{"id":155598,"date":"2026-06-30T11:05:52","date_gmt":"2026-06-30T19:05:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/06\/30\/second-circuit-judge-sarah-merriam-disciplined-again-this-time-for-creating-a-tense-and-challenging-work-environment\/"},"modified":"2026-06-30T11:05:52","modified_gmt":"2026-06-30T19:05:52","slug":"second-circuit-judge-sarah-merriam-disciplined-again-this-time-for-creating-a-tense-and-challenging-work-environment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/06\/30\/second-circuit-judge-sarah-merriam-disciplined-again-this-time-for-creating-a-tense-and-challenging-work-environment\/","title":{"rendered":"Second Circuit Judge Sarah Merriam Disciplined Again, This Time for Creating A \u2018Tense And Challenging\u2019 Work Environment"},"content":{"rendered":"

The federal judiciary is perpetrating a fraud upon the public. With four judges in the news<\/a> just this month<\/em> for committing misconduct \u2014 Eleanor Ross<\/a>, Ryan Nelson<\/a>, Thomas Luddington<\/a>, and now Sarah Merriam<\/a> \u2014 we should be honest about systemic flaws<\/a> in the judicial complaint process that perpetuate misconduct, shield abusive judges from accountability, dissuade law clerks from reporting, and chill complaints.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Regular Above the Law readers know Sarah Merriam<\/a> \u2014 the Second Circuit judge first<\/em> disciplined in late 2023<\/a> for creating an \u201coverly harsh<\/a>\u201d work environment. Almost immediately, LAP learned Merriam continued to mistreat clerks, in flagrant violation of Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston\u2019s order. To violate that order, put in place pursuant to a federal law \u2014 the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act<\/a> (JCDA) \u2014 would be to violate the law. Disturbingly, those tasked with enforcing the discipline \u2014 the chief judge, who met with Merriam to discuss her workplace behavior; the Director of Workplace Relations (DWR), the law clerk point of contact tasked with checking in with Merriam\u2019s clerks; and the Second Circuit Executive \u2014 were aware or, in Livingston\u2019s case, should have been aware, that Merriam continued to mistreat clerks. Given this misconduct, the chief judge was empowered to identify another complaint against Merriam. Yet she did not.<\/p>\n

So, in December 2025, The Legal Accountability Project<\/a> (LAP) took a significant step toward real accountability, filing our first judicial misconduct complaint<\/a> as an organization against Merriam, alleging her chambers was \u201ccharacterized by fear, oppressive control, intimidation, humiliation, and bullying.\u201d LAP did not make this decision lightly<\/a>. But anyone \u2014 lawyers, litigants, law clerks, members of the public, and organizations like LAP \u2014 is empowered<\/a> to file a JCDA complaint alleging a judge has committed misconduct prejudicial to the fair and impartial administration of justice. Other good-government organizations file complaints against judges too. LAP\u2019s was in the public interest; the interests of more than 30,000 judicial branch employees who remain dangerously exempt<\/a> from all anti-discrimination, civil rights, and labor laws; and the interest of those in the judiciary who believe in ethics, accountability, and fair and respectful workplaces.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In 2023, the year Merriam was first disciplined, just three<\/em> clerks<\/a> filed JCDA complaints against judges. Yet the federal judiciary\u2019s own climate survey<\/a> revealed as many as 106 judges<\/a> \u2014 or 1 in 17 \u2014 harassed their clerks. That discrepancy is because clerks aren\u2019t legally protected against retaliation for reporting. The complaint process relies on young, vulnerable clerks, dependent on judges for references and career advancement, to blow the whistle. The judiciary doesn\u2019t make it easy, gaslighting<\/a> clerks and dismissing their concerns.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The federal judiciary insists<\/em> they can \u201cself-police,\u201d<\/a> so no reform<\/a>, outside oversight by Congress<\/a>, or legal protections for employees<\/a> against discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under Title VII is necessary. Yet clearly toothless \u201cdiscipline\u201d hadn\u2019t deterred Merriam<\/a>, and may even have emboldened her after mostly getting away with it the first time.\u00a0<\/p>\n

