Judicial misconduct
Encyclopedia
Judicial misconduct is a term used to describe certain actions of a judge
which are unethical or otherwise violate the judge's obligations of impartial conduct. Actions which can be classified as judicial misconduct include: conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts; using the judge’s office to obtain special treatment for friends or relatives; accepting bribes, gift
s, or other personal favors related to the judicial office; having improper discussions with parties or counsel for one side in a case; treating litigants or attorney
s in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner; violating other specific, mandatory standards of judicial conduct, such as those pertaining to restrictions on outside income and requirements for financial disclosure; and conduct occurring outside the performance of official duties if the conduct might have a prejudicial effect on the administration of the business of the courts among reasonable people. Disability is a temporary or permanent condition rendering judge unable to discharge the duties of the particular judicial office. See Rules for Judicial Conduct. http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/rules/judicialcomplaints.php
A judicial investigative committee is a panel of judges selected to investigate a judicial misconduct complaint against a judge accused of judicial misconduct. Judicial investigative committees are rarely appointed. According to U.S. Court statistics, only 18 of the 1,484 judicial misconduct complaints filed in the United States Courts between September 2004 and September 2007 warranted the formation of judicial investigative committees.
Judge
A judge is a person who presides over court proceedings, either alone or as part of a panel of judges. The powers, functions, method of appointment, discipline, and training of judges vary widely across different jurisdictions. The judge is supposed to conduct the trial impartially and in an open...
which are unethical or otherwise violate the judge's obligations of impartial conduct. Actions which can be classified as judicial misconduct include: conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts; using the judge’s office to obtain special treatment for friends or relatives; accepting bribes, gift
Gift
A gift or a present is the transfer of something without the expectation of receiving something in return. Although gift-giving might involve an expectation of reciprocity, a gift is meant to be free. In many human societies, the act of mutually exchanging money, goods, etc. may contribute to...
s, or other personal favors related to the judicial office; having improper discussions with parties or counsel for one side in a case; treating litigants or attorney
Lawyer
A lawyer, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is "a person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel or solicitor; a person who is practicing law." Law is the system of rules of conduct established by the sovereign government of a society to correct wrongs, maintain the stability of political...
s in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner; violating other specific, mandatory standards of judicial conduct, such as those pertaining to restrictions on outside income and requirements for financial disclosure; and conduct occurring outside the performance of official duties if the conduct might have a prejudicial effect on the administration of the business of the courts among reasonable people. Disability is a temporary or permanent condition rendering judge unable to discharge the duties of the particular judicial office. See Rules for Judicial Conduct. http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/rules/judicialcomplaints.php
A judicial investigative committee is a panel of judges selected to investigate a judicial misconduct complaint against a judge accused of judicial misconduct. Judicial investigative committees are rarely appointed. According to U.S. Court statistics, only 18 of the 1,484 judicial misconduct complaints filed in the United States Courts between September 2004 and September 2007 warranted the formation of judicial investigative committees.