear in judicial robes in business advertising, or to conduct his or her business or financial affairs in such a way that disqualification is frequently required. See Rules 1.3 and 2.11.
(2) As soon as practicable without serious financial detriment, the judge must divest himself or herself of investments and other financial interests that might require frequent disqualification or otherwise violate this Rule. Alternatively, a jurist may place such investments or other financial interests in a blind trust or similarly protective financial vehicle. So long as continuation will not interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties, a judge serving as an officer or director otherwise precluded by Rule 3.11(B), may complete the term of service if such may be accomplished in twelve months or less.
(3) Pursuant to the authority granted by Article V, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Supreme Court adopted the Code of Judicial Conduct as the exclusive means of regulating conduct of judges under the supervision of the Supreme Court. Disqualification from proceedings as necessary is the most appropriate means of ensuring judicial integrity and impartiality in proceedings, including, but not limited to, those arising from the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act (4 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq.) and the Medical Marijuana Act (35 P.S. § 10231.101 et seq.).
Additionally, the Supreme Court on June 1, 2006, issued Order No. 231, Magisterial Docket No. 1, which provides that no judge shall have a financial interest, as defined by Section 1512(b) of the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act (4 Pa.C.S. § 1512(b)), in or be employed, directly or indirectly, by any licensed racing entity or licensed gaming entity, or any holding, affiliate, intermediary or subsidiary company thereof or by any such applicant, or engage in the active ownership or participate in the management of any such entities and related companies.
Also, on February 11, 2020, the Supreme Court issued an Order, at No. 530 Judicial Administration Docket, providing that no judge shall have a financial interest, as defined by Section 2101.1(e) of the Medical Marijuana Act (35 P.S. § 10231.2101.1(e)), in or be employed, directly or indirectly, by a medical marijuana organization, or by any holding, affiliate, intermediary or subsidiary company thereof.
Both Orders define the term ‘‘judge’’ to include justices, judges of the Superior Court, judges of the Commonwealth Court, judges of the Courts of Common Pleas and judges of the Philadelphia Municipal Court, but not to include lawyers and non-lawyers performing judicial functions, including but not limited to masters and arbitrators, for the Unified Judicial System.
Rule 2.11 of the Code of Judicial Conduct continues to govern the disqualification of judges where the interest in or relationship with a licensed racing, a licensed gaming entity, a related company thereto, or an applicant therefor, of the judge or a family member is at issue. Similarly, Rule 2.11 continues to govern the disqualification of judges where the interest in or relationship to a medical marijuana organization, or any holding company, affiliate, intermediary or subsidiary thereof, of the judge or a family member is at issue.
Source The provisions of this Rule 3.11 amended February 11, 2020, effective September 1, 2020, 50 Pa.B. 1239. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (370688).
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.
This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Code full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