LAP\u2019s complaint provided the circuit with enough information to alert them of the problem and urge them to investigate. It was based on firsthand conversations with clerks, and reviewed by the first clerk complainant. We did not identify clerks by name to shield their identities from Merriam, who received a copy of the complaint and was legally empowered to retaliate against them. Frankly, LAP was preferable to a clerk filing, because clerks could be confidential witnesses instead of the named complainant. LAP hoped clerks would speak candidly with the chief judge. I expected, as the complainant, to be interviewed, to shed further light on the situation.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Clerks regularly contact me seeking advice and assistance: I tell them I\u2019m not their lawyer. I don\u2019t want to be clerks\u2019 therapist or carry their secrets. I tell them their experiences should, at a minimum, be submitted as post-clerkship surveys for LAP\u2019s Clerkships Database<\/a> to warn applicants<\/a>. To be clear: I don\u2019t think anyone should need therapy after their clerkship, and I\u2019ve dedicated my life and career<\/a> to fixing broken systems<\/a> that break clerks. But LAP is a watchdog; we don\u2019t provide legal services. We look out for the best interests<\/a> of thousands of federal clerks (state court clerks, too) who benefit from our work, whether they interact with us or not; over 30,000 vulnerable federal judiciary employees; hundreds of thousands of individuals impacted by our work or who interact with the courts; and society generally. When the circumstances demand it, we may file complaints to alert the court of misconduct that endangers clerks, staff, litigants and the public; and to underscore for the judiciary, Congress, and society generally, the urgent need for reform. We balance clerks\u2019 interests against the greater public interest.\u00a0<\/p>\n

I compared the initial 2022 Merriam complaint to Livingston\u2019s 2023 order concluding it: it\u2019s striking how Livingston whitewashed, cherrypicked, and frankly, misrepresented that clerk\u2019s allegations. Strangely, the clerk\u2019s substantiated abusive conduct allegations (Merriam acknowledged creating an \u201coverly harsh<\/a>\u201d work environment) aren\u2019t discussed in Livingston\u2019s order: the only ones she discusses<\/a> are three nonworkplace-conduct allegations she dismissed. The clerk was transferred out of Merriam\u2019s chambers, under the Employee Dispute Resolution (EDR) Plan<\/a>, before<\/em> they filed the JCDA complaint. Importantly, that\u2019s not unusual: the JCDA\u2019s intent is discipline<\/em> for judges, whereas EDR offers (limited) relief for clerks<\/em>. And when Livingston interviewed that clerk for her investigation, Merriam was in the next room, within earshot: this did not encourage candid reporting. Livingston doesn\u2019t appear particularly interested in a fair and impartial investigation. So, we shouldn\u2019t be surprised Livingston\u2019s \u201climited inquiry\u201d of LAP\u2019s complaint was too limited to properly investigate.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Livingston\u2019s 2026 order regarding LAP\u2019s complaint, issued close in time to the Judicial Conference\u2019s order<\/a> regarding Judge Eleanor Ross<\/a>, is another example of the broken judicial complaint process. To be clear: I am not comparing the severity of Merriam\u2019s misconduct to that of Ross. I am, however, comparing the lack of severity of discipline<\/em> in both, as well as the judiciary\u2019s repeated<\/em> failure to self-police despite insisting it can. LAP\u2019s workplace misconduct allegations were substantiated<\/a>: Merriam was again reprimanded, this time for creating a \u201ctense and challenging\u201d work environment, after<\/em> the 2023 disciplinary order. Further toothless remedies were imposed, similarly laughable to those imposed upon Ross: Merriam agreed to meet with judge advisors on workplace conduct; participate in management training; and attend annual workplace training. Merriam was undeterred the first time and will be undeterred the second. Punishment is a deterrent: without enforceable discipline, judges have no disincentive to commit misconduct. This situation, as well as Eleanor Ross<\/a>\u2019s, underscores that internal workplace complaints adjudicated by misbehaving judges\u2019 friends and colleagues should not be the sole method of accountability for life-tenured federal judges who interpret our laws.<\/p>\n

