Global Judicial Integrity Network Updates Special Edition 'Views' Review | Page 27

VIEWS
Judicial Misconduct and Public Confidence in the Rule of Law
David J. Sachar is currently serving as the Executive Director of the Judicial Discipline and Disciplinary
Commission in Arkansas, United States and as an Advisory Board Member of the National Center for State
Courts. He previously gained experience as a litigator and prosecuting attorney in the United States.
Judicial misconduct breaks
down the very fibre of what
is necessary for a functional
judiciary — citizens who
believe their judges are fair
and impartial. The judiciary
cannot exist without the
trust and confidence of
the people. Judges must,
therefore, be accountable to legal and ethical
standards. In holding them accountable for
their behaviour, judicial conduct review must be
performed without invading the independence
of judicial decision-making. This task can be
daunting.
More than any other branch of government,
the judiciary is built on a foundation of public
faith — judges do not command armies or
police forces, they do not have the power of
the purse to fund initiatives and they do not
pass legislation. Instead, they make rulings on
the law. Rulings that the people must believe
came from competent, lawful and independent
judicial officers.
Judicial misconduct comes in many forms and
ethical standards address problematic actions,
omissions and relationships that deplete public
confidence. Common complaints of ethical
misconduct include improper demeanour;
failure to properly disqualify when the judge
has a conflict of interest; engaging in ex parte
communication and failure to execute their
judicial duties in a timely fashion. Behaviour
outside of the courtroom can also be at issue.
Judicial conduct oversight should not attempt
to regulate purely personal aspects of a judge’s
life. However, a judge can commit misconduct
by engaging in personal behaviour that calls
their judicial integrity into question. This is
true even if the same behaviour would merely
be considered unwise for the average citizen. As
the saying goes, the robe magnifies the conduct.
Obvious examples are violations of criminal
law, sexual misconduct with staff, attorneys or
parties, joining discriminatory organizations
and using the judicial position to enhance a
private interest.
It behoves the judiciary to
support measures that hold it
accountable. While the majority of
judges serve with honour, ethical
missteps should be corrected, and
major breaches of trust should be
acknowledged.
Many codes of judicial conduct also include
general language that urge judges to preserve
the integrity of the judiciary and avoid even
the appearance of impropriety. For example,
the preamble to the Arkansas Code of Judicial
Conduct states that “judges should maintain the
dignity of the office at all times and avoid both
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety
in their professional and personal lives.” 1
At what point is a judge’s ruling so far afield of
precedent and legal code or such an egregious
violation of fundamental rights that it appears
27