g. Competence and Diligence (Canon VI)

COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE (CANON VI)

Concept

Competence concerns a judge’s ability to perform judicial work properly; diligence concerns the care and sustained attention with which that work is done. Canon VI requires both. A judge must be faithful to official duties and maintain the highest standard of professional competence and diligence. These standards serve the proper administration of justice, not merely the judge’s individual performance. (Art. VI, CJCA)¹ (Art. 1, CJCA)²

Governing provisions

Under the Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability (CJCA), competence is a continuing obligation. A judge must take reasonable steps to improve the knowledge, skills, and values needed for the proper and efficient performance of judicial duties, and must keep abreast of relevant developments in law, including international law and norms. Diligence requires the judge to put that competence to work in the faithful discharge of official duties. (Art. 5, CJCA)³ (Art. 1, CJCA)²

Requisites / Rules

• Professional readiness: The judge must maintain and improve the knowledge, skills, and values needed to perform judicial and administrative functions properly and efficiently. (Art. 5, CJCA)³
• Technological competence: The judge must be proficient in using technological tools that aid the discharge of those functions. Technology assists judicial work; it does not displace the judge’s responsibility for it. (Art. 5, CJCA)³
• Attention to duty: Even recreational social media use must not adversely affect the competent and diligent performance of judicial duties. (Art. 25, CJCA)⁴

Distinctions

Keeping current with the law and using technology are related but distinct aspects of competence. The first concerns the judge’s understanding of applicable legal authorities; the second concerns the ability to use tools that support adjudicative and administrative work. Neither excuses a failure to discharge official duties diligently. (Art. 5, CJCA)³ (Art. 1, CJCA)²

Key doctrines

Artificial intelligence is a narrower issue within technological competence. The CJCA permits a judge to use AI tools only to research relevant legal authorities and requires the judge to verify sources before citing them in a decision. The controlling point is personal judicial responsibility: a tool may assist research, but the judge remains accountable for the authorities relied upon. (Art. 5, CJCA)³

Bar tip

In a problem involving delayed work, outdated legal knowledge, or an unreliable AI citation, identify the duty at issue first: diligence in performing official work, continuing professional competence, or verification of AI-assisted research. A claim that technology supplied the answer does not remove the judge’s duty to verify the authority cited. (Art. 1, CJCA)² (Art. 5, CJCA)³