Progress on Judicial Ethics

The judiciary takes steps in the right direction -- but not far enough.

THE FEDERAL judiciary took two steps last week to improve the public's perception of the standards of conduct for federal judges. First, a commission headed by Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued its report on the handling of misconduct allegations against judges. Separately, the Judicial Conference -- the administrative arm of the court system -- revised the rules governing educational junkets for jurists that get funded by private, sometimes ideologically tinged organizations. Both developments are positive. But the judiciary needs to do more.

The Breyer commission report found that in the vast majority of cases the judiciary did a reasonable job of policing itself. In all but the highest-profile cases of alleged misconduct, the panel found, the courts effectively weeded out meritless complaints by disgruntled litigants -- botching cases only about 2 percent of the time. The trouble is that this figure skyrocketed in those cases that command wide public attention.

The commission found that of 17 high-profile cases, nearly 30 percent -- five -- were not handled properly. Some were dismissed too blithely, others resolved without giving the targeted judges the ability to respond to the allegations. Such incidents have a corrosive impact on the public's view of the judiciary and have fed dangerous calls by members of Congress for intrusive investigations of judges. So it is imperative to make the system work better when it matters most. It's not clear that the report's recommendations -- which amount to enhancing consultation, education and advice -- will help much.

The judiciary's move on educational seminars is likewise constructive -- but not sufficient. There's nothing wrong with judges going to private educational seminars. But the appearances created when judges accept all-expenses-paid vacations from foundations that also fund litigation before them is awful. The Judicial Conference, which had previously weakened the rules to make this easier, announced last week that it would require that organizations paying for judicial travel disclose who is funding those trips. It also will require judges to disclose trips promptly. This will create more transparency -- but it doesn't address the central problem. In fact the solution is easy: When judges go to school, the judiciary ought to pay their way.