Currently, four states (Colorado, New Hampshire, Utah and Wyoming) have adopted or proposed the identical language of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 3.7. Twelve (12) states have similar language (AZ, AR, HI, IN, KS, MD, MN, MT, NE, NV, OH, OK) Three (3) states have different language (DE, NY, WA).

Colorado

The Colorado Supreme Court Judicial Code Committee has submitted a report to the Court outlining its proposed revisions to the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct.  See http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/File/JudicialCodeReport.pdf

Maryland

Maryland has adopted Rule 3.7 with no major changes regarding judicial promotion of pro bono. For more information on Maryland’s Rule 3.7, please click here: http://www.courts.state.md.us/rules/reports/codeofjudicialconduct2010.pdf

New Hampshire

The New Hampshire Subcommittee of Supreme Court Rules Committee has issued proposed revisions.  See http://www.abanet.org/cpr/jclr/nh_report.pdf

Utah

Utah revised its Judicial Code effective 4/1/10.  See http://www.utcourts.gov/resources/rules/approved/ or http://www.utcourts.gov/resources/rules/ (visible starting April 2010)

Wyoming

Wyoming revised its judicial code effective July 1, 2009.  See http://www.courts.state.wy.us/CourtRules_Entities.aspx?RulesPage=JudicialConduct.xml

Arizona

In addition to the general language of Rule 3.7,  Arizona has added section (C)(1) which states that a judge may provide leadership in identifying and addressing issues involving equal access to the justice system; developing public education programs; engaging in activities to promote the fair administration of justice; and convening, participating or assisting in advisory committees and community collaborations devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, the provision of services, or the administration of justice.

In addition, Comment [6] to Arizona’s Rule 3.7 states that a judge may be an announced speaker at a fundraising event benefiting indigent representation, scholarships for law students, or accredited institutions of legal education.

For more information on Arizona’s Rule 3.7, please click here: http://www.supreme.state.az.us/rules/2008RulesA/2009%20Rules/R090007%206.2.09.pdf

Arkansas

Arkansas has adopted Rule 3.7 with no major changes regarding judicial promotion of pro bono.

For more information on Arkansas’s Rule 3.7, please click here: http://courts.arkansas.gov/court_opinions/sc/2009a/20090423/published/08-924.pdf

Hawaii

Hawaii has adopted Rule 3.7 with no major changes regarding judicial promotion of pro bono.

For more information on Hawaii’s Rule 3.7, please click here: http://hawaii.gov/jud/ctrules/rcjc.htm

Indiana

Indiana has adopted Rule 3.7 with no major changes regarding judicial promotion of pro bono.

For more information on Indiana’s Rule 3.7, please click here: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/jud_conduct/index.html

Kansas

Kansas has adopted Rule 3.7 with no major changes regarding judicial promotion of pro bono.

For more information on Kansas’s Rule 3.7, please click here: http://www.kscourts.org/rules/Rule-List.asp?r1=Rules+Relating+to+Judicial+Conduct

Maryland

Maryland’s proposed Rule 3.7 offers no major changes regarding judicial promotion of pro bono.

For more information on Maryland’s Rule 3.7, please click here: http://www.courts.state.md.us/ethics/pdfs/codes.pdf

Minnesota

Minnesota has adopted Rule 3.7 with no major changes regarding judicial promotion of pro bono.

For more information on Minnesota’s Rule 3.7, please click here: http://www.courts.state.mn.us/?page=2061

Montana

Montana has added comment [6], which states that a judge may provide leadership in improving equal access to the justice system, developing public education programs, engaging in outreach activities to promote the fair administration of justice; and convening and participating in advisory committees and community collaborations devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, the provision of legal services, and/or the administration of justice.

For more information on Montana’s Rule 3.7, please click here: http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/docContent.dll?Library=CISDOCSVR01^doaisd510&ID=003798694

Nebraska

As proposed, Nebraska’s Rule 3.7 adds section (C) which states that, subject to the requirements in Sections (A) and (B), a judge may:
(1)  Provide leadership in identifying and addressing issues involving equal access to the justice  system; develop public education programs; engage in activities to promote the fair administration of justice; and convene or participate or assist in advisory committees and community collaborations devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, the provision of services, or the administration of justice.
(2) Endorse projects and programs directly related to the law, the legal system, the administration of justice, and the provision of services to those coming before the courts, and may actively support the need for funding of such projects and programs.
(3) Participate in programs concerning the law or which promote the administration of justice.
Furthermore, Nebraska’s proposed rule adds Comments [6] and [7] which state that a judge may be an announced speaker at a fundraising event benefiting indigent representation, scholarships for law students, or accredited institutions of legal education, and write, speak, lecture, teach and participate in other extrajudicial activities concerning the law, the legal system, the administration of justice and non-legal subjects.

