Judicial Discipline

In June 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court amended its Code of Judicial Conduct to expressly prohibit harassment, retaliation, and other inappropriate workplace behavior. The amendments are part of a more significant effort to restore public trust and confidence in the state’s judicial department after a series of...

Judges must be held accountable for conduct that violates their codes of conduct and governing laws. A recent Reuters report on judicial misconduct, while not quite comprehensive, is an important reminder that we need to know more about this topic that is arguably central to public trust and confidence and—more...

In mid-April, the Louisiana Supreme Court announced changes to its rules to increase public access to judicial discipline proceedings. With these changes, Louisiana joins the growing tide of states that are embracing transparency—a key component of IAALS’ recommendations for judicial discipline systems.

In April 2019, the California State Auditor filed her report on an investigation into the Commission on Judicial Performance, the state's judicial conduct body. There is growing interest nationally in judicial misconduct and the entities in each state (and federally) that investigate complaints, and in 2018, IAALS...

According to news reports, a state district judge in Oklahoma agreed to resign following a petition describing numerous acts of misconduct. The case illustrates several aspects of state judicial discipline highlighted in a recent IAALS report.

Public trust and confidence in our judiciary, and our judges, is vital. Yet, over the last several decades, that trust has been eroded. For people to trust judges again, we must ensure a series of pillars are in place: improved ways of selecting judges; improved ways of evaluating judges’ performance; and improved...