Judicial sanctions to go online
March 13, 2008
Information on federal judicial misconduct sanctions will soon be as close as your computer, according to our sister blog, DC Dicta.
Under new rules approved this week by the U.S. Judicial Conference, sanctions will be posted online and will identify the federal judge involved by name.
Information about complaints that are dismissed will remain confidential, but the new rules (PDF) allow the USJC’s Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability to review such dismissals to determine whether special investigating committees should be appointed.
The rules come in response to a 2006 report by a special committee chaired by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer that identified problems with some judges’ handling of high-profile complaints against their colleagues, DC Dicta says.
Breyer praised the new rules in a statement, calling their implementation “a very good thing” for the federal courts and those who use them.
Now, you might think Maryland must be way ahead of the feds on this point. After all, the Web site for the state’s Attorney Grievance Commission prominently posts the names and offenses of sanctioned lawyers, with big, boldly marked links for 2006, 2007 and this year’s ongoing count.
But does the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities follows suit for sanctioned state judges? No; at least, not anywhere that I could find online.
True, people choose their lawyers, not their judges. But why have two different standards for online disclosure?
BARBARA GRZINCIC, Managing Editor/Law
UPDATE: Gary J. Kolb, executive director of the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities, says a new Web site is in the works, pending the commission’s vote on March 24. “I’ve been pushing for this for a long time,” Kolb says. If approved, the new site will be “more accessible and more useful” than the current one-page fact sheet, with a downloadable complaint form, a Q&A section, a copy of the ethics rules and annual reports with statistics on claims handled by the commission, among other information. Will it include public sanctions for individual judges, though? “Not this first version,” Kolb says, but he’s working on it.
Sphere: Related ContentLawyers in trouble
December 21, 2007
The University of Maryland’s Capital News Service has a couple of interesting stories on what we here like to call “Lawyers Behaving Badly,” a.k.a. Attorney Grievance Commission actions. (Come on, you know you like this stuff. Attorney malfeasance stories are consistently among the most read on our Web site.)
Writer Anju Kaur looked at discipline records and found that the number of attorney reprimands issued since private sanctions were banned does not equal the number issued back when they could be kept private. Kaur also looked at what sorts of behavior can get you disbarred in Maryland. (Hint: microwaving your divorce client’s estranged wife’s cat won’t do it.)
Ever see an AGC case where you think the Court of Appeals made a mistake in determining the sanction? Do you think more lawyers ought to be disciplined? Or is the AGC already bringing charges against too many?
CARYN TAMBER, Legal Affairs Writer
Sphere: Related Content-
Business
Business postsLaw
Law postsRecent Posts
- Can the city support an NBA or NHL team?
- What’s in a name?
- A foot-stompin’ good time
- “Do you have any Grey Poupon?”
- Living with less international news
- What’s cooking at the old deli?
Recent Comments
- Anonymous: I think the recent rise in wine festivals is due to ever-increasing alcohol abuse. For some reason,...
- Anonymous: I know people who have tried overnight delivery of luggage with great success. Easy to check in, easy to...
- Anonymous: Newspapers will cater to their clientele. The unwashed masses prefer knowing the scores in last...
- Anne Riley: The intern takes offense.
- Jerry: I hope they have marble ryes.