对法官的行为伦理规范准则比较重要的有三种。首先是，美国法曹协会于1990年8月7日为法官订出类似律师模范职业伦理法规的规范，称为法官行为规范法 (The Model Code of Judicial Conduct)[72]
法官行为法的版本是在1990年编写完成，较早的版本是1972年，没有太大的差别，各州在推动采用的速度仍然相当缓慢。各州多采用了法官行为规范法1972年的版本，但各州在实行时多会有所编修。
法官行为规范法规范了法官的日常生活与在法院行为层面。要求法官应避免在其所掌司法职务有关事项出现不适当与不合宜的场合[73]。法官的审判义务优先于法官其它的职务[74]。法官必须审慎处理所有超越审判职务的活动(extra-judicial activities)以使得大众不会对法官的适任资格产生怀疑，并因此质疑法官审判的公平性(cost doubt on the judge''s capacity to act impartially as a judge)，贬损司法官的职位；或干预司法职务的不适当行使[75]。全职的法官不得在外为法律执业行为[76]。
1990年版的法官行为规范法(但在1972年版的则无)禁止法官加入某些组织，如俱乐部，因类似具有引起对阶级、性别、宗教或原始祖籍产生反感等的团体组织。同样的，如果一个组织任意排除女性、少数族群或其它类似特征构成歧视，法官亦不得参与此类团体[77]。
美国宪法特别关注于法庭上对双方诉讼当事人的公平与平等对待。在1990年版的法官行为规范法，要求法官应要求参与诉讼程序的律师在法官面前的语言与行为应自我节制，避免其有出于种族、性别、宗教、国籍、年龄、身心障碍、性倾向、社会经济阶级的偏颇或带有成见的言语及行为的出现，以用来对抗证人、辩护人、对造当事人或其它参与诉讼之人等[78]。
美国各州的检察官与联邦的检察官亦都需有律师资格才能适任，检察官亦同法官一样皆需加入所在的法曹协会。由于检察官具有二种身份；州或联邦公务人员(offices)，和政府律师(government attorney)[79]。政府律师有二个委托人，一个是州政府与政府职员(state officers)，另一个是州民(the people of the public interest)[80]，依传统的律师与委托人关系检察官与委托人，尤其是政府官员[81]仍会涉及利益冲突。因此，各州对失职之检察官除了行政惩罚，刑事追究外，并有各州法曹协会对其违反行为依法曹伦理规范予以惩戒。[82]
就像律师因违反律师职业伦理受惩戒一样，法官也受伦理规范的规范。法官违反伦理规范也有一定之惩戒范围。轻则受个人惩戒或申戒；重则免除其法官一职。介于中间的处罚则会遭到公开谴责，以及在一定期间内暂停其法官职务。
一般来说，是否要惩戒法官是由州内其它法官共同做出决定。[83]然而，由于联邦法官是终身职，除非是被国会弹劾，其它联邦法官也不能如州法官（非终身职），可以共同对其他联邦法官做出免职或停职的决定。但是，联邦法官可遭受公谴责。
美国规范法官行为的途径是透过立法法律的规范。联邦法官行为规范法就是很好的例子。联邦法规规定法官在某些情况下，认定法官有利益冲突而不适任该职位时[84]。这些不适任的情状规定，在许多州法内也有类似的法官行为规范。
如果法官对某一族群有个人的偏见或既定成见者，该名法官即为不适任[85]。但是，即使法官，事实上，是完全地没有偏颇，法官也可能并不适任，如果法官就某特定事项，能够可以明显 (appearance) 合理、客观与公平地发现该法官对案件有利益存在的问题，则该法官即不适任。
例如说，如果某法官或法官的某些近亲、亲属，就争议的法律主体或诉讼程序的一方存有金钱上的利益，或者存在其它可能实质影响到诉讼结果的利益存在，就该案该名法官即不适任[86]。同样地，法官在就任前，法官自己或其亲近家属在私人机构从事该事项，就该案这位法官也不适任[87]。另外，法官在就任前，已是政府雇员，并且也以政府雇员的资格从事该事务，此法官就该案也是不适任[88]。
除了伦理规范和法律之外，联邦
宪法的正当法律程序条款 (Due Process Clause) 也可禁止法官主持审判。譬如，当州最高法院的法官在审理案件时，所做出的投票判决 (cast deciding vote) (及撰写意见书)的同时，法官自己的案件也同时依附在同样的争议。法官所写的判决意见书会使得法官自己的案件获得其所偏好的结果。
为此，联邦最高法院认定法官在这审判过程中的参与行为，违反了正当法律程序条款，不论该名法官做出的投票是否因此影响，并有利其自己的案件。
联邦
宪法认为，虽然法官对案件并无实际上的偏见存在，法官有时可能被禁止主持审判，法官亦尽其所能地为两造的当事人提供公平衡量正义的天秤。法官以最好的方式发挥其最佳审判功能，应以符合客观的正义[89]。
十五、结论
美国律师业在未来仍将是一门竞争日趋白热化的行业 (The Future: More Competition) 美国律师业面对的竞争是来自国内外四面八方，并且有升高的趋势。最明显的是，美国律师人口的稳定成长与计算机及信息传播技术的发达，使得美国律师业竞争者更趋热化。
