Ethics Lapses by Federal Judges Persist, Review Finds

In numerous other cases, judges' disclosure reports appear to identify conflicts of interest involving stocks, but the judges contended in interviews that no true conflicts existed because they had inadvertently misrepresented their holdings on the statements.

Unreported Trips

In most cases, it is impossible to independently determine whether judges are complying with the disclosure laws. That's because most organizations that give judges expense-paid trips keep the names of the judges secret.

An exception is FREE, the libertarian foundation. In recent years it has listed on its Web site the names of participants in its seminars, which are held at a dude ranch and a historic railroad hotel in Montana.

Hundreds of judges have attended, and officials at the private, nonprofit foundation said they pick up all costs, including airfare, for 90 percent of them.

FREE estimated that food, lodging and horseback riding for one recent five-day seminar totaled $1,350 per person. Judges often bring their spouses but must pay for any additional costs incurred.

When questioned, five judges who attended seminars between 2002 and 2004 acknowledged accepting free trips but not listing them on disclosure reports. Some judges said they forgot to make the entries, while others said they were unaware of the rules.

Ethics experts questioned those explanations, pointing out that the annual financial disclosure forms, which the judges must sign under penalty of law, direct them to itemize each gift and reimbursement for "transportation, lodging, food."

One judge who left the section blank was Peter Beer of the Eastern District of Louisiana. Beer checked a box labeled "none" on his reports for 2002 and 2004.

In an interview, Beer said that FREE had paid expenses at two seminars on a tourist ranch near Yellowstone National Park. "As far as I was concerned, that was not an item that I was required to report," Beer said. "I never considered I was obliged to do that."

The sponsors of the seminars disagreed.

"There's no controversy over this -- it should be disclosed," said Pete Geddes, FREE's executive vice president. He called the judges' failures to make the trips public "surprising and a little frustrating."

Beer said the ranch provided "pleasant surroundings" and, after the day's discussions, allowed time for hiking and other outdoor activities. Beer said he thought, but could not be sure, that his wife accompanied him on one of the trips.

Beer should have been on notice about his legal duty to disclose the gifts, Kendall said. A study by The Post in 2000 found that Beer had failed to disclose an earlier FREE trip.

Some ethics experts said the lapses were especially striking because the FREE seminars have become controversial in recent years after questions about their content were raised by Community Rights Counsel. The law firm argues that FREE tilts its seminars to emphasize views favorable to the foundation's corporate backers, something FREE and many judges adamantly dispute.

Other judges who acknowledged accepting expense-paid trips but failing to disclose them included David Sentelle of the District of Columbia Circuit Court, Gerald Bard Tjoflat of the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta, Dudley H. Bowen Jr. of the District Court in Augusta, Ga., and Malcolm Howard of the District Court in Greenville, N.C.

Judges who did not respond to inquiries about their attendance at the seminars included Vanessa Gilmore of the district court in Houston, Donald E. Walter of the district court in Shreveport, La., and Judith M. Barzilay of the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York. None disclosed the trips in their annual reports.