AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT Adopted by the Judicial Council on November 19, 2021, effective January 1, 2022 Emergency rule 3. Use of technology for remote appearances ................................. 2 1 Standard 10.20.

Court’s duty to prohibit prevent bias .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. 3 .............................................. 3 2 Rule 10.492. Temporary extension and pro rata reduction of judicial branch 3 education requirements ............................................................................................... 9 4 5

Appendix I 1 Emergency Rules Related to COVID-19 2 3 Emergency rule 3. Use of technology for remote appearances 4 5 (

a) Remote appearances 6 7 Notwithstanding any other law, in order to protect the health and safety of the 8 public, including court users, both in custody and out of custody defendants, 9 witnesses, court personnel, judicial officers, and others, courts must conduct 10 judicial criminal proceedings and court operations as follows: 11 12

(1) Courts may require that judicial criminal proceedings and court operations be 13 conducted remotely. 14 15

(2) In criminal proceedings, courts must receive the consent of the defendant to 16 conduct the proceeding remotely and otherwise comply with emergency rule 17 5. Notwithstanding Penal Code sections 865 and 977 or any other law, the 18 court may conduct any criminal proceeding remotely. As used in this rule, 19 “consent of the defendant” means that the consent of the defendant is 20 required only for the waiver of the defendant’s appearance as provided in 21 emergency rule 5. For good cause shown, the court may require any witness 22 to personally appear in a particular proceeding. 23 24

(3) Conducting criminal proceedings remotely includes, but is not limited to, the 25 use of video, audio, and telephonic means for remote appearances; the 26 electronic exchange and authentication of documentary evidence; e-filing and 27 e-service; the use of remote interpreting; and the use of remote reporting and 28 electronic recording to make the official record of an action or proceeding. 29 30 (Subd (

a) amended effective January 1, 2022.) 31 32 (

b) Sunset of rule 33 34 This rule will remain in effect until 90 days after the Governor declares that the 35 state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic is lifted, or until amended or 36 repealed by the Judicial Council. 37 38 Emergency Rule 3 amended effective January 1, 2022. 39 40 Appendix I amended effective November 13, 2020; adopted effective April 6, 2020; previously 41 amended effective April 17, 2020, April 20, 2020, June 20, 2020, and August 13, 2020. 42

Standard 10.20. Court’s duty to prohibit prevent bias 1 2 (

a) General Statement of purpose 3 The California judicial branch is committed to ensuring the integrity and 4 impartiality of the judicial system and to court interactions free of bias and the 5 appearance of bias. Consistent with this commitment, each court should work 6 within its community to improve dialogue and engagement with members of 7 various cultures, backgrounds, and groups to learn, understand, and appreciate the 8 unique qualities and needs of each group. 9 10 (Subd (

a) amended effective January 1, 2022; previously amended effective January 1, 11 1994, January 1, 1998, and January 1, 2007.) 12 13 (

b) Duty to ensure integrity and impartiality of the judicial system 14 15 Each court, its judicial officers, and its employees have the duty to preserve ensure 16 the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system, each judge should:. 17 18

(1) Ensure fairness 19 20 Ensure that courtroom proceedings are conducted in a manner that is fair and 21 impartial to all of the participants. 22 23 (2)

(1) Refrain Refrain Refrain from and prohibit prevent biased conduct 24 25 In all courtroom proceedings court interactions, each court, its judicial 26 officers, and its employees should refrain from engaging in conduct and 27 prohibit should take action to prevent others from engaging in conduct that 28 exhibits bias, including but not limited to bias based on age, ancestry, color, 29 ethnicity, disability, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic 30 information, marital status, medical condition, military or veteran status, 31 national origin, physical or mental disability, political affiliation, race, 32 religion, sex, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and any 33 other classification protected by federal or state law, including Government 34 Code

section 12940(

a) and Code of Judicial Ethics, canon 3(B)(5), whether 35 that bias is directed toward counsel, court personnel staff, witnesses, parties, 36 jurors, or any other participants person. The court, judicial officers, and court 37 employees may consider such classifications only if necessary or relevant to 38 the proper exercise of their adjudicatory or administrative functions. 39 40

(2) Ensure fairness 41 42

Each judicial officer should ensure that courtroom interactions are conducted 1 in a manner that is fair and impartial to all persons. 2 3

