(C) Transparency International
This story was originally published by Transparency International and is unaltered.
 . . . . . . . . . .



Lobbying of the judiciary: Risks and mitigation measures [1]

[]

Date: 2025-12 

This Anti-Corruption Helpdesk brief was produced in response to a query from one of Transparency International’s national chapters. The Anti-Corruption Helpdesk is operated by Transparency International and funded by the European Union.

Query

Please provide an overview that indicates the risks of unregulated lobbying in the justice system, together with possible standards and best practices to mitigate these risks.

Summary

While various public and private actors engage in activities with the aim of influencing decisions made by the judiciary in favour of a specific cause or outcome, these can become distortive if marked by a lack of equal access, transparency or an imbalance of resources. This is seen especially in activities occurring outside of judicial proceedings and not covered by procedural law, such as the provision of career benefits and hospitality perks for judges and exerting influence over appointment processes. Promising mitigation approaches highlighted in the literature include extending lobbying regulation to the judiciary, clarifying conflict of interest and recusal rules, ensuring transparent appointments and strengthening disclosure regimes.

Main points

Judicial lobbying is done to influence decisions made by the judiciary in favour of a specific cause or outcome. These activities can become distortive if marked by a lack of equal access, transparency or an imbalance of resources.

Various formal channels exist through which public and private actors can have their interests represented, including the submission of amicus curiae. However, it is contested whether such activities qualify as lobbying when carried out in accordance with procedural law.

Lobbying is more clearly observable outside of judicial proceedings in, for example, the provision of career benefits and hospitality perks for judges and campaigns to exert influence over appointment processes.

These can result in direct influence over judges and create subtle expectations of reciprocity which still compromise impartiality.

Lobbying of the judiciary tends to be less clearly regulated than lobbying of the legislature, leaving integrity gaps across jurisdictions. Nevertheless, wider principles on judicial integrity upheld in international standards provide a strong starting point.

Promising mitigation strategies include lobbyist registries, transparent amicus brief rules, merit-based appointment processes, asset declarations and cooling-off periods for judges.

Authors

Maria Leonor Rodriguez Pratt





Reviewers

Gabriela Camacho, Caitlin Maslen, Jamie Bergin and Adam Foldes (TI)

Dieter Zinnbauer

Date

01/12/2025

Tags

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://knowledgehub.transparency.org/helpdesk/lobbying-of-the-judiciary-risks-and-mitigation-measures

Published and (C) by Transparency International
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/transparency/