National College on Judicial Conduct and Ethics

8:30 to 10 a.m.
Plenary Session

Best Practices in Judicial Ethics and Discipline
In this “crowd-sourced” session, participants will share their ideas about what policies and practices supreme courts, judicial conduct commissions, and judicial ethics advisory committees can adopt that will provide judges the ethical guidance they need, ensure an effective, fair, and effective discipline system, and promote public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. Moderators:  Cynthia Gray, Director Emeritus, Center for Judicial Ethics, National Center for State Courts; and David J. Sachar, Director, Center for Judicial Ethics, National Center for State Courts.

10:30 a.m. to noon
Breakout Sessions

Determining the Appropriate Sanction
Examining recent judicial discipline cases, this session will review the criteria for imposing sanctions and discuss issues such as the relevance of a judge’s failure to express remorse and when removal is appropriate.  Participants will “vote” on what sanctions they would have imposed in actual judicial discipline cases.  Moderators:  Emily Abbott, Executive Director, Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission; and Judge Michael Evans, Superior Court Judge, Alternate Member, Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Introduction to Judicial Ethics and Discipline for New Members of Judicial Conduct Commissions
This session will give new members of judicial conduct commissions an overview of the ethical standards they will be enforcing, focusing on the misconduct that results in the most judicial discipline cases and discussing the types of complaints that are frequently made but usually dismissed. Moderators:  Judge Victoria Darrisaw, Dougherty Superior Court; Member, Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission; and Taylor Henderson, Administrative Director, Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints.

Ethical Judges on Social Media
This session will focus on three of the many ethical issues that have arisen since the first judicial ethics advisory opinion on social media was issued in 2007 and the first judge was disciplined for conduct on social media in 2009.  First, it will consider the application of the rules on abusing the prestige of office and raising funds for charities in the contest of judges’ posts about extra-judicial activities.  Second, it will examine the many cases in which judges have been disciplined for posting and reposting comments and memes on controversial social and political issues. Finally, based on provisions already adopted in some states, participants will discuss whether and how the code of judicial conduct should be amended to reflect the fact that, like it or not, many judges will choose to go on social media. Moderators:  J. Reiko Callner, Executive Director, Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct; and Judge Peter M. Reyes, Jr., Minnesota Court of Appeals.

1:30 to 3 p.m.
Breakout Sessions

Sexual Harassment
After many years of training spawned by the #metoo movement, what are the best practices for judges who oversee the judicial workplace? With particular emphasis on bystander training, the session will explore the responsibility judges have not only to avoid sexual harassment themselves but to take appropriate action to ensure a non-hostile workplace for everyone at the courthouse. Moderators:  Sadina Montani, Partner, Crowell & Moring, Washington, D.C.; and Adrienne Meiring, Counsel, Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications.

Judicial Civility and Demeanor
This session will address how judicial conduct commissions can distinguish between a momentary lapse in judicial courtesy that can be excused and a lack of judicial temperament that must be remedied. It will also consider when and how commissions should impose conditions such as mentoring or counseling on a judge with a demeanor problem. Moderators:  Michelle Beaty, Special Counsel, Louisiana Judiciary Commission; and Judge Louis Frank Dominguez, Presiding Judge, Surprise City Court, Member, Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Appearance of Impropriety
This session will review the use and possible misuse of the appearance of impropriety standard in judicial ethics advisory opinions and judicial discipline decisions and debate whether the rule is unfairly vague or necessary and appropriate.  Moderators:  Cynthia Gray, Director Emeritus, Center for Judicial Ethics, National Center for State Courts; and Robert Tembeckjian, Administrator and Counsel, New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

3:30 to 5 p.m.
Breakout Sessions

The Role of Public Members on Judicial Conduct Commission
Participants will discuss how public members can maintain an equal voice in deliberations, recognize the reality of potentially different consequences for judicial members vs public members when interfacing with the legislature and/or media, and how to best represent the public’s interests both inside and outside of commission meetings.  Moderators:  Colleen Concannon, Member, Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct; and Ralph Malone, Member, Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission.