外国的法律事务所逐渐视美国法律市场为一庞大的客源。很多外国律师事务所已计划在美国开设分公司，并且聘雇美国律师为美国当地及海外客户提供美国法律之咨询。
竞争压力的增加使得法律专业人员(或者律师的助理)必须争取更多业务以求收支平衡，譬如撰写简单的遗嘱以及离婚协议书等。这也正是许多美国律师赖以维生的来源。另外，与投资银行及会计师事务所合作提供客户法律服务已成为其法律业务的一部分，律师也得以从中获得利益。
美国律师长久以来因控制律师人数供给一方(supply side)而受惠。美国有些州限制非拥有律师资格的人无法在法律界执业，即只有律师才能够执业而受到保障。但是计算机及传播技术的进步而盛行的在线法律服务，以及法律服务业的全球化发展趋势，打破这些传统地域藩篱。
即使这些时势的发展并不会使得律师保护效力渐失，但是在法律市场里，保护实际的重要性已逐渐消退中。因此可预见的未来，美国律师业仍将是一门竞争性高的行业。
【注释】*作者系铭传大学法律系专任副教授
︰Darryl Van Duch, Minority GCs are Few, Far Between: Only 10 Fortune 500 Firms Have Minority General Counsel,22 National Law Journal 8, AI (Oct, 1999)
︰参阅I Alexis De Tocquevile, Democracy in America 288(1835-1840)
︰翁岳生，法律人的职业伦理攸关司法改革的成败，推荐序收录于Brain Kennedy着，郭乃嘉译，美国法律伦理（American Legal Ethics Vi（2005）.
︰Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985).
︰目前并不是每个州都用考试来产生律师，有的州不用考试，祇要进入该州之法学院，而且获得一定毕业学分之法学院毕业生，就可以获得律师执照，例如威斯康星州立大学法学院(Wisconsin University)
：参阅Comparative Guide to Bar Admission Requirements 2002 (ABA Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar and the National Committee of Bar Examiners
︰Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman, 487 U.S. 59 (1988)； Goldfarb v. Supreme Court of Virginia, 766 F.2d 859 (4th Cir.), cert. Denied, 474 U.S. 1986 (1985).
︰指美国联邦
宪法第
四条第二款和
宪法修正案第
十四条，规定每一州公民享有各州的一切特权与豁免，并且无论如何州均不得制定或实施剥夺美国合众国公民
宪法上所赋予特权与豁免的特权。
︰ Law Students Civil Rights Research Council v. Wadmond, 401 U.S. 154 (1971).
︰参阅 Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements (1993-94),由美国法曹协会法学教育委员会及执业申请委员会 (American Bar Association, Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar) 和全美律师考试协会合作出版 (the National Conference of Bar Examination)。 有兴趣者可以写信向美国法曹协会免费索取：索取单位为ABA Order Fulfillment Department，地址 750 N. Lakeshore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60611, U.S.A.
︰In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717 (1973).
︰评述美国法曹协会(ABA)出版的法律人员行为模范法规的主要书籍有以下三本: The Model Rules of Professional Conduct (以下简称”RPC”); The Model Code of Professional Responsibility; 和The Model Code of Judicial Conduct。
︰美国法曹协会出版的职业伦理规范是以亚拉巴马州律师公会于1887年所订定的「伦理准则」（Code of Ethic ）为范本。
︰Debrach, L.Rhode & David Luban, Legal Ethics 27 (1992).
