{"id":145730,"date":"2026-03-10T12:20:42","date_gmt":"2026-03-10T20:20:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/03\/10\/just-2-federal-law-clerks-filed-complaints-against-judges-last-year\/"},"modified":"2026-03-10T12:20:42","modified_gmt":"2026-03-10T20:20:42","slug":"just-2-federal-law-clerks-filed-complaints-against-judges-last-year","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/03\/10\/just-2-federal-law-clerks-filed-complaints-against-judges-last-year\/","title":{"rendered":"Just 2 Federal Law Clerks Filed Complaints Against Judges Last Year"},"content":{"rendered":"

Just two<\/em> federal law clerks filed complaints<\/a> under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act<\/a> (JCDA) in 2025, according to the judiciary\u2019s recently released<\/a> 2025 statistics<\/a>. Not<\/em> because judges don\u2019t mistreat their clerks but because the complaint process is broken<\/em><\/a>. Consider this: according to the judiciary\u2019s own 2023 workplace conduct survey<\/a>, 106 clerks described actionable mistreatment<\/a> that year. So, a functional system would yield nearly 106 complaints: yet that <\/em>year, there were just three complaints<\/em><\/a>. Clerks rarely file, given the enormous headwinds<\/a> against reporting: they\u2019re not legally protected against retaliation<\/em><\/a> for doing so.\u00a0<\/p>\n

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\u2019s the only<\/em> way to discipline judges, since they\u2019re exempt<\/a> from the anti-discrimination laws they interpret and enjoy <\/em>legal immunity<\/em><\/a> <\/em>for harassing people. Anyone can file a complaint alleging<\/a> \u201cconduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts\u201d \u2014 basically, that a judge has committed misconduct<\/a> or has a disability<\/a> that precludes them from effectively discharging their duties.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Since the judiciary insists it can \u201cself-police\u201d and runs an \u201cexemplary\u201d workplace, you\u2019d think complaints would be encouraged and taken seriously. In fact, judiciary officials spend most of their time dissuading clerks from filing complaints<\/a> \u2014 heavily incentivized to sweep misconduct under the rug<\/a> and shield abusive judges<\/a> from accountability.<\/p>\n

Most misconduct isn\u2019t formally reported \u2014 it\u2019s shared informally with an employee dispute resolution (EDR) coordinator<\/a>, director of workplace relations<\/a> (DWR), or chief judge \u2014 who often discourage<\/em><\/a> clerks from filing complaints. Or, clerks believe they have<\/em> reported. One clerk told me recently, \u201cI spoke with the DWR: I thought I did<\/em> report and they\u2019d take care of it.\u201d No. Disturbingly, judiciary officials are not required to act or even to disclose troubling information: they\u2019re sitting on massive<\/em> evidence of misconduct. For example, the Second Circuit DWR tasked with assisting Judge Sarah Merriam\u2019s clerks<\/a> actually withheld<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n

