Permissibility of ex-parte communication for judges in the US
<p>Watching some legal movies it struck me as odd where judges are portrayed talking to one of the parties in the absence of the other (ex-parte communication). Say in New Zealand, this amounts to judicial misconduct (<a href="https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/4-About-the-judiciary/judicialconduct/20191112gjc.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Guidelines for Judicial Conduct</a> at [30]):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Communication between the judge and any party in the absence of the
other party to the case is not permissible, except in proceedings
properly heard <em>ex parte</em>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Some examples:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>In <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Time_to_Kill_(1996_film)" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>A Time to Kill</em></a>, the judge is once shown walking down the street friendly talking to the state attorney/prosecutor (Jake and Oliver see them while sitting in a cafe just before Ellen Roark arrives). In another scene, the judge invites Jake to his house to tell him that his application for change of venue is denied.</p>
</li>
<li><p>in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagged_Edge_(film)" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Jagged Edge</em></a>, Teddy just knocks on the Judge Carrigan's door and, although he says that he can't talk to her, she begs him and he lets her in. Funnily enough, they both pretend to be talking about a hypothetical case.</p>
</li>
<li><p>In <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Untouchables_(film)" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>The Untouchables</em></a>, Ness talks to the judge in his chambers, shows him a piece of paper where the jurors (as well as the judge himself) are listed to be on Capone's payroll, and persuades him to switch the jury.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Was/is it permissible for judges in the US to talk ex-parte like that? If yes, how come? If no, do the above scenes in the movies essentially portray judicial misconduct?</p>
<p>Related: <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/45676/ex-parte-communication-between-a-judge-and-prosecutor-ethical-breach-or-canon">Ex-parte communication between a Judge and Prosecutor - ethical breach or canon violation?</a></p>

<blockquote>
<p>Was/is it permissible for judges in the US to talk ex-parte like that?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No. <em>Ex parte</em> interactions of that sort are not allowed. See, for instance, <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/inohco20201218500" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Disciplinary Counsel v. Bachman</em>, 2020-Ohio-732 (Dec. 18, 2020)</a> and <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/inkyco20201217235" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Maze v. Judicial Conduct Commission</em>, 2019-SC-0691-RR (Dec. 17, 2020)</a>. An example of less recent decision but with a reporter citation number is <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/inmsco20200924274" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Comm'n on Judicial Performance v. Bozeman</em>, 302 So.3d 1217 (2020)</a>.</p>
<p>For situations of imminent risk of irreparable harm, procedural law provides for <em>ex parte</em> motions and <em>ex parte</em> petitions, such as <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R6ttMLiOesuzUME3F6A_rl_UVJETB75p/view" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this granted petition for Personal Protection Order</a>. See <a href="https://courts.michigan.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/rules/Documents/Michigan%20Court%20Rules.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">M[ichigan]CR 3.7003(G)</a>. But the scenarios you depict fall short of the necessity for which <em>ex parte</em> provisions are intended.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>do the above scenes in the movies essentially portray judicial misconduct?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes. A judge's house is inappropriate for communicating, let alone <em>ex parte</em>, his ruling (I am not knowledgeable of the films but my understanding of your description is that <em>that</em> judge made the ruling on the application). As for <em>The Untouchables</em>, any evidence of jurors' &amp; judges' conflict of interest and likely bias has to be filed in court and comply with procedural law so that all parties have an opportunity to litigate the matter.</p>

<p>The prohibition is primarily on the parties communicating <em>ex parte</em> with the judge. The point is to ban communications that one party may use to gain advantage in a case that the other party does not have access to.</p>
<p>The judge communicating to a party <em>ex parte</em> is not necessarily unethical, particularly if the information is available to the other party whether the other party was there or not. And strictly simultaneous communication with both parties (e.g. telling one party by phone that a court date has been set for a certain time and place and then immediately after calling another party by phone the same thing, because the judge doesn't have conference call technology) isn't required in communications from a judge to the parties.</p>
<p>There are also some trivial matters (e.g. communications re scheduling) that are exceptions to the general rule.</p>
<p>Also, there are exceptions to the rules against <em>ex parte</em> communication that sometimes allow a judge to make <em>in camera</em> (i.e. in the judge's chambers) reviewing of information from one side without sharing it with the other side.</p>
<p>For example, this is often done when there is a dispute over whether evidence in a jury proceeding is a privileged communication.</p>
<p>Also, the prohibition on <em>ex parte</em> communications is a prohibition on communications about a judge's official duties in a particular case. An <em>ex parte</em> communication with a judge about the weather or the Super Bowl or what hours the court is open, or what courtroom the judge works out of, is just fine, even though the rule may be stated in black and white terms that don't obviously recognize such a limitation.</p>
<p>I don't know either fictional work well enough to know if those are prohibited, but there are enough exceptions to the general rule that it isn't obviously true.</p>

united-states new-zealand judge misconduct