Just two federal law clerks filed complaints under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act (JCDA) in 2025, according to the judiciary’s recently released 2025 statistics. Not because judges don’t mistreat their clerks but because the complaint process is broken. Consider this: according to the judiciary’s own 2023 workplace conduct survey, 106 clerks described actionable mistreatment that year. So, a functional system would yield nearly 106 complaints: yet that year, there were just three complaints. Clerks rarely file, given the enormous headwinds against reporting: they’re not legally protected against retaliation for doing so.
Judges have life tenure and cannot be fired: so, the JCDA delineates a process that, in the most serious circumstances, could lead to congressional impeachment and removal from office. It’s the only way to discipline judges, since they’re exempt from the anti-discrimination laws they interpret and enjoy legal immunity for harassing people. Anyone can file a complaint alleging “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts” — basically, that a judge has committed misconduct or has a disability that precludes them from effectively discharging their duties.
Since the judiciary insists it can “self-police” and runs an “exemplary” workplace, you’d think complaints would be encouraged and taken seriously. In fact, judiciary officials spend most of their time dissuading clerks from filing complaints — heavily incentivized to sweep misconduct under the rug and shield abusive judges from accountability.
Most misconduct isn’t formally reported — it’s shared informally with an employee dispute resolution (EDR) coordinator, director of workplace relations (DWR), or chief judge — who often discourage clerks from filing complaints. Or, clerks believe they have reported. One clerk told me recently, “I spoke with the DWR: I thought I did report and they’d take care of it.” No. Disturbingly, judiciary officials are not required to act or even to disclose troubling information: they’re sitting on massive evidence of misconduct. For example, the Second Circuit DWR tasked with assisting Judge Sarah Merriam’s clerks actually withheld information. If and when congressional Democrats take the majority in 2027, the House Judiciary Committee should subpoena all notes and records related to these clerk conversations, which would reveal a treasure trove of actionable information. Then, Congress and the courts should take investigatory and disciplinary action.
In 2025, LAP assisted clerks with JCDA complaints against Maryland judge Lydia Kay Griggsby and former Minnesota bankruptcy judge Kesha Tanabe, because sunlight is the best disinfectant, and public accountability not only warns prospective clerks, but also deters misconduct. Disturbingly, the Tanabe complaint was withdrawn by the clerk under pressure from the Eighth Circuit, after officials told him the judge “was resigning anyway.” That incident precipitated introduction of the TRUST Act, which would revise the JCDA so investigations against judges can continue after they step down to evade accountability. Unsurprisingly, that bill stalled in Congress. Former judge Mark Wolf pulled the same stunt late last year: there would be a renewed push for legislation in different times.
Unfortunately, the complaint process relies on subordinates to blow the whistle on powerful superiors, which they rarely do, since they’re not protected against retaliation. Clerks perceive the risks of career damage and reputational harm as not worth the potential benefits, given how few judges are disciplined. In fact, I think the risk is overblown, and clerks are better able to protect against retaliation if they have a documented complaint than if they have no evidence except their word against the judge’s. But it’s still an uphill battle to convince clerks to report, given the challenges of navigating the byzantine complaint process, typically without legal counsel.
Complaint statistics are a terrible metric of judicial misconduct, given how few clerks report. The judiciary’s 2023 workplace conduct survey is a better one. While quantifying the scope of the problem is the first step toward crafting effective solutions, there’s been no next step—from the courts or from Congress. For example, the judiciary has not investigated the 106 aforementioned judges’ misconduct. They should. Nor have they conducted another workplace survey since 2023: they took nearly two years after collecting data to publicly disclose it, during which there was significant judge and clerk turnover. The Judiciary Accountability Act (JAA), for which I provided testimony four years ago this month, would require the judiciary to conduct an annual workplace survey and publicly disclose the results, as well as outcomes of both JCDA and internal EDR complaints.
Importantly, the judiciary tries to funnel clerks away from JCDA complaints and to a second reporting process, EDR, because there’s no accountability for judges and the judiciary is not required to release disciplinary orders disclosing the misconduct, eliminating even the appearance of transparency. EDR is not popular: only 20 percent of employees who participated in EDR were satisfied with the process in 2023. And while the judiciary misleadingly frames it as an “alternative” to Title VII, it’s not: monetary remedies — the cornerstone of Title VII — are not available to judiciary employees who endured serious career and reputational harm. The only “remedy” is reassignment: that does not repair clerks’ careers. Nor does reassigning clerks prevent judges from continuing to mistreat employees: like with Judges Griggsby and Merriam, simply reassigning clerks without disciplining and retraining abusive judges is a Band-aid over a bullet hole that does not solve the problem, leaves future clerks vulnerable to mistreatment, and may even embolden judges to treat clerks worse.
What’s the point of judicial discipline? Isn’t it better for abusive judges to step down so they can’t mistreat clerks? Well, they can mistreat subordinates in their next jobs, since most aren’t disbarred. And if they’re not disciplined and retrained, they’ll continue mistreating subordinates. Judges who resigned amid misconduct investigations, including Wolf and Tanabe, went to law firms and could subject vulnerable subordinates to abuse with no way for them to avoid it.
Discipline deters bad behavior. It’s why we have laws and rules: many lawyers’ jobs are literally to interpret the ones that apply to everyone but judges. When judges face real consequences for abusing their power — like a public reprimand that tarnishes their reputation, a suspension, or perhaps even impeachment and removal from office — they’re less likely to misbehave. Yet judges face no disincentive to mistreat clerks, given how rarely they’re disciplined.
Many are rightfully skeptical of government’s ability to ethically serve the public. But while much ink is spilled discussing public corruption — congressional stock trading based on insider information; wealthy individuals purchasing pardons; and those with influence currying favor with the White House and government officials — the courts get a free pass for judicial corruption. Judges interpret our laws — making decisions every day affecting litigants’ lives, livelihoods, and liberty — while not subject to those same laws. They commit misconduct behind the bench, while ruling on litigants’ misconduct in front of the bench.
Frankly, the public should not have any confidence in the judiciary as a fair and neutral arbiter of disputes, given the misconduct judges get away with. The federal judiciary is perpetrating a fraud upon the public: concealing misconduct, obfuscating about the scope of the problem, and flouting congressional authority. Judicial corruption is no different from other public corruption: the courts are just better at hiding it by controlling the levers of power, chilling law clerk complaints, and stymying Congress from asking questions. These disturbing 2025 complaint statistics, released days after three back-to-back reported instances of judicial misconduct in just six weeks, are just the latest in a long line of red flags. Judges cannot remain above the law: it’s time for meaningful action.
Aliza Shatzman is the President and Founder of The Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit aimed at ensuring that law clerks have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not. She regularly writes and speaks about judicial accountability and clerkships. Reach out to her via email at Aliza.Shatzman@legalaccountabilityproject.org and follow her on Twitter @AlizaShatzman.
The post Just 2 Federal Law Clerks Filed Complaints Against Judges Last Year appeared first on Above the Law.