：Stephens v. White,2 Va. 2003(1796)。
：Budd v. Nixen,6 Cal, 3d 195,200(1971)。
︰Stanley v. Richmond, 35 Cal. App, 4th 1g(1995)。
：参阅Jeffrey M. Smith & Ronald E. Mallen, Preventing Legal Malpractice 130
(2nd ed.,1996)..
：Stephen N Subrin, Fishing Expeditions Allowed:Historical Background of the 1938 Federal Dixcovery
Rules,39Boston College Law Review.691(1998)
︰Rule 11(b)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation).
︰Rule 11(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (…warranted by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law).
︰Rule 11(b)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,(… have evidentiary support or arelikely to have support after investigation).
︰Rule 11(b)(4), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,(…have evidentiary support or are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief).
：Robert Gilbert Johnston and Sara Lufrano, The Adversary System As A Means of Seeking Truth and Justice, 35 John Marshall Law Review 147, 155 (Winter, 2002).
︰McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970).
︰Ibid. at 771, n.14 Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980).
︰Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
：参阅 Louis S. Rulli, Access to Justice and Civil Forfeiture Reform: Providing Lawyers for the Poor and Recapturing Forfeited Assets for Impoverished Communities, 17 Yale Law & Policy Review 507, 510 (1998).
︰Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 at 687 (1984).
︰同上， at 688.
︰同上，本段原文为‘Representation of a criminal defendant entails certain basic duties.Counsel''s function is to assist the defendant, and hence counsel owes the client a duty of loyalty, a duty to avoid conflicts of interest. From counsel''s function as assistant to the defendant derive the overarching duty to advocate the defendant''s cause and the more particular duties to consult with the defendant on important decisions and to keep the defendant informed of important developments in the course of the prosecution.Counsel also has a duty to bring to bear such skill and knowledge as will render the trial a reliable adversarial testing process.”
︰同上，at 693. (there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel''s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.)
︰Arthur B. Lady, Resolving Conflicts of Duty in Fiduciary Relationships, 54 AmericanUniversity Law Review 75, 80 (Oct. 2004).
︰参阅RPC Rule 1.8(c), (Federal criminal statues prohibit former government employees (including lawyers) from representing clients on matter that they handled‘personally and substantially’while in government or over which they had‘official responsibility’within one year before leaving government. Certain former government employees are disabled for designate period of time (generally one year) from representing clients on any matter before their former agencies).
︰RPC Rule 1.8(a).
：参阅Kevin Miller, Lawyers as Venture Capitalists: An Economic Analysis of Law Firms That Invest in Their Clients, 13 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 435, 438(Summer, 2000).
：参阅 Mark S. DesNoyer, In Through The Out-Door: Conflicts of Interest in Private –to-Public Service, Revolving Door Statutes, and Ethical Considerations, 5 Texas Tech Journal of Texas Administrative Law 113, 125 (Spring, 2004).
︰RPC Rule 1.11.
：参阅Robert H. Mundheim, Conflict of Interest and the Former Government Employee: Rethinking the Revolving Door, 14 Creighton Law Review, 707, 708 (1981).
：参阅Phillip A. Lacovara, Restricting the Private Law Practice of Former Government Lawyers, 20 Ariz. L. Rev. 369, 373 (1978).
︰Upjohn Co. V. United states, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981).
︰Charles W. Wolfrane, Modern Logal Ethies 242(1986).
︰People ex rel. Salazer V. Davidson, 79 P. 3d 1221 (Colo, 2006)(NO. 035A133)
︰Upjohn Co v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981).
︰RPC Rule 1.6(b)(1).… (to prevent the client from committing a criminal act that the lawyer believes is likely to result in imminent death or substantial bodily harm.)
︰参阅RPC Rule 1.6(b)(2),…(to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer''s representation of the client.’
︰参阅 RPC Rule 3.3(a) and (b).
：参阅Daniel Markovits, Further Thoughts about Legal Ethics from the Lawyer''s Point of View, 2004 Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 85, 96 (Winter, 2004)
︰Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
︰Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986).（法院主张州法加重被告律师去发现被告是否有做伪证没有违反刑事被告获得实质有效辩护人协助的权利）
：参阅Eric C. Freeby, Altheimer Symposium; Education Funding at The Crossroads; Note: Ethnics and Professional Responsibility --Contingency Fees--An Attorney’s Right of Recocery When Discharhed from A Continginget Fee Contact in Arkansas. Salmon v. Atkinson, 355 Ark. 325, 137 S.W.3d 383 (2003), 27 U. Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 169, 199 (Fall, 2004).
