Start with the official code
Read the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct · Open the complete official PDF
The Code of Judicial Conduct provides a public standard for examining how judges exercise their authority. Justice-Denied uses that standard to connect questions about courtroom conduct, impartiality, and undisclosed relationships to the documents and decisions that readers can inspect.
This guide identifies selected provisions and links directly to their official text and comments.
Selected judicial duties
Public confidence and the appearance of impropriety
Rule 1.2 requires conduct that supports confidence in judicial independence, integrity, and impartiality. It also requires judges to avoid impropriety and its appearance. The standard extends beyond what happens during a hearing.
Fair and impartial decision-making
Rule 2.2 requires judges to apply the law and perform their duties fairly and impartially. Its comments address objectivity and reasonable accommodations for self-represented litigants.
A meaningful opportunity to be heard
Rule 2.6 protects the opportunity to be heard as the law provides. It permits encouragement of settlement while prohibiting judicial pressure that coerces a party into settling.
Communications outside the parties’ presence
Rule 2.9(A)–(B) regulates communications about a case outside the parties’ presence. It specifies permitted circumstances and safeguards, including notice and an opportunity to respond where required.
Independent investigation of facts
Rule 2.9(C) prohibits judges from independently investigating case facts. Decisions must rely on presented evidence and properly noticed facts. Subdivision (D) addresses supervision of court personnel.
Disqualification when impartiality is reasonably questioned
Rule 2.11 requires disqualification when a judge’s impartiality is reasonably in doubt. Its listed circumstances include personal bias, specified relationships, financial interests, and prior involvement.
Compare the standard with the record
Begin with the particular act or relationship at issue. Identify its date, the people involved, and the source establishing it. Then compare that evidence with the relevant rule and any explanation the judge provided.
For a communication, trace what was said, who received it, and whether the other parties had a chance to respond. For factual research, identify where the information came from and how it entered the decision. For a relationship, examine what was disclosed and when.
A strong record-based account lets readers distinguish the documented conduct, the parties’ arguments, Justice-Denied’s analysis, and any ruling on the issue.
Recusal, review, and discipline
In a civil case, Civil Procedure Rule 63 supplies procedures concerning judicial disqualification and notices to remove. A notice to remove has its own timing and participation restrictions. A judicial-conduct complaint follows a separate process.
See Where Do I Report Judicial Misconduct? for official complaint resources. Record separately whether a concern was raised in the case, addressed in an order, reviewed on appeal, or presented to a disciplinary authority.
Related Justice-Denied reporting
Official sources checked September 30, 2026. The linked code includes the rules and explanatory comments; consult the applicable version when evaluating older conduct.
