|
Community Rights Counsel (CRC), a public interest law firm
and judicial ethics watchdog, expressed shock today at the
American Bar Association's proposal to dramatically weaken
the ABA's Model Code of Judicial Conduct. According to Doug
Kendall, CRC's Executive Director: "Judicial ethics rules
are already toothless; the ABA seems ready to remove their
gums."
The ABA's Model Code of Judicial Conduct serves as the blueprint
for the binding ethical codes that apply to federal judges
and state judges across the country. At noon today, the ABA
Joint Commission to Evaluate the Model Code posted on its
website a draft of important sections of its proposed new
Model Code. This draft makes a significant number of changes
to the existing ethical standards. Every one of these changes
makes the Model Code weaker and harder to enforce.
Most notably, the proposed new Canon 1 eliminates the requirement
that judges act at all times "in a manner that promotes
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary" and the Canon makes clear that judges should
rarely (if ever) face discipline for violating the requirement
that judges must avoid the "appearance of impropriety."
New Canon 2 does not contain the existing prohibition against
judicial membership in discriminatory clubs and has a new
section entitled "Duty to Decide," which cautions
judges against recusing themselves too frequently (as if that
were the problem). Most symbolically and inexplicably, the
new Canon 1 drops the words "and honorable" from
existing Canon 1's recognition that "[a]n independent
and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our
society."
In Doug Kendall's words: "In a time of unprecedented
concern over judicial ethics, it is shocking and sad that
the ABA would consider weakening ethical rules. It's like
responding to students' failure to meet educational goals
by dumbing down our standardized tests."
Community Rights Counsel investigations have revealed that
federal judges have violated judicial ethics rules by presiding
over cases despite having a financial interest in one of the
parties and bxy failing to disclose their participation in
junkets for judges. CRC's most recent investigation, Tainted
Justice: How Private Judicial Trips Undermine Public Trust
in the Judiciary, and ethics petitions filed by CRC simultaneously
with the release of that investigation, demonstrate that judges
can run afoul of ethical mandates, including the appearance
of impropriety standard, by attending junkets funded by companies
appearing before them, and by serving on the board of an organization
that hosts junkets for federal judges. CRC's investigation
and petitions are available at www.communityrights.org/taintedjustice/main.asp.
For a more detailed summary of the proposed changes, click
here. For the actual proposed revisions to Canon 1, click
here; to Canon 2, click
here. As The
New York Times recently editorialized, "[t]he...proposals...would
actually weaken the core provision that requires judges to
avoid...the appearance of impropriety."
|
