Washington, DC— Today, the nation's first comprehensive study of the systems that hold state and federal judges accountable ranked New Jersey 26th 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.

"New Jersey citizens frequently tell us that they do not realize that there is a mechanism in place for holding judges accountable," stated HALT Senior Counsel Suzanne M. Blonder. "The state needs to do a better job of publicizing this important oversight system."

The New Jersey Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct is one of only nine judicial discipline agencies in the country that fails to host a Web site. "Without online resources that clarify how to file a complaint, explain judicial ethics standards or provide information about judges' disciplinary histories, few citizens are able to understand and utilize the system of judicial oversight in New Jersey," stated Blonder.

In addition, New Jersey's Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct may not publicly sanction a judge before filing formal charges against him. Since the Committee formed in 1974, it has disciplined 39 municipal court judges. In 18 cases, sanctions were given behind closed doors. "Private discipline amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist," noted Blonder. "And it deprives litigants in New Jersey courtrooms of critical information about a judge's past misconduct."

HALT's study also noted that although New Jersey's Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to annually disclose their financial holdings, the reports omit important information, such as the judge's board affiliations or a spouse's economic interests. In addition, filings are not publicly available online.

HALT found that New Jersey's system of judicial oversight is not entirely flawed, however. Unlike requirements in many states, New Jersey rules do not prohibit individuals from disclosing information about their complaints against judges.

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