Because Livingston\u2019s order mentions the EDR Plan, it\u2019s important to distinguish EDR from the JCDA<\/a>. The JCDA offers discipline and accountability <\/em>for judicial misconduct. It resulted in this public disciplinary order<\/a>. Pursuant to the JCDA, the federal judiciary must release annual complaint statistics<\/a>. In contrast, no similar transparency or data disclosure obligations apply to EDR. EDR offers remedies for clerks<\/em>, not <\/em>discipline. The two are different. That\u2019s why the judiciary tries to funnel clerks away from JCDA complaints and to EDR \u2014 so they do not<\/em> have to release public disciplinary orders, nor data on employees\u2019 use of the EDR Plan. They don\u2019t have to discipline their colleagues. Peddling EDR, which clerks regularly tell me is a \u201csham,\u201d<\/a> is yet another way the judiciary tries to shield abusive judges from accountability. It\u2019s the height of dishonesty.\u00a0<\/p>\n

And, while Livingston suggests the Merriam matter was resolved before LAP filed, that\u2019s also irrelevant to a JCDA inquiry. Clerks file JCDA complaints after <\/em>they\u2019ve concluded their clerkships \u2014 as did the first Merriam complainant, and the Lydia Kay Griggsby complainant<\/a> \u2014 because they\u2019re safer from retaliation to file after leaving abusive work environments. It\u2019s disturbing that Livingston either doesn\u2019t understand her circuit\u2019s complaint processes, or publicly misrepresents them, since she\u2019s tasked with enforcing them.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n

LAP\u2019s complaint would have benefitted from a policy change to the JCDA: all complaints should be inter-circuit transferred so judges outside the misbehaving judge\u2019s circuit, rather than friends and colleagues, investigate them. Even the judiciary\u2019s Workplace Conduct Working Group Co-Chair conceded<\/a> it\u2019s difficult to impartially adjudicate colleagues\u2019 misconduct. Since Livingston adjudicated the first Merriam complaint, and LAP\u2019s complaint alleges Livingston and her colleagues failed to properly discipline Merriam the first time, Livingston should not have investigated this second complaint. Transferring the complaint would remove even the appearance of a conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Some wonder if LAP was right to file. When the judiciary misleadingly claims their complaint process works well, yet a judge who\u2019s been publicly disciplined flagrantly violates a disciplinary order and continues committing misconduct, risking harm to staff, litigants, and the public, LAP should alert the court. These circumstances justified disclosure.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Frankly, some lawyers are simply uncomfortable with the pace of change LAP creates \u2014 or, with any change at all. The status quo \u2014 keeping your head down and staying silent, self-preservation at all costs \u2014 benefits them. Perhaps they believe they\u2019re protecting their own reputations \u2014 though most lawyers I know view clerk whistleblowing as laudable, not shameful. Or, they want to protect the allegedly pristine reputations of judges they\u2019re associated with as they climb the legal ladder. Maybe they don\u2019t like that we call out liberal lions as much as conservative crusaders. Those are excuses, and hollow ones at that.\u00a0<\/p>\n