(3) Ensure unbiased decisions 4 5 Each judicial officer should ensure that all orders, rulings, and decisions are 6 based on the sound exercise of judicial discretion and the balancing of 7 competing rights and interests and are not influenced by stereotypes or 8 biases. 9 10 (Subd (

b) adopted effective January 1, 2022.) 11 12 (b)(

c) Creation of local or regional committees on bias 13 14 Each court should establish a local committee with local bar associations to assist 15 in maintaining a courtroom environment free of bias or the appearance of bias. 16 Courts within one or more counties may choose to form a single committee. To 17 assist in providing court interactions free of bias and the appearance of bias, courts 18 should collaborate with local bar associations to establish a local or regional 19 committee. Trial courts may choose to form a regional committee.

Appellate courts 20 may choose to form separate or joint appellate court committees or join a trial court 21 committee or regional committee formed by or composed of trial courts within the 22 appellate courts’ districts. The local Each committee should: 23 24

(1) Be composed of representative members of the court community, including 25 but not limited to judges judicial officers, lawyers, court administrators, and 26 representative and individuals who interact with the court and reflect and 27 represent the diverse and various needs and viewpoints of court users from 28 minority, women’s, and gay and lesbian bar associations and from 29 organizations that represent persons with disabilities; 30 31

(2) Sponsor or support educational programs designed to eliminate unconscious 32 and explicit biases within the court and legal communities, including but not 33 limited to bias based on disability, gender, race, religion, ethnicity, and 34 sexual orientation; and. Education is critical to developing an awareness of 35 the origins of bias and the impact of bias on individuals, culture, and society. 36 Education should include: 37 38 (

A) Information as to bias based on the protected classifications listed in 39 (b)(1); 40 41 (

B) Information regarding how unconscious and explicit bias es based on 42 these classifications develop, how to recognize unconscious and 43

explicit biases, and how to address and eliminate unconscious and 1 explicit biases; and 2 3 (

C) Other topics on bias relevant to the local community informed by the 4 committee’s independent assessment of the unique educational needs in 5 that community. 6 7

(3) Develop and maintain an informal procedure for receiving complaints 8 relating to bias in the courtroom, including but not limited to bias based on 9 disability, gender, race, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Engage in 10 regular outreach to the local community to learn about issues of importance 11 to court users. Specifically, committee members should be encouraged to: 12 13 (

A) Inform local community groups regarding the committee’s activities; 14 and 15 16 (

B) Seek information from the local community regarding concerns as to 17 bias in court interactions and how the court can address those concerns. 18 19 (Subd (

c) amended and relettered effective Janaury 1, 2022; adopted as Subd (

b) effective 20 January 1, 1994; previously amended effective January 1, 1998, and January 1, 2007.) 21 22 23 (c)(

d) Minimum components of a complaint procedure Providing information regarding 24 complaint procedures 25 26 An informal complaint procedure developed and maintained by a local committee 27 on bias should: 28 29

(1) Contain a provision specifying that the intent of the procedure is to educate 30 with the purpose of ameliorating the problem rather than disciplining the 31 person who is the subject of the complaint; 32 33

(2) Accommodate local needs and allow for local flexibility; 34 35

(3) Apply to all participants in courtroom proceedings; 36 37

(4) Apply only to complaints as to which the identity of the complainant is 38 known; 39 40

(5) To the extent possible and unless disclosure is required by law, protect the 41 confidentiality of the complainant, the person who is the subject of the 42 complaint, and other interested persons; 43

(6) Relate to incidents of behavior or conduct occurring in courtroom 2 proceedings; 3 4

(7) Apply to incidents of bias whether they relate to race, sex, religion, national 5 origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status; 6 7

(8) Contain a provision that exempts activities constituting legitimate advocacy 8 when matters of race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual 9 orientation, or socioeconomic status are relevant to issues in the courtroom 10 proceeding; 11 12

(9) Focus on incidents that do not warrant discipline but that should be corrected; 13 14

(10) With respect to those incidents that if substantiated would warrant discipline, 15 advise the complaining party of the appropriate disciplinary authority; 16 17

(11) Contain a provision specifying that nothing in the procedure in any way 18 limits the ability of any person to submit a complaint of misconduct to the 19 appropriate disciplinary body; and 20 21

(12) To the extent possible and unless disclosure is required by law, prohibit 22 retention of written records of complaints received but permit collection of 23 data on types of complaints or underlying anecdotes that might be useful in 24 educational programs. 25 26 Each court should effectively communicate to its court users regarding existing 27 procedures to submit complaints of bias in court interactions based on protected 28 classifications, as listed in (b)(1).