：参阅 Lua Kamal Yuille, Note: No One''s Perfect (Not Even Close): Reevaluating Access to Justice in the United States and Western Europe, 42 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 863, 920 (2004).
︰参阅William B. Rubenstein, Symposium article; On What A "Private Attorney General" Is- And Why It Matters, 57, Vanderbilt Law Review, 2129, 2167 (Nov. 2004)
︰RPC Rule 1.13(a).
：参阅J.D. Donnel, The Corporate Counsel: A Role Study 27-28 (1970).
：RPC Rule 1.13 (b) (…is likely to result in substantial in jury to the organization).
︰RPC Rule 1.13 (… the matter to higher authority in the organization, including, if warranted by the seriousness of the matter, referral to the highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization as determined by applicable law).
︰RPC Rule 1.13(b), (the matter to higher authority in the organization, including, if warranted by the seriousness of the matter, referral to the highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization as determined by applicable law)
︰Metro-Golduyn-Mayer, Inc, V. Trocinda Corp, 36 Cal, App, 3d 692(1995).
：参阅 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. Symposium Lawyer Advertising : Advertising and Intermediaries in Provision of Legal Services: Bates in Retrospect and Prospect, 37 Arizona State Law Journal 307, 325（Summer, 2005）.
︰Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
：专门协助无家流浪汉法律扶助机构、例如华盛顿地区的法律扶助 (the Washington Clinic for the Homeless).
︰Feature Lawyer Advertising Rules: Final Changes and Comment to the Texas Disciplinany Rules of Professional Conduct Part VII, Texas Business Journal 398 (May 2005).
︰Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466 (1988).
︰Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S.626(1985).
︰Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618, 622(1995).
︰Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 U.S. 447(1978).
︰Edenfield v. Fane, 113 S. Ct. 1792 (1993). (会计师透过电话邀约客户，是合宪的权利)
︰Trevor W. Morrison, Private Attorneys General and the First Amendment 13 MichiganLaw Review, 589, 618 (Feb. 2005).
︰In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978)；N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963).
︰United Transportation Union v. State Bar of Michigan, 401 U.S. 576 at 585 (1971). (Held collective activity undertaken to obtain meaningful access to the courts is a fundamental right within the protection of the First Amendment.）
︰法官行为规范法 (The Model Code of Judicial Conduct ) 并于1997、1999和2003做过部份修改。
︰ Code of Judicial Conduct (1990), Canon 2 (CJC Canon).
︰ CJC Canon 3(A). （take precedence over all the judge''s other activities）
︰CJC Canon 4(A). （interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties）
︰ CJC Canon 4(G).
︰ CJC Canon 2(C). （invidious discrimination on the basis of race ,sex, religion or national origin）
︰CJC Canon 3(D)(6). （take precedence over all the judge''s other activities’ require lawyers in proceedings before the judge to reftain from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, against parties, witness, counsel or others. ）
：参阅Joel D. Whitley, COMMENT: Protecting State Interests: Recognition of the State
︰Fred Zachatias, The Professional Discipline of Prosecutors, 79 North Carolina Law Review 721,725 (2001).
︰Justin G. David, State Attorneys General and the Client-Attorney Relationship Establishing the Power to Sue State Officers 35 (2003).
︰People ex rel, Salaar v. Davidso, 79 P. 3D 1221 (colo 2003) (NO. 03 SA147) (州检察官认为州政府所通过的法案，违反
宪法，因此，提起诉讼控诉州长与州国务卿违宪)。此一案子引起了州检察长是否可以起诉本为其法定委托人(州长与州国务卿)的诉讼)。
︰Jeffery Shaman, Steven Lubet & James Alfini, Judicial Conduct and Ethｉcs 159-160 (3rd 2000).
︰28 U.S.C.§455 (interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties).
︰ 28 U.S.C.§455(B)(1).(personal bias or prejudice concerning a party).
︰28.U.S.C.§455(b)(4).(a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.)
︰28.U.S.C.§455(b)(2).
︰28.U.S.C.§ 455(b)(3).
]︰Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813 at 825 (1986).(…may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scale of justice equally between contending parties. But to perform its high function in the best way,“justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.”)