I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt: one\u2019s views are shaped by their personal experience. So, here\u2019s mine: many readers know I was harassed, unjustly fired, and retaliated against<\/a> by the judge I clerked for. But some clerks who worked for the judge before me were also<\/em> mistreated and chose not to report. My life and career were destroyed in large part because prior clerks stayed silent. Had they reported, the judge might have been disciplined, or even removed, as he ultimately was. My life would be totally different. I might be a federal prosecutor \u2014 or, given the political climate, a former federal prosecutor<\/a>. And when the D.C. U.S. Attorney\u2019s Office revoked my job offer and denied me a security clearance after the judge provided a negative and false reference, my first thought was, I want him to be punished<\/em>. My experience, and my fundamental belief in accountability<\/em>, by which I mean punishment<\/em> \u2014 ground my conviction that mistreated clerks have an ethical duty to report.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Some compare my role to that of a \u201cmandatory reporter\u201d in workplace sexual harassment cases. And, when LAP first launched our Clerkships Database, some asked whether I felt obligated to report misconduct I learned about, to the courts. But the only way LAP\u2019s Database works \u2014 empowering clerks to share candidly \u2014 is if information is never shared with the judiciary or general public, only with clerkship applicants. I maintain that commitment, even while worrying not every applicant<\/a> consults LAP\u2019s Database and heeds its warnings. Frankly, LAP should do even more to hold judges accountable for abusing their power and violating public trust.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Merriam matter may be concluded, for now. But we cannot allow the courts and Congress to sit on their hands and just wait for the next Merriam to make news.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The JCDA can and should be amended<\/a>. But the complaint process is also governed by the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings<\/a>, which are amended at bi-annual Judicial Conference meetings. Shockingly little is delineated in writing about judicial discipline: that\u2019s by design. It\u2019s ironic, considering judges are sticklers for rules in their own courtrooms, but to govern their<\/em> conduct, rules do not apply. There should be clearly delineated standards for discipline so the punishment fits the crime, and judges know they\u2019ll be disciplined if they fail to comply.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The judiciary should also temporarily suspend judges, when circumstances warrant it, as with 98-year-old Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman<\/a>, who\u2019s been suspended for two years for refusing to meaningfully participate in a conduct and fitness investigation. When a judge is investigated for mistreating staff, staff should be immediately reassigned. It defies logic to subject vulnerable clerks to continued mistreatment during investigations. And, since judges consume taxpayer dollars while committing misconduct, and the judiciary expends substantial resources investigating them, judges should pay the investigation expenses if they\u2019re found to have committed misconduct.<\/p>\n

These are congressional problems requiring congressional solutions \u2014 legislative, oversight, and appropriations. Congress should finally pass the Judiciary Accountability Act<\/a> (JAA) and extend federal anti-discrimination protections to judicial employees, so judges are no longer immune from suit, and employees can report without fear of retaliation. While congressional Democrats have abdicated their oversight responsibility over the courts, they can<\/em> send oversight letters right now<\/em> but have mostly refused. And the Appropriations Committee should tie the judiciary\u2019s budget to meaningful benchmarks for reform or cut their budget until they improve. Congress should not<\/em> write the courts a blank check to flout congressional authority and shield abusive judges from accountability.\u00a0<\/p>\n

LAP pushes the envelope. We\u2019re the most aggressive organization in an area of the legal industry where most in legal academia<\/a>, private practice, and the public sector sat on their hands and disclaimed responsibility. We\u2019ve also created incredible change in just a few years, not just with our Clerkships Database<\/a>, which has already served over 4,000 students and recent graduates in just two years; legislative and policy advocacy; and thought leadership; but cultural change, too. We\u2019ve created the conditions for more clerks to file complaints<\/a> and forced the judiciary, Congress, and the press to take complaints seriously. In fact, I later learned LAP\u2019s work inspired the first Merriam complainant to file in 2022. I\u2019ll take those wins every day. Whether or not you agree with LAP\u2019s tactics, as long as neither the courts nor Congress will hold judges accountable, LAP will.\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 Second Circuit Judge Sarah Merriam Disciplined Again, This Time for Creating A \u2018Tense And Challenging\u2019 Work Environment<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