This should include information regarding how to 29 submit complaints about court employees directly to the court and how to submit 30 complaints about judicial officers either directly to the court or to the Commission 31 on Judicial Performance. Possible methods of communication include providing 32 this information on the court website, including the information in the court’s local 33 rules, displaying the information in courthouses, or any other similar method to 34 ensure that courts are providing complaint procedure information to court users in a 35 meaningful and accessible manner. 36 37 (Subd (

d) amended and relettered effective January 1, 2022; adopted as Subd (

c) effective 38 January 1, 1994; previously amended effective January 1, 2007.) 39 40 (d)(

e) Application of local rules 41 42

The existence of the local committee, and its purpose, and the features of the 1 informal complaint procedure should be memorialized in the applicable local rules 2 of court. 3 4 (Subd (

e) amended and relettered effective January 1, 2022; adopted as Subd (

d) effective 5 January 1, 1994; previously amended effective January 1, 2007.) 6 7 (

f) Implementation 8 9 All courts should implement the recommendations of this standard as soon as 10 possible. 11 12 (Subd (

f) adopted effective January 1, 2022.) 13 14 Standard 10.20 amended effective January 1, 2022; adopted as

sec. 1 effective January 1, 1987; 15 previously amended effective January 1, 1994, and January 1, 1998; amended and renumbered 16 effective January 1, 2007. 17 18 Advisory Committee Comment 19 20 Subdivision (b). An earlier version of this standard referred to the “court’s duty to prohibit bias.” 21 The word “prohibit” has been replaced with “prevent” in the title of the standard and in 22 subdivision (b), such that the standard now asks courts, judicial officers, and court employees to 23 take actions to prevent bias rather than prohibit bias.

This change reflects a more comprehensive 24 approach in how courts are to combat bias, focusing on understanding the many forms, causes, 25 and impacts of bias rather than simply forbidding it.

Preventing bias may include, for example, 26 prohibiting bias; encouraging judicial officers, employees, and court users to report bias; being 27 open to discussing and learning from real misunderstandings and instances of unconscious bias; 28 and focusing on robust education regarding how unconscious and explicit biases develop, how to 29 recognize them, and how to address and eliminate bias. 30 The judicial officer duties stated in this subdivision are consistent with the California Code of 31 Judicial Ethics, which addresses judicial officer responsibilities for performing judicial duties 32 without bias, prejudice, or harassment (canon 3(B)(5)); for requiring attorneys in proceedings 33 before the judicial officer to refrain from manifesting bias, prejudice, or harassment (canon 34 3(B)(6)); for discharging judicial administrative duties without bias or prejudice (canon 3(C)(1)); 35 and for requiring staff and court personnel under the judicial officer’s control to refrain from 36 manifesting bias, prejudice, or harassment in the performance of their duties (canon 3(C)(3)). 37 An earlier version of this standard applied solely to judges and referred to “courtroom 38 proceedings.” “Judge” has been expanded to “judicial officers,” which includes all judges as 39 defined by California Rules of Court, rule 1.6, and all appellate and Supreme Court justices.

The 40 expanded phrase broadly covers any judge, justice, subordinate judicial officer, or temporary 41 judge who might conduct a courtroom proceeding. Additionally, in subdivision (b)(1), 42

“courtroom proceedings” has been changed to “court interactions” to expand the scope of 1 proceedings and actions covered by this standard to include not only proceedings occurring in 2 courtrooms but also interactions in other areas of the court, including in the clerk’s office and at 3 public counters. 4 Subdivision (d). An earlier version of this standard encouraged local bias committees to create 5 informal complaint procedures for court users and members of the public to submit complaints 6 regarding bias in court proceedings.

