Much controversy has been stirred by the novel extra-constitutional procedure under which these standards were promulgated. (The Legislature directs the Judicial Council to promulgate unspecified “ethics standards,” which the Legislature, before promulgation, gives the force of law? Legislative and gubernatorial staff play lead roles in advising council draftsmen? Judicial Council functions as administrative agency without standards? Is separation of powers dead in California?)
Even more concern, however, has centered on the extraordinarily prolix draftsmanship of the standards. They run to about 8,000 words, half of which are devoted to “Standard 7,” dealing with arbitrator disclosures — and that doesn’t include either the definitions (in Standard 2) that are necessary to understand Standard 7, or Standard 8 dealing with disqualification of the arbitrator for failure to make a disclosure required by Standard 7.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
