Judicial Ethics and the Internet

The case concerned a two-week wildfire in September 2007 that destroyed nearly 65,000 acres of forest in northern California. Because of the nearby Moonlight Peak, the public came to know the incident as the "Moonlight Fire." [...]the Department of Justice argued that questions surrounding social media use by judges would benefit from further development in the lower courts before the Supreme Court intervenes to take up the issue. [...]recasting the arguments in the Sierra Pacific Industries case using the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct5 might result in the following: Because of the judge's conduct "following" only one party in the case and "tweeting" the erroneous news headline about the ruling, the judge's conduct was a violation of Model Rule 1.2, failing to "act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary" and "avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety"; and Model Rule 2.9, initiating, permitting, or considering "ex parte communications" "concerning a pending or impending matter"; and Model Rule 2.10, making "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." [...]as the proponents might make the argument, the judge should have recused himself under Model Rule 2.11(A), providing that "a judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."