Judicial Discipline

A Republican member of the house of representatives filed resolutions calling for the impeachment of the four sitting justices who joined the Varnum v. Brien decision, but no action has been taken. The other three justices who joined the unanimous ruling lost their retention bids in 2010.

A Democratic legislator's resolution to remove Justice Michael Gableman from the court for alleged violation of state law and the code of judicial conduct has received little support, attracting only four co-sponsors.

A judge under indictment for soliciting a bribe from a judicial applicant (among other charges) resigned from the bench to avoid disciplinary proceedings regarding offensive comments he made about gay people.

The supreme court amended the code of judicial conduct to bar elected judges from hearing cases when a litigant, lawyer, or law firm involved in the case “has made contributions or given such support to the judge’s campaign that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

In 2011, fourteen bills were introduced in seven states to remove judges from office. All but two of the impeachment efforts were motivated by disagreement with judicial decisions.

A trial court judge was removed from hearing all asbestos cases after accepting $30,000 in campaign contributions from attorneys whose firms had cases on the judge’s asbestos docket.

Under a new code of judicial conduct that goes into effect in January, the political activities of judicial candidates are strictly curtailed. The new rules were issued at the same time that a judge is awaiting trial on bribery charges.

IAALS board member Russell Wheeler discusses recent proposals to apply the United States Judicial Conference's Code of Conduct for United States Judges to members of the Supreme Court and establish a new appellate route to review recusals.