Washington, DC— Today, the nation's first comprehensive study of the systems that hold state and federal judges accountable ranked Massachusetts 29th in the nation and issued the state's program a C-Minus 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.

"Massachusetts' system of judicial oversight is far too secretive," stated HALT Senior Counsel Suzanne M. Blonder. "In an era that embraces principles of sunshine, it's shameful that the state's system for monitoring our most powerful government officials is designed to shut out the public."

HALT's study noted that unlike procedures in most states, Massachusetts rules "gag" citizens from disclosing information about their ethics complaints against judges. Complaint forms provide that "this complaint and any other communication to or from the Commission on Judicial Conduct remains confidential." Furthermore, when a Massachusetts judge commits misconduct, he typically gets away with little more than a slap on the wrist or the opportunity to bow out of disciplinary charges, such as early retirement or a private sanction.

Last month, Probate and Family Court Judge Michael J. Livingstone was allowed to forgo formal discipline by the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct in return for early retirement. During his tenure, Livingstone allegedly threatened one of his tenants with an illegal utility shutoff, made false statements in New Bedford District Court and "engaged in a pattern of misconduct over a period of time that was prejudicial to the administration of justice," according to the Commission.

"Had Massachusetts judicial authorities required Livington to be charged at a public hearing, we would have learned more specifics about his misconduct and litigants who previously appeared in his courtroom would know whether they were given a fair day in court," stated Blonder. "Instead they allowed him to quietly retire and required all parties in the case to remain silent."

Moreover, the state's Code of Judicial Conduct fails to place meaningful limitations on the compensation that judges may accept in connection with trips funded by private interests. "Massachusetts' laws include loopholes that allow members of the judiciary to be wined and dined on the corporate dime," noted Blonder.

None of the top five states-Washington, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Arizona and California-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.

"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 Massachusetts' chief judicial officers will work to transform a mechanism marred by secrecy into a system dedicated to upholding the integrity of the judiciary."