New limits on judges at private seminars
on Sep 19, 2006 at 2:55 pm
The U.S. Judicial Conference, policymaking arm of the federal courts, on Tuesday adopted a strict new system to control the kinds of privately-funded educational seminars that federal judges may attend, and limit the expenses they may get reimbursed for attending such events. The policy applies only to lower court judges, because the Conference does not have any authority over the Supreme Court. The press release and links to the policy document involved can be found here
U.S. District Judge Thomas F.Hogan of Washington, D.C., who chairs the Conference executive committee, told reporters at the Supreme Court following the Conference’s semi-annual meeting there that the new policy was “in some respects a response to criticism” leveled at judges for attending expense-paid seminars conducted by groups that might have an interest in influencing the courts.
The policy bars any federal judge from accepting travel, food, lodging, reimbursement or anything that constitutes a gift from any non-governmental source sponsoring an educational seminar unless the judge determines that the sponsoring organization has publicly disclosed details about its program, what was discussed or presented, and every source of support for the program, “financial or otherwise.” That information must be sent to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, which will make it available to all judges. The policy applies to any such organization that intends to cover any more of a judge’s expenses of attendance than the $350 minimum that judges must now report on their annual financial disclosure forms.
Each judge, within 30 days after attending such a program, must file a report with that judge’s court’s clerk about the program.
The Judicial Conference, in a second action designed to aid judges in meeting their ethical duties, voted to require all federal courts to use new computer software that will identify cases in which judges may have a financial conflict of interest and should disqualify themselves. This mandatory conflict-checking policy will provide “an efficient and effective supplement” to the judge’s own review of potential conflicts lurking in cases that come before that judge’s court, the Conference said in a news release.
Judge Hogan told reporters that the Conference has been working on this issue for more than a year, and thus was not responding to controversies that arose in the recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., about his recusal practices on the Third Circuit Court.