Attacks and challenges for judicial conduct commissions
Judicial conduct commissions are important to ensuring that the judiciary is acting in an ethical manner. This important role – coupled with the power to investigate powerful people – can cause outside forces to investigate ways to hinder or change the way these watchdog agencies do their jobs. Many times, these commissions come under attack by political forces. The panel will explore real life challenges that judicial conduct commissions have faced and how they were able to combat these attacks. Moderators: Jacqueline Habersham, Executive Director, Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct; Chris Gregory, Executive Director, Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline; and Jay Postel, Deputy Administrator, New York Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Judicial Disability Cases
Judicial disability cases rarely result in full public disclosure of the underlying issue. Often it is a medical, mental, or addiction problem that brings the case to the commission for investigation. Despite generally following the same procedural guidelines as discipline cases, these cases are very different in nature. The panel will discuss strategies, case examples, and ideas to better serve the public and the judiciary in these difficult situations. Moderators: Mark Levine, Deputy Administrator, New York Commission on Judicial Conduct; Brenda Correa, Senior Attorney, New York Commission on Judicial Conduct; and David J. Sachar, Director, Center for Judicial Ethics.

8:30 to 10 a.m.
Breakout Sessions

Ethical Judges on Social Media
This session will focus on three of the many ethical issues that have arisen since the first judicial ethics advisory opinion on social media was issued in 2007 and the first judge was disciplined for conduct on social media in 2009.  First, it will consider the application of the rules on abusing the prestige of office and raising funds for charities in the contest of judges’ posts about extra-judicial activities.  Second, it will examine the many cases in which judges have been disciplined for posting and reposting comments and memes on controversial social and political issues. Finally, based on provisions already adopted in some states, participants will discuss whether and how the code of judicial conduct should be amended to reflect the fact that, like it or not, many judges will choose to go on social media.  Moderators:  J. Reiko Callner, Executive Director, Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct; and Judge Peter M. Reyes, Jr., Minnesota Court of Appeals.

Sexual Harassment
After many years of training spawned by the #metoo movement, what are the best practices for judges who oversee the judicial workplace? With particular emphasis on bystander training, the session will explore the responsibility judges have not only to avoid sexual harassment themselves but to take appropriate action to ensure a non-hostile workplace for everyone at the courthouse. Moderators:  Sadina Montani, Partner, Crowell & Moring, Washington, D.C.;  and Adrienne Meiring, Counsel, Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications.

Appearance of Impropriety
This session will review the use and possible misuse of the appearance of impropriety standard in judicial ethics advisory opinions and judicial discipline decisions and debate whether the rule is unfairly vague or necessary and appropriate.  Moderators:  Cynthia Gray, Director Emeritus, Center for Judicial Ethics, National Center for State Courts; and Robert Tembeckjian, Administrator and Counsel, New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

10:30 a.m. to noon
Breakout Sessions

Determining the Appropriate Sanction
Examining recent judicial discipline cases, this session will review the criteria for imposing sanctions and discuss issues such as the relevance of a judge’s failure to express remorse and when removal is appropriate.  Participants will “vote” on what sanctions they would have imposed in actual judicial discipline cases.  Moderators:  Emily Abbott, Executive Director, Arkansas Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission; and Judge Michael Evans, Superior Court Judge, Alternate Member, Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Judicial Civility and Demeanor
This session will address how judicial conduct commissions can distinguish between a momentary lapse in judicial courtesy that can be excused and a lack of judicial temperament that must be remedied. It will also consider when and how commissions should impose conditions such as mentoring or counseling on a judge with a demeanor problem. Moderators:  Michelle Beaty, Special Counsel, Louisiana Judiciary Commission; and Judge Louis Frank Dominguez, Presiding Judge, Surprise City Court, Member, Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Attacks and Challenges for Judicial Conduct Commissions
Judicial conduct commissions are important to ensuring that the judiciary is acting in an ethical manner. This important role – coupled with the power to investigate powerful people – can cause outside forces to investigate ways to hinder or change the way these watchdog agencies do their jobs. Many times, these commissions come under attack by political forces. The panel will explore real life challenges that judicial conduct commissions have faced and how they were able to combat these attacks. Moderators: Jacqueline Habersham, Executive Director, Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct; Chris Gregory, Executive Director, Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline; and Jay Postel, Deputy Administrator, New York Commission on Judicial Conduct.

• Virtual National College on Judicial Conduct and Ethics (2021)
• 26^th National College on Judicial Conduct and Ethics (2019)
• 25^th National College on Judicial Conduct and Ethics (2017)
• 24^th National College on Judicial Conduct and Ethics (2015)