Comparing judicial conduct commissions across the country is just a click, tap, or keystroke away, thanks to a new online resource from the National Center for State Court’s Center for Judicial Ethics at www.ncsc.org/consulting-and-research/areas-of-expertise/court-leadership/center-for-judicial-ethics/governance.
This interactive resource helps court leaders, policymakers, and the public examine how commissions operate, including how they conduct their proceedings and what types of sanctions they order or recommend.
The tool organizes data from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., into key categories:
• Composition of Judicial Conduct Commissions
• When Confidentiality Ceases in Formal Judicial Discipline Proceedings
• Private Dispositions or Sanctions
• Public Sanctions
• Private, Informal, and Public Dispositions
“Judicial conduct commissions serve as the enforcement arm for the ethical standards adopted by each state and work to build confidence in the judiciary by enforcing these standards,” said David Sachar, director of the Center for Judicial Ethics. “By compiling this data, we inform the public, enable states to evaluate their rules, and can track trends in judicial ethics and the development of state judicial conduct commissions.”
Judicial conduct commissions, most of which were formed by state constitutions between 1965 and 1980, are well established in overseeing judicial ethics. Some notable findings include:
• Judicial conduct commissions mostly consist of judicial officers, public members, and attorneys.
• In 44 states and D.C., removal is available as a sanction in judicial discipline proceedings.
• In 36 states, the fact-finding hearing in formal judicial discipline proceedings is public.
• In 40 jurisdictions, suspension without pay is available as a sanction in judicial discipline proceedings.
Public trust in the judicial system is closely tied to transparency and accountability. In 2023 the CCJ/COSCA Public Engagement, Trust, and Confidence Committee conducted focus groups to explore public confidence in the judiciary.
“The focus groups revealed that almost nobody knows that codes of judicial conduct exist,” explained Jesse Rutledge, NCSC’s vice president for Public Affairs. “When the public learns about these codes, their confidence in the system increases.”
The focus group findings informed the publication, “Beyond Civics Education: A Health and Wellness Guide for Getting Public Trust Back in Shape,” released in September 2024. The report urges courts to go beyond civics education and integrate ethics, accountability, and transparency—including judicial ethics—into public outreach efforts.
To explore judicial ethics, accountability, and transparency initiatives, visit the websites for the Center for Judicial Ethics (www.ncsc.org/consulting-and-research/areas-of-expertise/court-leadership/center-for-judicial-ethics) and Beyond Civics Education (www.ncsc.org/education-and-careers/civics/beyond-civics-education).
This interactive resource helps court leaders, policymakers, and the public examine how commissions operate, including how they conduct their proceedings and what types of sanctions they order or recommend.
The tool organizes data from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., into key categories:
• Composition of Judicial Conduct Commissions
• When Confidentiality Ceases in Formal Judicial Discipline Proceedings
• Private Dispositions or Sanctions
• Public Sanctions
• Private, Informal, and Public Dispositions
“Judicial conduct commissions serve as the enforcement arm for the ethical standards adopted by each state and work to build confidence in the judiciary by enforcing these standards,” said David Sachar, director of the Center for Judicial Ethics. “By compiling this data, we inform the public, enable states to evaluate their rules, and can track trends in judicial ethics and the development of state judicial conduct commissions.”
Judicial conduct commissions, most of which were formed by state constitutions between 1965 and 1980, are well established in overseeing judicial ethics. Some notable findings include:
• Judicial conduct commissions mostly consist of judicial officers, public members, and attorneys.
• In 44 states and D.C., removal is available as a sanction in judicial discipline proceedings.
• In 36 states, the fact-finding hearing in formal judicial discipline proceedings is public.
• In 40 jurisdictions, suspension without pay is available as a sanction in judicial discipline proceedings.
Public trust in the judicial system is closely tied to transparency and accountability. In 2023 the CCJ/COSCA Public Engagement, Trust, and Confidence Committee conducted focus groups to explore public confidence in the judiciary.
“The focus groups revealed that almost nobody knows that codes of judicial conduct exist,” explained Jesse Rutledge, NCSC’s vice president for Public Affairs. “When the public learns about these codes, their confidence in the system increases.”
The focus group findings informed the publication, “Beyond Civics Education: A Health and Wellness Guide for Getting Public Trust Back in Shape,” released in September 2024. The report urges courts to go beyond civics education and integrate ethics, accountability, and transparency—including judicial ethics—into public outreach efforts.
To explore judicial ethics, accountability, and transparency initiatives, visit the websites for the Center for Judicial Ethics (www.ncsc.org/consulting-and-research/areas-of-expertise/court-leadership/center-for-judicial-ethics) and Beyond Civics Education (www.ncsc.org/education-and-careers/civics/beyond-civics-education).
