Washington, DC— Today, the nation's first comprehensive study of the systems that hold state and federal judges accountable ranked New York 23rd 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 York's system of judicial oversight is one of the most secretive and insular in the country," stated HALT Senior Counsel Suzanne M. Blonder. "In an era that embraces principles of sunshine, it's shameful that the system for monitoring some of the state's most powerful government officials is designed to shut out the public."

HALT's study noted that New York regulations prohibit officials at the State Commission on Judicial Conduct from releasing information about a judge's misconduct until the Commission files a recommendation for formal discipline with the state's high court. In addition, ordinary citizens are given only a token role in the decision-making process. Just two of the 11 members of the Commission are required to be laypersons.

Unlike members of most state judiciaries, New York judges may not be fined or suspended for transgressions. When a judge commits misconduct, he typically gets away with little more than a slap on the wrist. For example, in a recent case, Judge Duane Hart of Queens improperly threatened an attorney with contempt, presided over a case in which he had a relationship with an attorney and bribed a lawyer to testify for him at a Commission hearing. Although he had been privately sanctioned by the Commission for previous misconduct in 2005, Hart got away with a mere censure for his latest abuses.

"It's alarming that Judge Hart was not removed from office, given the gravity of his misconduct, his prior disciplinary record and the Commission's finding that his testimony at the conduct hearing was evasive," stated Blonder.

Although New York's Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judges from receiving compensation for extra-judicial activities in certain circumstances, the rules fail to place meaningful restrictions on the compensation that judges may accept in connection with trips funded by private interests. "New York's laws include massive loopholes that allow members of the judiciary to be wined and dined on the corporate dime," noted Blonder.

HALT found that New York's system of judicial oversight is not entirely flawed, however. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct hosts a helpful Web site that provides a clear explanation of the disciplinary process, a downloadable complaint form, a database of past ethics decisions against judges and helpful links.

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.