How the Judiciary Changed Conduct Rules to Pierce Culture of Confidentiality
“We are not done,” said Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. “We won't be done until we do everything we can do.”
March 13, 2019 at 10:25 AM
4 minute read
Responding to complaints that the culture of the federal judiciary makes it difficult for employees to lodge complaints of misconduct, the Judicial Conference on Tuesday promulgated significant changes to the code of judicial conduct that govern judges and court employees.
“We are not done,” said Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, who met with reporters after the conference acted. “We won't be done until we do everything we can do.”
Garland said a range of new procedures, including anonymous reporting, employee hotlines, and enhanced training will be deployed to enable law clerks and other court employees to seek guidance and register complaints without fear of retaliation.
Perhaps the most significant change is relegating the pervasive tradition of confidentiality between judges and their clerks to secondary status, eclipsed by the importance of enabling clerks to complain if their bosses behaved inappropriately.
In December 2017, a handbook for federal law clerks that said “law clerks owe judges complete confidentiality in case-related matters” was amended to make it clear that nothing in the handbook prevented clerks or other employees from reporting judicial misconduct.
The importance of confidentiality in judges' chambers “does not and cannot extend to issues of misconduct and the reporting of misconduct,” Garland said Tuesday.
It was confidentiality that Judge Alex Kozinski invoked to silence clerks who were victims of his sexually charged interactions with female clerks, until some went public in 2017. He abruptly retired in December 2017, issuing a statement that “It grieves me to learn that I caused any of my clerks to feel uncomfortable.”
The scandal shook the judicial branch and prompted Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who presides over the Judicial Conference, the judiciary's policymaking arm, to launch an overhaul in the way the judiciary operated as the #MeToo movement spread across the nation.
The most tangible result of Roberts' effort came Tuesday with the first changes in the judiciary's code of conduct in five years. The code does not bind Supreme Court justices, though at a congressional hearing last week, Justice Elena Kagan said Roberts was considering the creation of a conduct code exclusively for the nation's highest court.
The key additions to the conduct code and official commentary on the code, as well as the rules for judicial-conduct and judicial-disability proceedings, which took effect immediately, include:
• A requirement that judges should perform their duties “with respect for others and should not engage in behavior that is harassing, abusive, prejudiced or biased.”
• “A judge should not retaliate against those who report misconduct. A judge should hold court personnel under the judge's direction to similar standards.”
• “Nothing in these Rules concerning the confidentiality of the complaint process or the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees concerning use or disclosure of confidential information received in the course of official duties prevents judicial employees from reporting or disclosing misconduct.”
• “A judge should practice civility, by being patient, dignified, respectful and courteous, in dealings with court personnel, including chambers staff.”
• “A judge should take appropriate action upon receipt of reliable information indicating the likelihood that a judge's conduct contravened this code.”
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 AllDeluge of Trump-Leery Government Lawyers Join Job Market, Setting Up Free-for-All for Law Firm, In-House Openings
4 minute read'As I've Grown Older': John Morgan Looks Back at a Life in Law
The 'Biden Effect' on Senior Attorneys: Should I Stay or Should I Go?
9 minute read2024 GC Pay Report: Signing Bonuses Swell in Size as Companies Shy Away From Internal Hires
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 2Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 3Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
- 4Husch Blackwell, Foley Among Law Firms Opening Southeast Offices This Year
- 5In Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
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