Also known as: ex parte contacts · ex-parte contact · ex-parte contacts · ex parte communication · ex-parte communication
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A communication between a judge and one party or lawyer concerning a pending or impending matter that occurs outside the presence of the other parties or their lawyers. The prohibition protects the fairness of adjudication by preventing one-sided influence on the decision maker. Limited exceptions allow such contacts for scheduling or administrative purposes when the judge reasonably believes no party gains an advantage and all parties receive prompt notice with an opportunity to respond.
Judge Harlan receives a call from counsel for plaintiff Elena Estrada asking to move a status conference because a key witness is unavailable. The judge confirms the new date after checking the calendar and ends the call without discussing any merits. The judge believes neither side gains an edge from the brief exchange and immediately emails both counsel the substance of the call along with a chance to object.
Defense counsel Edward Everett emails Judge Harlan to request a short continuance for a hearing because of a family emergency. The judge replies with a new date after confirming availability. The judge reasonably concludes that the purely logistical exchange gives neither party a procedural or tactical edge in the pending contract dispute.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Plaintiff counsel Elijah Edwards telephones Judge Harlan to report that a witness has fallen ill and asks to postpone trial one day. The judge grants the request during the call. Within hours the judge sends a written notice to defense counsel Edgar Evers summarizing the conversation and inviting any response before finalizing the new schedule.
An ex parte contact violates the rules when it concerns a pending or impending matter and occurs outside the presence of all parties without satisfying an exception. The core prohibition bars a judge from initiating, permitting, or considering such communications to preserve impartiality.
Supporting sources
The communication must be limited to scheduling, administrative, or emergency purposes that do not address substantive matters. The judge must reasonably believe no party gains an advantage and must promptly notify all other parties of the substance while giving them an opportunity to respond.
Supporting sources
Yes. A judge who inadvertently receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing on the substance of a matter must promptly notify the parties of its substance and provide them an opportunity to respond.
Supporting sources
Lawyers are separately prohibited from seeking to influence a judge by means prohibited by law, which includes arranging improper ex parte contacts or benefits that undermine impartiality in a pending matter.
Supporting sources