Federal Judicial Misconduct Rules Could Get a Significant Makeover
Proposed changes in the rules governing judicial misconduct and disability would expand the definition of "cognizable misconduct" that could lead to sanctions against judges.
September 13, 2018 at 05:07 PM
4 minute read
Responding to continued #MeToo scrutiny of the federal judiciary, the Judicial Conference on Thursday proposed significant changes in its code of conduct and rules to make it easier for employees to file complaints, and harder for perpetrators to escape punishment.
“A judge has an affirmative duty to promote civility, not only in the courtroom, but throughout the courthouse,” the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts stated in a summary of the amendments to the code of conduct. “Confidentiality obligations of employees should never be an obstacle to reporting judicial misconduct or disability.”
The proposed amendment regarding confidentiality addresses the complaint of former clerks to Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that he used the clerk-judge confidentiality as a weapon discouraging them from filing complaints. Kozinski retired last December after news reports detailing his inappropriate interactions with female clerks.
Proposed changes in the rules governing judicial misconduct and disability would expand the definition of “cognizable misconduct” that could lead to sanctions against judges. The new definition includes “engaging in unwanted, offensive or abusive sexual conduct, including sexual harassment or assault,” as well as “retaliating against complainants, witnesses, judicial employees, or others for their participation in this complaint process or for reporting or disclosing judicial misconduct.” A public hearing on the proposed changes will be held at a later date.
Judge Merrick Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and head of the executive committee of the Judicial Conference, announced the proposed changes at a press conference at the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Judicial Conference meets twice a year. The 26-member conference is the policy arm of the judiciary and is comprised of the chief judges of the 13 federal appeals courts as well as the U.S. Court of International Trade, as well as district court chief judges. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. presides over the conference.
Garland, whose nomination to the Supreme Court in 2016 was blocked by Senate Republicans, declined to discuss the nomination hearings last week of his D.C. Circuit colleague Brett Kavanaugh, citing his role with the Judicial Conference, where Kavanaugh's appointment was not formally discussed.
The conference also discussed changes in the structure of the federal defender system and the Criminal Justice Act that would improve the quality and independence of the public defender system.
As is customary, leaders of the other branches of government are invited to the conference, though the public is not. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke, as did members of Congress. House Judiciary Committee members Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia, Darrell Issa, R- California, and Hank Johnson, D-Georgia, addressed the conference, but no members of the Senate Judiciary Committee spoke. Garland said the comments of the congressmen are not made public so they can speak freely, though he said the members of Congress could release their remarks on their own.
The conference also approved construction plans for two courthouses: one in Hartford, Connecticut, that would replace the Abraham A. Ribicoff Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, at an estimated cost of $295 million; and Chattanooga, Tennessee, where the new courthouse would replace the Joel W. Solomon Federal Building at an estimated cost of $157 million.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
‘A Force of Nature’: Littler Mendelson Shareholder Michael Lotito Dies At 76
3 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 2Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 3Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 4'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 5Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250