What is the current state of the law on communications between judges and law clerks?

It should be noted that if procedural due process prohibited conversations between judges in the context we have discussed, then conversations between judges and law clerks would also fall within the same prohibition. More importantly, as has been observed with any of the procedures discussed herein and even with a total prohibition on communications by the judge with other judges or court personnel, the enforcer of the prohibition and the person who would determine its violation is the judge himself. Additional safeguards or other safeguards would not change the fact that it is the hearing judge who must determine if he has a bias in fact. Since the hearing judge is the party who must make the determination of the existence of a bias in himself, all that any regulation can do is provide guidance for him. Therefore, the present safeguards provide sufficient guidance for the hearing judge to assess his own impartiality. There is a presumption in the honesty and integrity of our judicial officers. (Withrow v. Larkin (1975) 421 U.S. 35, 47, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 1464, 43 L.Ed.2d 712.)