Washington, DC— Today, the nation's first comprehensive study of the systems that hold state and federal judges accountable ranked Alabama 38^th in the nation and issued the state's program a D+ grade. To shine a light on the typically secretive and toothless systems that often fail to remove abusive and incompetent judges from the bench, legal consumer watchdog group HALT, Inc. released its 2008 Judicial Accountability Report Card, analyzing programs in all 50 states, D.C. and the federal circuits.

"Alabama's system of judicial oversight gives too many judges a free pass," stated HALT Senior Counsel Suzanne M. Blonder, pointing to the case of Birmingham Municipal Judge David Barnes, who inexplicably refused to recuse himself from an animal cruelty case against City Council President Lee Loder despite the fact that Loder was a former fraternity brother. Barnes dismissed all charges against Loder without even holding a hearing and criticized the suggestion that he might have been biased for his conduct. Barnes was merely issued a slap on the wrist-a public censure and a short paid suspension-despite violating important judicial ethics rules.

HALT's study found that officials at the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission are prohibited from releasing information about an ethics complaint against a judge until the Commission files formal charges. Additionally, the Web site for the Commission fails to provide a clear explanation of the judicial discipline process and lacks numerous critical resources, including a downloadable complaint form, a database of past disciplinary decisions and a link to the procedural rules.

Alabama rules fail to place meaningful limitations on the reimbursement and compensation that judges may accept in connection with corporate and special interest funded trips. "Alabama's laws unfortunately include massive loopholes that still allow members of the judiciary to be wined and dined on the corporate dime," noted Blonder.

The state also received failing marks for its unusual financial disclosure rules. Although Alabama judges are required to file annual reports detailing their economic interests, the state Supreme Court seals these records from the public. "Concealing this critical information prevents litigants from having the opportunity to determine whether the judge presiding over their case has a conflict of interest," stated Blonder.

None of the top five states-Washington, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Arizona and California-scored higher than a B average on HALT's Report Card. More than half of the states received grades in the C range and HALT issued D's to 14 jurisdictions. Two states-Maine and Mississippi-flunked outright.

"At a time when the American public has lost faith in the impartiality and fairness of the nation's judiciary, it's critical that we have an effective system of oversight for judges," stated Blonder. "We hope that Alabama's chief judicial officers will work to transform a mechanism marred by secrecy into a system dedicated to upholding the integrity of the judiciary."