This fall the District of Columbia Federal Court Judges provided another cautionary example of the dangers of using reply to all when responding to an email. Judicial
The incident occurred after a U.S. District Court Judge sent an “fyi” email to 45 colleagues informing them about a climate change seminar that was being co-sponsored by a judiciary branch agency.
A Federal Senior Appeals Court Judge decided to respond and express his views on climate change. Unfortunately, he sent the email as a reply to all, thereby sparking debate among his colleagues about both climate change and judicial ethics.
His comments included the following:
“The jurisdiction assigned to you does not include saving the planet. A little hubris [sic] would be welcomed in many of your latest public displays…The supposedly science and stuff you are now sponsoring is nothing of the sort…Get out of this business and back into the business of judging, which are what you are being paid to do.”
The U.S. District Judge is seeking an advisory opinion from the judiciary’s Committee on Codes of Conduct on whether the Circuit Judge should have to recuse himself from cases involving climate science or appeals of the District Judge’s orders, in light of his comments. However, legal ethics expert, Stephen Gillers, noted the judiciary committee, composed of a panel of fellow judges, is unlikely to respond with an opinion. The committee generally provides guidance to judges about potential conflicts of interest—not about the behavior of judges. Regardless, an opinion remains confidential unless a judge decides to release it.
One key takeaway from this story for lawyers and judges alike is to pause and think before clicking “reply all.”
Read more here.