The recommendation that local bias committees create 7 informal complaint procedures has been eliminated in large part because of the many existing and 8 updated avenues for making complaints regarding bias in court interactions, and to avoid creating 9 conflicts between those procedures. For example, the authority and procedures for addressing 10 complaints concerning judicial officers and subordinate judicial officers are outlined in rules 11 10.603 and 10.703 of the California Rules of Court and canon 3(

D) of the California Code of 12 Judicial Ethics. Similarly, rules 10.351 and 10.610 of the California Rules of Court, as well as 13 Government Code

section 71650 et seq., include authority and complaint resolution processes for 14 addressing complaints against court employees.

In practice, courts have developed robust 15 procedures for addressing such complaints against judicial officers, subordinate judicial officers, 16 and court employees, and the Commission on Judicial Performance provides detailed information 17 on its website at cjp.ca.gov about how to file complaints and the procedures it employs for 18 addressing such complaints. 19 In addition to the concerns regarding duplicative and conflicting complaint procedures, the 20 recommendation that local bias committees adopt informal complaint procedures created 21 additional concerns.

For example, the earlier version of the standard envisioned using informal 22 complaint procedures to resolve incidents that do not warrant formal discipline; however, it is 23 often difficult to determine at the outset if a complaint is disciplinary in nature or can be 24 ameliorated by education. Other due process concerns were raised that local committees were not 25 necessarily resourced to make these determinations, and may not have had the expertise to 26 investigate and resolve these complaints.

Additional concerns were raised that having local 27 committees oversee complaints against judicial officers and court employees created privacy and 28 confidentiality concerns for both complainants and respondents because any inquiry by a local 29 bias committee would be known and resolved by a group of local attorneys, judicial officers, and 30 other committee members who would necessarily need to know the particular facts of the 31 complaint, thereby significantly expanding the number of local individuals who were aware of the 32 existence or details of the complaint.

Ethical concerns were also raised for judicial officers who 33 were members of the local bias committees because judicial officers who become aware of 34 complaints against other judicial officers may have ethical obligations that require them to take 35 appropriate corrective action, which may include reporting the information to the presiding judge 36 or justice or the Commission on Judicial Performance.

Finally, there were concerns that local bias 37 committee complaint procedures would conflict with existing personnel policies and labor 38 relations agreements if the local committee attempted to resolve complaints against court 39 employees outside of the procedures outlined in these policy documents. 40 This standard does not prevent courts and local or regional bias committees from choosing to 41 create informal complaint resolution procedures. Some local bias committees have established 42

effective informal complaint resolution procedures for resolving complaints against judicial 1 officers, and each local court and local or regional bias committee should work to find solutions 2 that work best for that local community. If so, they should fully consider how best to address the 3 above concerns.

Because of the specific labor and employment laws governing courts and court 4 employees, including the direction provided in rule 10.351 of the California Rules of Court, and 5 the fact that courts already have personnel policies and memorandums of understanding that 6 govern complaints against court employees, having local or regional bias committees resolve 7 complaints against court employees is not recommended. 8 9 Rule 10.492. Temporary extension and pro rata reduction of judicial branch 10 education requirements 11 12 (

a) Application 13 14 This rule applies to the requirements and expectations in the California Rules of 15 Court relating to judicial branch education, except rule 10.491 on minimum 16 education requirements for Judicial Council employees. 17 18 (

b) Definitions 19 20 As used in this rule: 21 22 (1) “Content- based education requirement” means a requirement or expectation 23 of: 24 25 (

A) Attendance at any specific program; 26 27 (

B) A course of study on any specific topic or topics; or 28 29 (

C) A course of study limited to a specific delivery method, such as 30 traditional (live, face-to-face) education. 31 32 (2) “Hours- based education requirement” means a requirement or expectation of 33 a specified number of hours of education to be completed within a specified 34 time period. 35 36 (

c) Content-based education requirement 37 38

(1) Notwithstanding any other rule, any deadline for completion of a content- 39 based education requirement or expectation, except for the deadline for the B. 40 E. Witkin Judicial College, is extended for 12 months from that deadline, 41

even if the deadline has passed. 1 2

(2) The deadline for completion of the B. E. Witkin Judicial College is extended 3 for 30 months from the deadline specified in rule 10.462(c)(1)(C), even if the 4 deadline has passed. 5 6 (Subd (

