COURT ADMINISTRATORS CANNOT RELY ON THE ETHICAL STANDARDS OF OTHER PROFESSIONALS WHOSE RESPONSIBILITIES AND DAILY ACTIVITIES DIFFER FROM THOSE INVOLVED IN PURELY ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS. EXAMPLES OF SITUATIONS IN WHICH COURT ADMINISTRATORS CLEARLY DID NOT MEET THE ETHICAL CHALLENGES OF THEIR POSITIONS ARE CITED. THE CANONS OF ETHICS CONSIDERED, BUT NOT ACCEPTED, BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRIAL COURT ADMINISTRATORS LACKED A STRUCTURED FORMAT. ETHICS SHOULD BE ANALYZED BY FOCUSING ON FOUR ASPECTS: PRINCIPLES; CODES; MATTERS OF PROFESSIONAL PROPRIETY AND APPROPRIATENESS; AND PROFESSIONAL/ADVISORY OPINIONS. BASIC PRINCIPLES PROVIDE A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK WITHIN WHICH TO STRUCTURE AND EVALUATE THE DISTINCTIVE MORAL STANDARDS OF THE PROFESSION, I.E., ITS CODE OF ETHICS. THE CODE ITSELF CONTAINS THE SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES THAT FLOW FROM THE PRINCIPLES. AT ANOTHER LEVEL, MATTERS OF PROFESSIONAL PROPRIETY AND APPROPRIATENESS AND PROFESSIONAL/ADVISORY OPINIONS IDENTIFY SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED AS UNDESIRABLE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PROFESSION. WITHIN THIS FORMAT, EIGHT CANONS FOR COURT ADMINISTRATORS ARE PROPOSED. THE CANONS ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING MATTERS: PRESERVING THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE COURTS, PROMOTING THE INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE COURTS, AVOIDING CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PERFORMING DUTIES EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY, ADVOCATING FOR IMPROVED COURT MANAGEMENT, ABSTAINING FROM PARTISAN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES THAT IMPAIR PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE, SAFEGUARDING THE SECURITY AND PRIVACY OF COURT RECORDS, AND MAINTAINING PRIMARY ALLEGIANCE TO THE PUBLIC, RATHER THAN TO THE ORGANIZATION. (LKM)