In 2025, LAP assisted clerks with JCDA complaints against Maryland judge Lydia Kay Griggsby<\/a> and former Minnesota bankruptcy judge Kesha Tanabe<\/a>, because sunlight is the best disinfectant, and public accountability not only warns prospective clerks, but also deters misconduct. Disturbingly, the Tanabe complaint was withdrawn <\/em>by the clerk under pressure from the Eighth Circuit<\/em>, after officials told him the judge \u201cwas resigning anyway.\u201d That incident precipitated introduction of the TRUST Act<\/a>, which would revise the JCDA<\/a> so investigations against judges can continue after they step down to evade accountability. Unsurprisingly, that bill stalled in Congress. Former judge Mark Wolf<\/a> pulled the same stunt<\/a> late last year: there would be a renewed push for legislation in different times.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, the complaint process relies on subordinates to blow the whistle on powerful superiors, which they rarely do, since they\u2019re 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<\/a>, 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\u2019s. But it\u2019s still an uphill battle to convince clerks to report, given the challenges of navigating the byzantine complaint process, typically without legal counsel<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Complaint statistics<\/a> are a terrible metric of judicial misconduct, given how few clerks report. The judiciary\u2019s 2023 workplace conduct survey<\/a> is a better one. While quantifying the scope of the problem is the first step toward crafting effective solutions, there\u2019s been no next step<\/em>\u2014from the courts or from Congress. For example, the judiciary has not investigated the 106 aforementioned judges\u2019<\/a> 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<\/a> (JAA), for which I provided testimony<\/a> four years ago this month, would require the judiciary to conduct an annual <\/em>workplace survey and publicly disclose the results, as well as outcomes of both JCDA and internal EDR complaints<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Importantly, the judiciary tries to funnel clerks away <\/em>from JCDA complaints and to a second reporting process<\/a>, EDR, because there\u2019s no accountability for judges and the judiciary is not required<\/em> to release disciplinary orders disclosing the misconduct, eliminating even the appearance of transparency. EDR is not <\/em>popular<\/a>: only 20 percent of employees who participated in EDR were satisfied with the process<\/em> in 2023. And while the judiciary misleadingly frames it as an \u201calternative<\/a>\u201d to Title VII, it\u2019s not: monetary remedies \u2014 the cornerstone of Title VII<\/a> \u2014 are not available to judiciary employees<\/em> who endured serious career and reputational harm. The only \u201cremedy\u201d is reassignment: that does not<\/em> repair clerks\u2019 careers. Nor does reassigning clerks prevent judges from continuing to mistreat employees: like with Judges Griggsby<\/a> and Merriam<\/a>, simply reassigning clerks without disciplining and retraining abusive judges is a Band-aid over a bullet hole<\/a> that does not solve the problem, leaves future clerks vulnerable to mistreatment, and may even embolden judges to treat clerks worse.\u00a0<\/p>\n

What\u2019s the point of judicial discipline? Isn\u2019t it better for abusive judges to step down so they can\u2019t mistreat clerks? Well, they can<\/em> mistreat subordinates in their next jobs, since most aren\u2019t disbarred<\/a>. And if they\u2019re not disciplined and retrained, they\u2019ll continue mistreating subordinates. Judges who resigned amid misconduct investigations, including Wolf<\/a> and Tanabe<\/a>, went to law firms and could subject vulnerable subordinates to abuse with no way for them to avoid it.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Discipline deters bad behavior<\/em><\/a>. It\u2019s why we have laws and rules: many lawyers\u2019 jobs are literally to interpret the ones that apply to everyone but judges<\/em>. When judges face real consequences for abusing their power \u2014 like a public reprimand<\/a> that tarnishes their reputation, a suspension<\/a>, or perhaps even impeachment<\/a> and removal from office \u2014 they\u2019re less likely to misbehave. Yet judges face no disincentive to mistreat clerks, given how rarely they\u2019re disciplined.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Many are rightfully skeptical of government\u2019s ability to ethically serve the public. But while much ink is spilled discussing public corruption \u2014 congressional stock trading<\/a> based on insider information; wealthy individuals purchasing pardons<\/a>; and those with influence currying favor<\/a> with the White House and government officials \u2014 the courts get a free pass for judicial corruption<\/em><\/a>. Judges interpret our laws \u2014 making decisions every day affecting litigants\u2019 lives, livelihoods, and liberty \u2014 while not subject to those same laws<\/a>. They commit misconduct behind the bench<\/a>, while ruling on litigants\u2019 misconduct in front of the bench.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Frankly, the public should not have any<\/em> 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<\/a> upon the public: concealing misconduct, obfuscating<\/a> about the scope of the problem, and flouting congressional authority<\/a>. 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<\/a>, released days after three<\/a> back-to-back reported instances of judicial misconduct in just six weeks<\/em><\/a>,<\/em> are just the latest in a long line of red flags<\/a>. Judges cannot remain above the law<\/a>: it\u2019s time for meaningful action.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

