Share this on Twitter Share this on Facebook Share this on Linked In Share this by Email
Letters to the Editor

An abundance of guidance

Diane Karpman is correct that some fine distinctions can exist for judicial standards of conduct, but her (September) column creates a misimpression that the rules are a trap for the “well intentioned.” Judges have an abundance of guidance and cautionary examples available to them in commentary to the Code of Judicial Ethics, in orientation classes on ethics and in other references provided to them, such as Rothman’s extensive Handbook on Judicial Conduct. While no set of references can cover every situation, the overriding principle for judges is to do nothing in their professional or personal lives that would cause a loss of public confidence in their objectivity.

In my experience, it was the judges who hadn’t read the Code and its commentary who got into difficulties.

Dennis Coupe
Granite Bay

Change MCLE reporting rules

Each group is given THREE years to complete the 25 hours of MCLE. However, one can indicate this completion only within 60 days of the deadline.

This seems absurd, and most likely serves only some in-house administrative function. Now many of us must keep a tickler file to make sure we go online sometime in December/January to log in and update our MCLE completion. Please, fix this since it makes no sense, and is just one additional aggravation among so many for us small practitioners.

A. C. Lutz

• Editor’s note: The State Bar is working to increase the efficiency of its online MCLE compliance reporting system.


California Bar Journal letters must include full name with a daytime telephone number
and complete address. Send letters to