Judicial Integrity: When Judges Break The Law

The public's faith in the judiciary is largely dependent on the belief that judges are fair and impartial. However, what happens when a judge breaks the law? In the United States, there is a process for filing a judicial conduct or disability complaint against a federal judge. The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, along with the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, govern this complaint process. Anyone can submit a complaint, and while thousands are submitted each year, most lack merit. If a complaint is found to be meritorious, a judge can be reprimanded or punished in some way by the Judicial Council for that judge's circuit. In more severe cases, higher-level judges can recommend articles of impeachment, which, if brought and convicted by Congress, can result in the removal of a federal judge from office.

What constitutes judicial misconduct?

Judicial misconduct can take many forms, and ethical standards are in place to address the actions, omissions, and relationships that damage public confidence in the judiciary. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges outlines several canons that judges are expected to abide by, and any violation of these standards can constitute judicial misconduct.

One of the essential canons is upholding the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Judges are expected to maintain and enforce high standards of conduct to preserve the integrity and independence of their role. This includes acting without fear or favour and complying with the law and the Code of Conduct. Violating these standards can erode public confidence in the judiciary and damage the system of government under law.

Another critical aspect of judicial conduct is avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Judges should not allow external influences, such as family or political relationships, to impact their conduct or judgment. They must also refrain from using their judicial position to advance their private interests or those of others. This includes refraining from testifying voluntarily as a character witness and avoiding membership in organisations that practice invidious discrimination.

Judges are also expected to perform their duties with fairness, impartiality, and diligence. They should be faithful to the law, maintain professional competence, and not be swayed by partisan interests or public clamor. Additionally, judges must treat litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and court personnel with respect and courtesy and should not engage in harassing, abusive, prejudiced, or biased behaviour.

Furthermore, judges should disqualify themselves from proceedings where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. This includes situations where the judge has a personal bias, prior involvement as a lawyer, or a financial interest in the matter.

Judicial misconduct can also occur outside the courtroom. While judicial conduct oversight should not regulate purely personal aspects of a judge's life, certain behaviours can call into question their judicial integrity. This includes violations of criminal law, sexual misconduct, joining discriminatory organisations, or using their position to enhance private interests.

Overall, judicial misconduct encompasses a wide range of actions and behaviours that undermine public confidence in the judiciary and the integrity of the judicial system. It is essential to hold judges accountable for their conduct to maintain the public's trust and ensure fair and impartial rulings.

How can a complaint be filed against a judge?

In the United States, the process for filing a complaint against a judge varies depending on the state and whether the judge is a federal or state judge. Here is a general outline of the process for filing a complaint against a judge:

Federal Judge

The process for filing a complaint against a federal judge is outlined in Title 28, Section 351 of the United States Code. A complaint can be filed with the clerk of the court of appeals for the federal circuit in which the judge works. The complaint will be reviewed by the chief judge of the circuit, who has the power to dismiss the complaint or appoint a special committee to investigate further. If the investigation proceeds, the chief judge will appoint a special committee of federal judges to investigate the allegations, and they will file a report with the Judicial Council of the circuit. The Judicial Council can then decide to dismiss the complaint, investigate further, or punish the federal judge. The Judicial Council may also refer the issue to the Judicial Conference, which has the power to impeach a federal judge.

State Judge

The process for filing a complaint against a state judge varies by state. For example, in Ohio, complaints can be filed with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel or the Ohio State Bar Association. In California, complaints can be filed with the Commission on Judicial Performance. Each state will have its own process and requirements for filing a complaint, so it is important to review the relevant state laws and guidelines.

It is important to note that filing a complaint against a judge is a serious matter and should only be done if there is a legitimate concern about ethical or legal violations. False or frivolous complaints can result in legal consequences. Additionally, an error in a judge's decision or ruling is not typically considered misconduct, and the complaint process is not meant to be used as an appellate court.

What happens when a judge is impeached?

In the United States, impeachment is a process by which the political branches of government—usually the legislature—can remove judges from office. Federal judges can be removed from office only through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. This is a two-step process. The House can impeach a judge with a simple majority vote, but a judge may only be removed from office following a trial and a vote to convict by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

Impeachment of judges is rare, and removal is rarer still. Since 1803, the House of Representatives has impeached only 15 judges—an average of one every 14 years—and only eight of those impeachments were followed by convictions in the Senate.

