In general, a judicial disciplinary body’s mandate is to protect the public, enforce rigorous standards of judicial conduct and maintain public confidence in the integrity and independence of the judicial system. While the majority of judges are committed to maintaining the high standards expected of the judiciary, an effective method of disciplining judges who engage in misconduct is essential to the functioning of our judicial system. Commission proceedings provide a fair and appropriate mechanism to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.
The jurisdiction includes all judges with a few minor courts being handled separately [court commissioners and referees]. The body usually also has jurisdiction over former judges for conduct prior to retirement or resignation.
The body's authority is generally limited to investigating allegations of judicial misconduct and, if warranted, imposing discipline. Judicial misconduct usually involves conduct in conflict with the standards set forth in the Code of Judicial Ethics. The commission cannot change a decision made by any judicial officer; this is a function of the state’s appellate courts. After investigation, and in some cases a public hearing, the commission may impose sanctions ranging from confidential discipline to removal from office.
There are some things that a disciplinary body can do to improve their competency:
Misconduct records from before a judge is appointed to the bench could be relevant to assessing their suitability for the position. Such records could reveal a pattern of behavior or tendencies that might compromise their ability to be impartial, fair, and respectful to all parties in court. It could also help in identifying any ethical or legal issues that could raise questions about their character or fitness for the job. Ultimately, the decision to consider or disregard such records would depend on the specific circumstances and the relevant legal and ethical standards.
Misconduct records from when a judge is appointed to the bench could also be valuable. If a judge has a history of misconduct, this could reflect on their character, judgment, and ability to be impartial and fair. It could also help in identifying any ethical or legal issues that could pose a threat to the integrity of the court system. Additionally, if the misconduct occurred while the judge was already serving on the bench, it could suggest that they are not fulfilling their duties adequately and may warrant further investigation or disciplinary action. In any case, the value of misconduct records from when the judge is appointed to the bench depends on the severity and nature of the misconduct, as well as the specific circumstances surrounding the incident.
Misconduct records from when a judge is appointed to the bench but the misconduct occurred off duty can still be valuable in certain circumstances. If the misconduct is serious or indicates a lack of integrity, it could reflect on the judge's character and fitness for the position. For example, if the misconduct involves criminal activity or behavior that is contrary to the judge's oath or code of conduct, it could raise concerns about their ability to uphold the law and be impartial. However, if the misconduct is minor and unrelated to the judge's professional duties, it may not be relevant to their fitness for the job. Ultimately, the value of misconduct records from when the judge is appointed to the bench but the misconduct occurred off duty depends on the specific circumstances and the relevant legal and ethical standards.
Misconduct records from when a judge is appointed to the bench but the misconduct occurred off duty can still be valuable in certain circumstances. If the misconduct is serious or indicates a lack of integrity, it could reflect on the judge's character and fitness for the position. For example, if the misconduct involves criminal activity or behavior that is contrary to the judge's oath or code of conduct, it could raise concerns about their ability to uphold the law and be impartial. However, if the misconduct is minor and unrelated to the judge's professional duties, it may not be relevant to their fitness for the job. Ultimately, the value of misconduct records from when the judge is appointed to the bench but the misconduct occurred off duty depends on the specific circumstances and the relevant legal and ethical standards.
Misconduct records from when a judge is no longer on the bench can still be valuable for several reasons. First, it could help identify patterns of behavior that may be relevant to future cases involving the judge. Second, if the misconduct was severe, it could raise questions about the judge's fitness for public office or any other position of public trust they may hold in the future. Third, it could help inform future judicial appointments by providing insight into a candidate's past behavior and character. Finally, if the misconduct is relevant to an ongoing case, it could be used as evidence in court. Ultimately, the value of misconduct records from when the judge is no longer on the bench depends on the specific circumstances of the case and the relevance of the misconduct to any ongoing or future legal matters.
It is important for a judicial disciplinary body to commit to 100% transparency because it promotes accountability, integrity, and public trust in the judicial system. A judicial disciplinary body is responsible for investigating and disciplining judges who engage in misconduct or violate ethical rules. Here are some reasons why transparency is important for a judicial disciplinary body:
Complaints about judicial misconduct can come from a large number of sources. Complaints that include allegations where the conduct is on the record and includes time, date, location, and case number [optional] are considered sufficiently accurate to indicate a need for investigation regardless of the identification of the individual or entity filing the complaint. Further, complaints of judicial misconduct need not allege damage to any individual or entity.
All government business is to be conducted in the light of day within full view of any member of the public that wishes to observe. Citizens of the United States have enacted the Freedom of Information Act (1967) as well as the Open Government Act (2007) and the Open Government Initiative (2009).
As virtually every jurisdiction's disciplinary body has failed, or refused, to uphold the obligations granted them by the state(s) Supreme Court; and, has subsequently lost the public trust - it is imperative that all disciplinary bodies function under the supervision of a neutral third party. The Neutral will insure complete and timely disclosure as well as ratify the process and resulting analytics for all Courts, jointly and severally.