For more information on Nebraska’s proposed Rule 3.7, please click here:
http://court.nol.org/rules/amendments/NebCodeJudConNon-Redlined.pdf

Nevada

Nevada’s Rule 3.7 adds Comment [6] which states recruitment of lawyers or law firms to provide pro bono legal services pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 191 is not membership solicitation for purposes for Rule 3.7. Accordingly, a judge may assist an organization in recruiting attorneys so long as the recruitment effort cannot reasonably be perceived as coercive. Additionally, a judge may provide an organization with general endorsement or solicitation material for use in the organization’s recruitment materials. Similarly, the Comment makes clear that Rule 3.7 does not preclude a judge from requesting an attorney to accept pro bono representation of a party in a proceeding pending before the judge.

For more information on Nevada’s Rule 3.7, please click here: http://leg.state.nv.us/CourtRules/SCR_CJC.html

Ohio

Ohio has adopted Rule 3.7 with no major changes regarding judicial promotion of pro bono.

For more information on Ohio’s Rule 3.7, please click here:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/boards/JudConductTF/JudConduct/default.asp

Oklahoma

Oklahoma’s Rule 3.7 adds Section (C) which states that subject to the requirements of Rule 3.1 and Rule 3.7(A) and (B), a judge may:

(1) Provide leadership in:
(a) Identifying and addressing issues involving providing equal access to the justice system;
(b) Developing public education programs;
(c) Engaging in community outreach activities to promote the fair administration of justice; and
(d) Convening, participating or assisting in advisory committees and community collaborations devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, the provision of services and/or the administration of justice.
(2) A judge may endorse projects and programs directly related to the law, the legal system, the provision of services and/or the administration of justice.
(3) A judge may participate in programs concerning the law or which promote the administration of justice

Delaware

Rule 3.7 of the Delaware Code of Judicial Conduct is substantively similar to ABA Model Rule 3.7(A).  According to the Rule, a judge may participate in civic and charitable activities that do not reflect adversely upon the judge's independence, integrity, impartiality or interfere with the performance of judicial duties. A judge may serve as an officer, director, trustee, or non-legal advisor of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization not conducted for the economic or political advantage of its members, subject to the following limitations:

(A) A judge should not serve if it is likely that the organization will be engaged in
proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge or will be regularly engaged in adversary proceedings in any court.

 (B) A judge should not solicit funds for any educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of the judicial office for that purpose, but the judge may be listed as an officer, director, or trustee of such an organization. A judge should not personally participate in membership solicitation if the solicitation might reasonably be perceived as coercive or is essentially a fund-raising mechanism.

(C) A judge should not give investment advice to such an organization, but may serve on its board of directors or trustees even though it has the responsibility for approving investment decisions.

New York

New York’s proposed Rule 3.7 does not include Section (A)(2) from the Model Rule which states that a judge may solicit contributions from a charitable organization or entity, but only from the members of the judge’s family, or from judges over whom the judge does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority.  Rather, Section (A)(2) of the proposed rule states that a judge may attend an organization’s fundraising events, but the judge may not be a speaker or the guest of honor at such events. Nothing in this subparagraph shall prohibit a judge from being a speaker or guest of honor at a court employee organization, bar association or law school function or from accepting at another organization’s fundraising event an unadvertised award ancillary to such event.

Washington

Washington’s proposed 3.7 is substantively similar to ABA Model Rule 3.7. However, it does not include subsection (A)(3) (“soliciting membership for such an organization or entity, even though the membership dues or fees generated may be used to support the objectives of the organization or entity, but only if the organization or entity is concerned with the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice;”) or (A)(5)(“making recommendations to such a public or private fund-granting organization or entity in connection with its programs and activities, but only if the organization or entity is concerned with the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice”)

Furthermore, Section (B) ("A judge may encourage lawyers to provide pro bono publico legal services") is eliminated from the Rule but addressed in Comments [7] and [8], which state that a judge may encourage lawyers to provide pro bono legal services and a judge may provide leadership in identifying and addressing issues involving equal access to the administration of justice; and convening, participating or assisting in advisory committees and community collaborations devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, the provision of services, or the administration of justice.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Supreme%20Court%20Code%20of%20Judicial%20Conduct%20Task%20Force%20Committe/Proposed%20New%20Washington%20State%20Code%20of%20Judicial%20Conduct.pdf