Aliza Shatzman is the President and Founder of\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>The Legal Accountability Project<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, 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\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Aliza.Shatzman@legalaccountabilityproject.org<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and follow her on Twitter @AlizaShatzman.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Just 2 Federal Law Clerks Filed Complaints Against Judges Last Year<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Just two<\/em> federal law clerks filed complaints<\/a> under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act<\/a> (JCDA) in 2025, according to the judiciary\u2019s recently released<\/a> 2025 statistics<\/a>. Not<\/em> because judges don\u2019t mistreat their clerks but because the complaint process is broken<\/em><\/a>. Consider this: according to the judiciary\u2019s own 2023 workplace conduct survey<\/a>, 106 clerks described actionable mistreatment<\/a> that year. So, a functional system would yield nearly 106 complaints: yet that <\/em>year, there were just three complaints<\/em><\/a>. Clerks rarely file, given the enormous headwinds<\/a> against reporting: they\u2019re not legally protected against retaliation<\/em><\/a> for doing so.\u00a0<\/p>\n

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\u2019s the only<\/em> way to discipline judges, since they\u2019re exempt<\/a> from the anti-discrimination laws they interpret and enjoy <\/em>legal immunity<\/em><\/a> <\/em>for harassing people. Anyone can file a complaint alleging<\/a> \u201cconduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts\u201d \u2014 basically, that a judge has committed misconduct<\/a> or has a disability<\/a> that precludes them from effectively discharging their duties.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Since the judiciary insists it can \u201cself-police\u201d and runs an \u201cexemplary\u201d workplace, you\u2019d think complaints would be encouraged and taken seriously. In fact, judiciary officials spend most of their time dissuading clerks from filing complaints<\/a> \u2014 heavily incentivized to sweep misconduct under the rug<\/a> and shield abusive judges<\/a> from accountability.<\/p>\n

Most misconduct isn\u2019t formally reported \u2014 it\u2019s shared informally with an employee dispute resolution (EDR) coordinator<\/a>, director of workplace relations<\/a> (DWR), or chief judge \u2014 who often discourage<\/em><\/a> clerks from filing complaints. Or, clerks believe they have<\/em> reported. One clerk told me recently, \u201cI spoke with the DWR: I thought I did<\/em> report and they\u2019d take care of it.\u201d No. Disturbingly, judiciary officials are not required to act or even to disclose troubling information: they\u2019re sitting on massive<\/em> evidence of misconduct. For example, the Second Circuit DWR tasked with assisting Judge Sarah Merriam\u2019s clerks<\/a> actually withheld<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n

In 2025, LAP assisted clerks with JCDA complaints against Maryland judge Lydia Kay Griggsby<\/a> and former Minnesota bankruptcy judge Kesha Tanabe<\/a>, because sunlight is the best disinfectant, and public accountability not only warns prospective clerks, but also deters misconduct. Disturbingly, the Tanabe complaint was withdrawn <\/em>by the clerk under pressure from the Eighth Circuit<\/em>, after officials told him the judge \u201cwas resigning anyway.\u201d That incident precipitated introduction of the TRUST Act<\/a>, which would revise the JCDA<\/a> so investigations against judges can continue after they step down to evade accountability. Unsurprisingly, that bill stalled in Congress. Former judge Mark Wolf<\/a> pulled the same stunt<\/a> late last year: there would be a renewed push for legislation in different times.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, the complaint process relies on subordinates to blow the whistle on powerful superiors, which they rarely do, since they\u2019re 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<\/a>, 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\u2019s. But it\u2019s still an uphill battle to convince clerks to report, given the challenges of navigating the byzantine complaint process, typically without legal counsel<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Complaint statistics<\/a> are a terrible metric of judicial misconduct, given how few clerks report. The judiciary\u2019s 2023 workplace conduct survey<\/a> is a better one. While quantifying the scope of the problem is the first step toward crafting effective solutions, there\u2019s been no next step<\/em>\u2014from the courts or from Congress. For example, the judiciary has not investigated the 106 aforementioned judges\u2019<\/a> 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<\/a> (JAA), for which I provided testimony<\/a> four years ago this month, would require the judiciary to conduct an annual <\/em>workplace survey and publicly disclose the results, as well as outcomes of both JCDA and internal EDR complaints<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Importantly, the judiciary tries to funnel clerks away <\/em>from JCDA complaints and to a second reporting process<\/a>, EDR, because there\u2019s no accountability for judges and the judiciary is not required<\/em> to release disciplinary orders disclosing the misconduct, eliminating even the appearance of transparency. EDR is not <\/em>popular<\/a>: only 20 percent of employees who participated in EDR were satisfied with the process<\/em> in 2023. And while the judiciary misleadingly frames it as an \u201calternative<\/a>\u201d to Title VII, it\u2019s not: monetary remedies \u2014 the cornerstone of Title VII<\/a> \u2014 are not available to judiciary employees<\/em> who endured serious career and reputational harm. The only \u201cremedy\u201d is reassignment: that does not<\/em> repair clerks\u2019 careers. Nor does reassigning clerks prevent judges from continuing to mistreat employees: like with Judges Griggsby<\/a> and Merriam<\/a>, simply reassigning clerks without disciplining and retraining abusive judges is a Band-aid over a bullet hole<\/a> that does not solve the problem, leaves future clerks vulnerable to mistreatment, and may even embolden judges to treat clerks worse.\u00a0<\/p>\n

