1. The rules in this code have been formulated to address the ethical obligations of any person who serves a judicial function within the Arizona judicial branch, and are premised upon the supposition that a uniform system of ethical principles should apply to all those authorized to perform judicial functions. The code does not apply to administrative law judges or administrative hearing officers in this state unless expressly made applicable by statute or by agency rules. Such officers are generally affiliated with the executive branch of government rather than the judicial branch and each agency should consider the unique characteristics of particular positions in adopting and adapting the code for administrative law judges or administrative hearing officers. See Arizona Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, Opinion 92-03 (January 31, 1992).

2. The determination of which category of judicial service and, accordingly, which specific rules apply to an individual judicial officer, depends upon the nature of the particular judicial service.

3. Arizona has what are often called “problem-solving” courts, in which judges are authorized by court rules to act in nontraditional ways. For example, judges presiding in drug courts and monitoring the progress of participants in those courts' programs may be authorized and even encouraged to communicate directly with social workers, probation officers, and others outside the context of their usual judicial role as independent decision makers on issues of fact and law. When local rules governing problem-solving courts, or protocols for problem-solving courts known and consented to by the participants, specifically authorize conduct not otherwise permitted under these rules, they take precedence over the provisions set forth in the code. Nevertheless, judges serving on “problem -solving” courts shall comply with this code except to the extent local rules or protocols provide and permit otherwise. See Rule 2.9, Comment 4.

When a person who has been a continuing part-time judge is no longer a continuing part-time judge, that person may act as a lawyer in a proceeding in which he or she has served as a judge or in any other proceeding related thereto only with the informed consent of all parties, and pursuant to any applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.

1. The restrictions of Part D apply to the members of a pro tempore part-time judge's law firm.

2. The purpose of Part D is to allow the greatest possible use of part-time pro tempore judges to augment judicial resources in order to reduce case backlogs and the time necessary to process cases to disposition while minimizing any potential for the appearance of impropriety.

3. The language of Part D is intended to allow, at a minimum, the following current practices:

(a) A lawyer sits as a part-time pro tempore judge for one family law trial and during this time appears in the family law divisions as a lawyer in other matters.

(b) A lawyer sits as a part-time pro tempore juvenile judge two or more half days a week on a continuing scheduled basis and during this time appears in court as a lawyer in all types of proceedings except for juvenile matters.

(c) A lawyer sits as a part-time pro tempore criminal judge in the after-hours and weekend initial appearance program and thereafter appears as a lawyer in the criminal divisions except that the lawyer does not appear in the initial appearance program on behalf of clients.

(d) A lawyer sits on a continuing scheduled basis as a part-time pro tempore judge in a satellite court in one community and otherwise appears in the main court located in a different community on all variety of matters, but does not appear in any proceeding in the satellite court.

(e) A lawyer sits on a continuing scheduled basis as a pro tempore part-time justice of the peace in one precinct and appears as a lawyer in a justice court in another precinct.

(f) A lawyer sits once or only sporadically as a pro tempore part-time magistrate in a municipal court and otherwise appears as a lawyer in the same court on all variety of matters.

(g) These comments replace Advisory Opinion 92-16 (issued December 8, 1992, and reissued March 8, 1993) dealing with ethical constraints on lawyers serving as pro tempore judges.