c) amended effective January 1, 2022.) 7 8 (

d) Hours-based education requirement 9 10 Notwithstanding any other rule, the months of April 2020 through March 2021 are 11 excluded from the education cycles in which those months fall, and the number of 12 hours of education to complete hours-based education requirements or expectations 13 is prorated accordingly. 14 15 (

e) Sunset 16 17 This rule remains in effect through December 31, 20224, or until amended or 18 repealed. 19 20 (Subd (

e) amended effective January 1, 2022.) 21 22 Rule 10.492 amended effective January 1, 2022; adopted January 1, 2021. 23 24 25 Advisory Committee Comment 26 27 Various rules in title 10,

chapter 7, of the California Rules of Court authorize, for good cause, the 28 granting of an extension of time to complete content-based and hours-based education 29 requirements and expectations. Nothing in this rule modifies that authority. 30 31 Nothing in this rule alters education requirements and expectations outside the California Rules 32 of Court, including education requirements mandated by statute or regulation (e.g., Welf. & Inst. 33 Code, § 304.7) or required by Judicial Council policy (e.g., the Qualifying Ethics Program and 34 the Temporary Assigned Judges Program). 35 36 Subdivision (c).

This subdivision applies to all rules of court containing content-based education 37 requirements. Below are examples of this subdivision in practice. 38 39 Rule 10.462(c)(1) contains education requirements for new trial court judges and subordinate 40 judicial officers. Based on the date on which individuals took their oath of office, rule 41 10.462(c)(1) allows judges six months within which to attend the New Judge Orientation (NJO) 42

program, one year within which to attend an orientation course in their primary assignment, and 1 two years within which to attend the B. E. Witkin Judicial College of California. 2 3 Under rule 10.462(c)(1), a judge who took the oath of office on January 1, 2020, is required to 4 complete these programs by June 30, 2020 (NJO), December 31, 2020 (primary assignment 5 orientation), and December 31, 2021 (judicial college), respectively. With the 12-month 6 extension under rule 10.492(c)(1), this same judge now has to complete NJO by June 30, 2021, 7 and a primary assignment orientation by, December 31, 2021.

With the 30-month extension under 8 rule 10.492(c)(2), the same judge must now complete the judicial college by June 30, 2024. 9 10 As another example of the extensions under rule 10.492(c), a judge who took the oath of office on 11 December 1, 2018, needs to complete NJO by May 31, 2020 (within 18 months), a primary 12 assignment orientation by November 30, 2020 (within two years), and the judicial college by May 13 31, 2023 (within 4.5 years). 14 15 Using a different rule as an example, rule 10.478(b)(1) requires court investigators to complete 18 16 hours of education on specified topics within 1 year of their start date.

Rule 10.492(

c) allows a 17 court investigator up to 2 years to complete this education. 18 19 Subdivision (d). This subdivision applies to all rules of court containing hours-based education 20 requirements. Below are examples of this subdivision in practice. 21 22 Rule 10.461(c)(1) contains education requirements for Supreme Court and Court of Appeal 23 justices. Each justice must complete 30 hours of judicial education every three years. 24 25 Under rule 10.492(d), a justice’s hours requirements are prorated for the three-year education 26 cycle that runs from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2021.

For example, justices who 27 were confirmed for appointment before January 1, 2019, must complete 20 hours of education by 28 December 31, 2021. 29 30 Education hours requirements for justices who were confirmed for appointment on or after 31 January 1, 2019, would be prorated by rule 10.492(

d) and prorated additionally based on the 32 number of years remaining in the three-year educational cycle. For example, a justice confirmed 33 for appointment on October 1, 2020, ordinarily has 10 hours of hours-based education to 34 complete for the last year of the three-year cycle. Under rule 10.492(d), the months of January 35 2021 through March 2021 would be excluded, and the justice would have 7.5 hours rather than 10 36 hours of hours-based education to complete. 37 38 As an additional example, rule 10.474(c)(2) requires 8 hours of continuing education every two 39 years for nonmanagement court staff. For a court employee hired on or before January 1, 2020, 40 rule 10.492(

d) prorates the number of hours of education required for the cycle that runs from 41 January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2021. The number of hours required would be prorated 42

for 4 quarters— April 1, 2020, through March 31, 2021— and would result in a reduced hours-1 based requirement of 4 hours. 2 3