|
When a judge abuses her authority on the bench, legal consumers rely on judicial disability systems to investigate the misconduct and impose sanctions. As research for HALT's upcoming Judicial Accountability Report Card recently uncovered, public access to information about these systems and the judicial complaint process is surprisingly limited.
"In an era in which more and more Americans obtain resources online, we're alarmed that so many judicial disability systems are still stuck in the Dark Ages without Web sites," stated HALT Senior Counsel Suzanne M. Blonder. "Even those that do host sites typically provide shamefully scant information."
Half a dozen states, however, offer Web sites that serve as valuable tools for filing a complaint against an unethical judge and understanding the judicial disability process. Web sites for judicial conduct commissions in six states-Indiana, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin-stand at the top of the heap.
Taking top honors in HALT's national survey, the Web site hosted by Indiana's Judicial Qualifications Commission provides judicial disciplinary opinions dating back to 1986 (including cases that led to private reprimands), a downloadable complaint form, explicit assurances that complainants may speak publicly about their complaints and the disciplinary process, a detailed explanation of the process, and examples of complaints that would lead to dismissal, private reprimand, public censure and removal.
Refreshingly, Pennsylvania's Judicial Conduct Board provides well-organized online information in an unusually consumer-friendly tone. The Board's Web site, which assures the public that they have a right to expect the highest standard of ethics from judges, features a FAQ page that addresses everything from the kinds of allegations that the Board will consider to the complainant's role in disability proceedings.
Texas' Commission on Judicial Conduct offers one of the nation's most sophisticated Web sites and includes a section dedicated to the state's growing Spanish-speaking population. In addition to providing bi-lingual information about the discipline process, the site offers a downloadable complaint form in Spanish.
Unlike the state's ineffective lawyer discipline counterpart, Utah's judicial discipline Web site provides a goldmine of useful information. While online resources in other states characteristically lack clear explanations of the disciplinary process, the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission site offers a color-coded, plain language flow chart guiding consumers from the preliminary screening stage through the Utah Supreme Court's sanction recommendation phase.
The Judicial Investigation Commission of West Virginia is unique in that it provides a comprehensive synopsis of advisory opinions dating back 25 years and divides them by topics, such as mistreatment of litigants in the courtroom and misconduct stemming from financial conflicts of interest. This extensive database allows the public to review the Commission's ruling in different kinds of misconduct cases.
While most judicial disability bodies conceal data, Wisconsin's Judicial Commission includes detailed case disposition data on its Web site, which allows the public to hold the system accountable for its rate of discipline.
|
