|
HALT called on the Michigan Supreme Court to provide written explanations
when grievances against judges are dismissed and to make all judicial
discipline public. The Court has begun a comprehensive review of its
Judicial Tenure Commission, which reviews written requests for
investigations of judicial misconduct and determines whether to dismiss a
request or conduct a hearing.
Last year, the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission dismissed 95 percent of
consumers' requests for investigations of judges. Of the nearly 600
grievances that were rejected in 2005, only two were accompanied by a
written explanation for the dismissal. In comments, HALT urged the Court to
require the commission to provide specific reasons with every notice of
dismissal.
In addition to noting the commission's legal duty to provide a basis for its
decisions, HALT underscored the practical benefits of supplying complainants
with an explanation.
"Providing an explanation will give complainants the understanding that
their right to voice concerns of judicial misconduct has been respected,"
stated HALT Associate Counsel Suzanne M. Blonder. "Simple notification of
dismissal without an explanation leaves individuals who feel that they have
suffered judicial abuse confused and angry, and prompts many to file new
complaints or inquiries which divert Commission resources."
In the rare instance in which the commission pursues a hearing, it
recommends to the supreme court that judge be privately or publicly
sanctioned. Last year, 87 percent of the discipline imposed against
Michigan state judges took the form of closed-door admonitions and letters
of caution. In comments, HALT recommended that all discipline against
judges be made formal and public.
"The imposition of private penalties in instances of judicial misconduct
sends a message of unaccountability to Michigan's judges," stated HALT
Program Assistant Emily Worth. "Private sanctions hold no long-term
professional consequences, and judges consequently have nothing to fear from
these informal slaps on the wrist."
The Michigan Supreme Court will review HALT's written comments and make any
rule changes next year.
- HALT efforts helped secure two major judicial accountability victories this month.
First, the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted new rules substantially strengthening protections against conflicts of interest in the Federal Judiciary. Second, a blue-ribbon commission led by Associate Justice Stephen Breyer issued a report recommending key improvements in handling misconduct complaints against federal judges. These critical reforms represent a watershed moment for judicial accountability.
For HALT's Op-ed commenting on these changes, click here.
For The New York Times article on these reforms, click here.
HALT closely monitors the judicial system to ensure that it is operating ethically and responsibly. HALT's Judicial Integrity Project focuses on two key issues: financial disclosure and junkets for judges - the corporate practice of wining and dining judges under the guise of "judicial education."
Associate Counsel Suzanne Blonder spoke as the invited expert on judicial junkets at the Judicial Ethics panel at the 2006 American Bar Association Annual Convention, held in June in Vancouver, B.C. Speaking to an audience of judges, lawyers and ethics scholars, she urged the ABA to strengthen limitations placed on judicial attendance at lavish trips sponsored by special interest groups and corporations.
The ABA is currently issuing proposals for modifications to Canon I of the Model Rules of Judicial Conduct. Read HALT's comments and compare our recommendations with the ABA's changes. HALT will continue to update you with developments -- Stay tuned!
In December, 2003, HALT Associate Counsel Suzanne Mishkin testified before the ABA Joint Commission on Judicial Conduct and urged panel members to revise the Model Code of Judicial Conduct to incorporate key provisions on judicial financial disclosure and multi-day “educational” seminar restrictions. Although the Model Code does not carry the force of law, the vast majority of states have adopted most of its language in their statutes.
And, in 2003, HALT informed the United States Senate Judiciary Committee about the importance of allowing litigants to access lists of judges' disqualifying interests and ending junkets for judges. HALT also brought the Committee's attention to a report which revealed that corporations are wining and dining judges during seminars that stress economic and policy arguments, which, if adopted by the judges, would advance the seminar sponsors' ideological and financial interests. HALT recommended that a public fund and screening process would be a good step toward balanced and constructive educational seminars for judges.
In 1998, HALT provided information about the ethical lapses of federal judges to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. Specifically, HALT alerted the subcommittee to numerous instances in which U.S. District judges held a financial interest in a party appearing before them. HALT's efforts were based, in large part, on the findings of investigative reports conducted by the Kansas City Star and the Washington Post, pointing to frequent cases in which judges presided over lawsuits involving companies in which they held stock and failed to obey the ethical rules that require them to disqualified themselves.
|