The federal judiciary is perpetrating a fraud upon the public. With four judges in the news<\/a> just this month<\/em> for committing misconduct \u2014 Eleanor Ross<\/a>, Ryan Nelson<\/a>, Thomas Luddington<\/a>, and now Sarah Merriam<\/a> \u2014 we should be honest about systemic flaws<\/a> in the judicial complaint process that perpetuate misconduct, shield abusive judges from accountability, dissuade law clerks from reporting, and chill complaints.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Regular Above the Law readers know Sarah Merriam<\/a> \u2014 the Second Circuit judge first<\/em> disciplined in late 2023<\/a> for creating an \u201coverly harsh<\/a>\u201d work environment. Almost immediately, LAP learned Merriam continued to mistreat clerks, in flagrant violation of Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston\u2019s order. To violate that order, put in place pursuant to a federal law \u2014 the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act<\/a> (JCDA) \u2014 would be to violate the law. Disturbingly, those tasked with enforcing the discipline \u2014 the chief judge, who met with Merriam to discuss her workplace behavior; the Director of Workplace Relations (DWR), the law clerk point of contact tasked with checking in with Merriam\u2019s clerks; and the Second Circuit Executive \u2014 were aware or, in Livingston\u2019s case, should have been aware, that Merriam continued to mistreat clerks. Given this misconduct, the chief judge was empowered to identify another complaint against Merriam. Yet she did not.<\/p>\n

So, in December 2025, The Legal Accountability Project<\/a> (LAP) took a significant step toward real accountability, filing our first judicial misconduct complaint<\/a> as an organization against Merriam, alleging her chambers was \u201ccharacterized by fear, oppressive control, intimidation, humiliation, and bullying.\u201d LAP did not make this decision lightly<\/a>. But anyone \u2014 lawyers, litigants, law clerks, members of the public, and organizations like LAP \u2014 is empowered<\/a> to file a JCDA complaint alleging a judge has committed misconduct prejudicial to the fair and impartial administration of justice. Other good-government organizations file complaints against judges too. LAP\u2019s was in the public interest; the interests of more than 30,000 judicial branch employees who remain dangerously exempt<\/a> from all anti-discrimination, civil rights, and labor laws; and the interest of those in the judiciary who believe in ethics, accountability, and fair and respectful workplaces.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In 2023, the year Merriam was first disciplined, just three<\/em> clerks<\/a> filed JCDA complaints against judges. Yet the federal judiciary\u2019s own climate survey<\/a> revealed as many as 106 judges<\/a> \u2014 or 1 in 17 \u2014 harassed their clerks. That discrepancy is because clerks aren\u2019t legally protected against retaliation for reporting. The complaint process relies on young, vulnerable clerks, dependent on judges for references and career advancement, to blow the whistle. The judiciary doesn\u2019t make it easy, gaslighting<\/a> clerks and dismissing their concerns.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The federal judiciary insists<\/em> they can \u201cself-police,\u201d<\/a> so no reform<\/a>, outside oversight by Congress<\/a>, or legal protections for employees<\/a> against discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under Title VII is necessary. Yet clearly toothless \u201cdiscipline\u201d hadn\u2019t deterred Merriam<\/a>, and may even have emboldened her after mostly getting away with it the first time.\u00a0<\/p>\n

