This past year judicial ethics were in the limelight when several New Jersey Superior Court judges made statements from the bench that caught the attention of both local and national media. The statements were, to put it mildly, inartful, but they also provoked a conversation about how to, when to, and if we even should, discipline judges. As a young attorney, you will likely be placed in a situation where a judge demonstrates behavior toward you, or your client, that is discourteous, undignified, and/or a plain violation of the judicial code of conduct. But you have an avenue for relief, and as difficult as the decision may be, we should all be familiar with, and use as often as needed, the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics.

The Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC) is tasked with investigating allegations of unethical judicial conduct. It is comprised of 11 members appointed by the Supreme Court, including at least three retired judges or justices, and no more than five public members who hold no office. The ACJC receives submitted complaints, reviews them, and determines what the next step, if any, will be for the complaint. Thanks to the exceptional judiciary website, filing a complaint is easy. Simply follow the hyperlink under the attorneys tab for "Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics" and fill out a form. All it takes is the names of the attorneys; witnesses; brief statement supporting the allegation of judicial misconduct; then a certification. One may also choose to forgo the form and write a letter with supporting documents.

After the ACJC receives a complaint, it is reviewed to determine whether the judge is actually accused of something that violates the judicial code of conduct. The ACJC then either dismisses the complaint if it is without merit, or requests an investigation. After an investigation, the ACJC may still dismiss the complaint but privately discipline the judge with a letter. Types of private discipline include: guidance; caution; admonition; reprimand; or censure. If an investigation does not lead to private discipline, then the ACJC will issue a formal complaint against the judge. If that occurs, then there are answers to the complaints followed by a public hearing. If the ACJC finds that there is proof by clear and convincing evidence of the charges, then they will recommend an outcome to the New Jersey Supreme Court, including: public admonition; public reprimand; public censure; suspension; or to begin removal proceedings. The Supreme Court, and only the Supreme Court, may publicly discipline a judge. If the ACJC does not find proof of the charges by clear and convincing evidence, then the recommendation will be dismissal with or without private discipline.

While the ACJC is available to ensure that judges are maintaining the high standards we expect, it cannot be denied that most attorneys may be reticent to pursue a complaint. The legal community should actively discourage this reticence. A judge behaving badly affects us all. However, it is understandably difficult, especially as a young attorney, to stand up to a judge who may have acted inappropriately. And depending on the judge, filing a complaint may be tantamount to career suicide. While initial complaints are confidential, the ACJC may still reveal the identity to the judge, and of course if the complaint goes forward then that identity will be made public. How unnerving must it be to appear in front of someone who knows you've filed a complaint against them? One may hope that the judge wouldn't hold a complaint against you, but if they were inappropriate enough to break their judicial oath, then who's to say a judge wouldn't hold some sort of private, or public, displeasure toward a complainant. Why face professional ostracism when it's easier to just forget about it? We all know how important reputations are in our career—but maintaining ethics at all levels is the right thing to do, and doing what's right is just as important.

In order to further promote and encourage the use of the ACJC, our judiciary would be benefited by requiring notice to litigants about how to file a complaint. Much in the same way litigants are made aware of their appellate rights, it should be just as important to be made aware of how to deal with judges who depart from their oath. This would no doubt result in an increase of ACJC filings, but would that really be a bad thing?

Let's be clear, judges are human, and we all have bad days. However, being a judge is such an important position to hold in our community, arguably society, that much like a police officer, one bad day is one too many. It may be uncomfortable and difficult to file complaints against judges, but it uplifts our profession as a whole if we can enforce the code of judicial conduct when judges won't do it themselves.

Who watches the watchmen? We do. And when we do nothing, our colleagues, our clients, our community, all suffer as a result.

The NJLJ Young Lawyers Advisory Board is a diverse group of young attorneys from around the state. Follow them on Twitter, @YoungLawyersNJL.