What\u2019s the point of judicial discipline? Isn\u2019t it better for abusive judges to step down so they can\u2019t mistreat clerks? Well, they can<\/em> mistreat subordinates in their next jobs, since most aren\u2019t disbarred<\/a>. And if they\u2019re not disciplined and retrained, they\u2019ll continue mistreating subordinates. Judges who resigned amid misconduct investigations, including Wolf<\/a> and Tanabe<\/a>, went to law firms and could subject vulnerable subordinates to abuse with no way for them to avoid it.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Discipline deters bad behavior<\/em><\/a>. It\u2019s why we have laws and rules: many lawyers\u2019 jobs are literally to interpret the ones that apply to everyone but judges<\/em>. When judges face real consequences for abusing their power \u2014 like a public reprimand<\/a> that tarnishes their reputation, a suspension<\/a>, or perhaps even impeachment<\/a> and removal from office \u2014 they\u2019re less likely to misbehave. Yet judges face no disincentive to mistreat clerks, given how rarely they\u2019re disciplined.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Many are rightfully skeptical of government\u2019s ability to ethically serve the public. But while much ink is spilled discussing public corruption \u2014 congressional stock trading<\/a> based on insider information; wealthy individuals purchasing pardons<\/a>; and those with influence currying favor<\/a> with the White House and government officials \u2014 the courts get a free pass for judicial corruption<\/em><\/a>. Judges interpret our laws \u2014 making decisions every day affecting litigants\u2019 lives, livelihoods, and liberty \u2014 while not subject to those same laws<\/a>. They commit misconduct behind the bench<\/a>, while ruling on litigants\u2019 misconduct in front of the bench.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Frankly, the public should not have any<\/em> 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<\/a> upon the public: concealing misconduct, obfuscating<\/a> about the scope of the problem, and flouting congressional authority<\/a>. 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<\/a>, released days after three<\/a> back-to-back reported instances of judicial misconduct in just six weeks<\/em><\/a>,<\/em> are just the latest in a long line of red flags<\/a>. Judges cannot remain above the law<\/a>: it\u2019s time for meaningful action.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

Aliza Shatzman is the President and Founder of\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>The Legal Accountability Project<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, 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\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Aliza.Shatzman@legalaccountabilityproject.org<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and follow her on Twitter @AlizaShatzman.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Just 2 Federal Law Clerks Filed Complaints Against Judges Last Year<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Just two federal law clerks filed complaints under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act (JCDA) in 2025, according to the judiciary\u2019s recently released 2025 statistics. Not because judges don\u2019t mistreat their clerks but because the complaint process is broken. Consider this: according to the judiciary\u2019s own 2023 workplace conduct survey, 106 clerks described actionable mistreatment […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-145730","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145730","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=145730"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145730\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145730"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145730"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145730"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}