The United States Constitution provides little guidance on what offences constitute grounds for the impeachment of federal judges. However, the impeachment power has historically been limited to cases of serious ethical or criminal misconduct. For example, in 2009, the House impeached U.S. District Court Judge Samuel B. Kent on charges of sexual assault, obstructing an official proceeding, and making false statements.

While state constitutions vary in their definitions of impeachable offences, the few recent successful impeachment efforts in states confirm that legislators generally have limited this power to cases of serious ethical and criminal violations. For example, in 1994, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Rolf Larsen was removed on charges that he had asked a doctor to write fraudulent drug prescriptions, improperly communicated with lawyers and a trial judge about a pending case, and lied under oath.

It is important to note that impeachment should not be used to punish judges for their rulings. Historical practice suggests a strong tradition against impeaching judges for judicial rulings. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote a book examining the history of judicial impeachment, found that early historical uses of the impeachment power established a norm that "judicial acts—their rulings from the bench—would not be a basis for removal from office by impeachment and conviction."

What are the consequences of judicial misconduct?

The consequences of judicial misconduct vary depending on the severity of the violation and the level of the judge. At the federal level, a district court judge can be admonished, reprimanded, or censured by a higher-level judge or panel of judges. In more serious cases, higher-level judges can recommend impeachment by Congress, which has the power to remove a federal judge from office.

The process for addressing judicial misconduct is outlined in the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 and the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings. Anyone can submit a complaint, but thousands submitted each year lack merit, coming from litigants or lawyers who lost a case. When a complaint is found to be meritorious, a special committee may be appointed to investigate.

Examples of judicial misconduct include using the judge's office to obtain special treatment for friends or relatives, accepting bribes or gifts, engaging in improper ex parte communications, treating litigants or court staff in a hostile manner, and violating rules on outside income or financial disclosure.

Judicial misconduct can have significant consequences for public trust in the judiciary. Citizens must believe that judges are fair and impartial for the judiciary to function effectively. Therefore, it is essential to hold judges accountable to legal and ethical standards while also preserving the independence of judicial decision-making.

What are the ethical canons that apply to judges?

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges includes ethical canons that apply to federal judges and provide guidance on their performance of official duties and engagement in outside activities. The Code of Conduct was initially adopted by the Judicial Conference on April 5, 1973, and has since undergone several revisions. Here are the key ethical canons outlined in the Code:

Canon 1: Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

An independent and honorable judiciary is essential for justice in society. Judges should uphold and enforce high standards of conduct to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Public confidence in the judiciary depends on judges acting without fear or favor and in compliance with the law and this Code. Violating the Code undermines public trust and harms the justice system. The Canons are rules of reason, guiding judges' behavior and decisions while preserving their independence.

Canon 2: Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities

Judges should respect and comply with the law, promoting public confidence in the judiciary's integrity and impartiality. They must avoid allowing family, social, political, or financial relationships to influence their conduct or judgment. Judges must not lend the prestige of their office to advance personal interests and should refrain from testifying as character witnesses. They should also avoid membership in organizations that practice invidious discrimination based on race, sex, religion, or national origin.

Canon 3: Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially, and Diligently

The duties of a judge take precedence over all other activities. Judges should perform their duties with respect, fairness, impartiality, and diligence. They should adhere to adjudicative and administrative responsibilities, treating those they interact with courteously and patiently. Judges should also maintain order and decorum in judicial proceedings, dispose of court business promptly, and refrain from public comment on pending matters.

Canon 4: Engage in Extrajudicial Activities Consistent with Judicial Office

Judges may engage in extrajudicial activities like speaking, writing, and teaching on legal and non-legal subjects. However, they should avoid activities that detract from the dignity of their office, interfere with official duties, or reflect adversely on their impartiality. Judges can participate in civic and charitable organizations but should refrain from activities that frequently lead to disqualification or violate specific limitations.

Canon 5: Refrain from Political Activity

Judges should refrain from political activity, including holding office in political organizations, making speeches or endorsements for candidates, and soliciting funds for political causes. If a judge becomes a candidate for public office, they should resign from their judicial position.

Frequently asked questions