LAP\u2019s complaint provided the circuit with enough information to alert them of the problem and urge them to investigate. It was based on firsthand conversations with clerks, and reviewed by the first clerk complainant. We did not identify clerks by name to shield their identities from Merriam, who received a copy of the complaint and was legally empowered to retaliate against them. Frankly, LAP was preferable to a clerk filing, because clerks could be confidential witnesses instead of the named complainant. LAP hoped clerks would speak candidly with the chief judge. I expected, as the complainant, to be interviewed, to shed further light on the situation.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Clerks regularly contact me seeking advice and assistance: I tell them I\u2019m not their lawyer. I don\u2019t want to be clerks\u2019 therapist or carry their secrets. I tell them their experiences should, at a minimum, be submitted as post-clerkship surveys for LAP\u2019s Clerkships Database<\/a> to warn applicants<\/a>. To be clear: I don\u2019t think anyone should need therapy after their clerkship, and I\u2019ve dedicated my life and career<\/a> to fixing broken systems<\/a> that break clerks. But LAP is a watchdog; we don\u2019t provide legal services. We look out for the best interests<\/a> of thousands of federal clerks (state court clerks, too) who benefit from our work, whether they interact with us or not; over 30,000 vulnerable federal judiciary employees; hundreds of thousands of individuals impacted by our work or who interact with the courts; and society generally. When the circumstances demand it, we may file complaints to alert the court of misconduct that endangers clerks, staff, litigants and the public; and to underscore for the judiciary, Congress, and society generally, the urgent need for reform. We balance clerks\u2019 interests against the greater public interest.\u00a0<\/p>\n

I compared the initial 2022 Merriam complaint to Livingston\u2019s 2023 order concluding it: it\u2019s striking how Livingston whitewashed, cherrypicked, and frankly, misrepresented that clerk\u2019s allegations. Strangely, the clerk\u2019s substantiated abusive conduct allegations (Merriam acknowledged creating an \u201coverly harsh<\/a>\u201d work environment) aren\u2019t discussed in Livingston\u2019s order: the only ones she discusses<\/a> are three nonworkplace-conduct allegations she dismissed. The clerk was transferred out of Merriam\u2019s chambers, under the Employee Dispute Resolution (EDR) Plan<\/a>, before<\/em> they filed the JCDA complaint. Importantly, that\u2019s not unusual: the JCDA\u2019s intent is discipline<\/em> for judges, whereas EDR offers (limited) relief for clerks<\/em>. And when Livingston interviewed that clerk for her investigation, Merriam was in the next room, within earshot: this did not encourage candid reporting. Livingston doesn\u2019t appear particularly interested in a fair and impartial investigation. So, we shouldn\u2019t be surprised Livingston\u2019s \u201climited inquiry\u201d of LAP\u2019s complaint was too limited to properly investigate.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Livingston\u2019s 2026 order regarding LAP\u2019s complaint, issued close in time to the Judicial Conference\u2019s order<\/a> regarding Judge Eleanor Ross<\/a>, is another example of the broken judicial complaint process. To be clear: I am not comparing the severity of Merriam\u2019s misconduct to that of Ross. I am, however, comparing the lack of severity of discipline<\/em> in both, as well as the judiciary\u2019s repeated<\/em> failure to self-police despite insisting it can. LAP\u2019s workplace misconduct allegations were substantiated<\/a>: Merriam was again reprimanded, this time for creating a \u201ctense and challenging\u201d work environment, after<\/em> the 2023 disciplinary order. Further toothless remedies were imposed, similarly laughable to those imposed upon Ross: Merriam agreed to meet with judge advisors on workplace conduct; participate in management training; and attend annual workplace training. Merriam was undeterred the first time and will be undeterred the second. Punishment is a deterrent: without enforceable discipline, judges have no disincentive to commit misconduct. This situation, as well as Eleanor Ross<\/a>\u2019s, underscores that internal workplace complaints adjudicated by misbehaving judges\u2019 friends and colleagues should not be the sole method of accountability for life-tenured federal judges who interpret our laws.<\/p>\n

Because Livingston\u2019s order mentions the EDR Plan, it\u2019s important to distinguish EDR from the JCDA<\/a>. The JCDA offers discipline and accountability <\/em>for judicial misconduct. It resulted in this public disciplinary order<\/a>. Pursuant to the JCDA, the federal judiciary must release annual complaint statistics<\/a>. In contrast, no similar transparency or data disclosure obligations apply to EDR. EDR offers remedies for clerks<\/em>, not <\/em>discipline. The two are different. That\u2019s why the judiciary tries to funnel clerks away from JCDA complaints and to EDR \u2014 so they do not<\/em> have to release public disciplinary orders, nor data on employees\u2019 use of the EDR Plan. They don\u2019t have to discipline their colleagues. Peddling EDR, which clerks regularly tell me is a \u201csham,\u201d<\/a> is yet another way the judiciary tries to shield abusive judges from accountability. It\u2019s the height of dishonesty.\u00a0<\/p>\n

