Washington, DC— Today, the nation's first comprehensive study of the systems that hold state and federal judges accountable ranked California fifth best in the nation, yet called state's program far from perfect and gave it a C+ 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.

"California's consumer-friendly procedures and reliance on ordinary citizens to help decide ethics complaints against judges make it one of the most promising systems of judicial oversight in the nation," stated HALT Senior Counsel Suzanne M. Blonder.

A model state in some respects, HALT's study noted that unlike rules in many states that "gag" consumers from disclosing that they have filed a complaint against a judge, California rules explicitly allow complainants to speak publicly about ethics complaints.

California is also one of only six states in which lay persons outnumber judges and lawyers on disciplinary decision-making bodies. Three judge, two lawyer and six public members of the Commission on Judicial Performance decide ethics complaints against judges.

HALT refused to issue California an A however, giving demerits to the state for failing to place meaningful limitations on the reimbursement and compensation that judges may accept in connection with privately funded trips. "California's laws unfortunately include massive loopholes that still allow members of the judiciary to be wined and dined on the corporate dime," noted Blonder.

Additionally, while California law requires judges to file annual financial disclosure reports that include information related to the judge's investments, gifts and board memberships, the state's Administrative Office of the Courts does not post the reports online. "The purpose of annual reporting-to allow litigants to review potential conflicts of interest-is undermined when the reports are not easily accessible," explained Blonder.

"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, pointing to a 2006 case in which Orange County Judge Pamela Iles incarcerated and denied a man bail without giving him the chance to respond. The California Commission on Judicial Performance issued only a slap on the wrist to Judge Iles, who has a long history of receiving reprimands for violating the due process rights of defendants. Although this was the fourth time she had been found guilty of misconduct, she was again permitted to continue hearing cases.

California ranked below Washington state, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Arizona, and just above Texas, but none of the top states scored higher than a B average on the 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.