And, while Livingston suggests the Merriam matter was resolved before LAP filed, that\u2019s also irrelevant to a JCDA inquiry. Clerks file JCDA complaints after <\/em>they\u2019ve concluded their clerkships \u2014 as did the first Merriam complainant, and the Lydia Kay Griggsby complainant<\/a> \u2014 because they\u2019re safer from retaliation to file after leaving abusive work environments. It\u2019s disturbing that Livingston either doesn\u2019t understand her circuit\u2019s complaint processes, or publicly misrepresents them, since she\u2019s tasked with enforcing them.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n

LAP\u2019s complaint would have benefitted from a policy change to the JCDA: all complaints should be inter-circuit transferred so judges outside the misbehaving judge\u2019s circuit, rather than friends and colleagues, investigate them. Even the judiciary\u2019s Workplace Conduct Working Group Co-Chair conceded<\/a> it\u2019s difficult to impartially adjudicate colleagues\u2019 misconduct. Since Livingston adjudicated the first Merriam complaint, and LAP\u2019s complaint alleges Livingston and her colleagues failed to properly discipline Merriam the first time, Livingston should not have investigated this second complaint. Transferring the complaint would remove even the appearance of a conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Some wonder if LAP was right to file. When the judiciary misleadingly claims their complaint process works well, yet a judge who\u2019s been publicly disciplined flagrantly violates a disciplinary order and continues committing misconduct, risking harm to staff, litigants, and the public, LAP should alert the court. These circumstances justified disclosure.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Frankly, some lawyers are simply uncomfortable with the pace of change LAP creates \u2014 or, with any change at all. The status quo \u2014 keeping your head down and staying silent, self-preservation at all costs \u2014 benefits them. Perhaps they believe they\u2019re protecting their own reputations \u2014 though most lawyers I know view clerk whistleblowing as laudable, not shameful. Or, they want to protect the allegedly pristine reputations of judges they\u2019re associated with as they climb the legal ladder. Maybe they don\u2019t like that we call out liberal lions as much as conservative crusaders. Those are excuses, and hollow ones at that.\u00a0<\/p>\n

I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt: one\u2019s views are shaped by their personal experience. So, here\u2019s mine: many readers know I was harassed, unjustly fired, and retaliated against<\/a> by the judge I clerked for. But some clerks who worked for the judge before me were also<\/em> mistreated and chose not to report. My life and career were destroyed in large part because prior clerks stayed silent. Had they reported, the judge might have been disciplined, or even removed, as he ultimately was. My life would be totally different. I might be a federal prosecutor \u2014 or, given the political climate, a former federal prosecutor<\/a>. And when the D.C. U.S. Attorney\u2019s Office revoked my job offer and denied me a security clearance after the judge provided a negative and false reference, my first thought was, I want him to be punished<\/em>. My experience, and my fundamental belief in accountability<\/em>, by which I mean punishment<\/em> \u2014 ground my conviction that mistreated clerks have an ethical duty to report.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Some compare my role to that of a \u201cmandatory reporter\u201d in workplace sexual harassment cases. And, when LAP first launched our Clerkships Database, some asked whether I felt obligated to report misconduct I learned about, to the courts. But the only way LAP\u2019s Database works \u2014 empowering clerks to share candidly \u2014 is if information is never shared with the judiciary or general public, only with clerkship applicants. I maintain that commitment, even while worrying not every applicant<\/a> consults LAP\u2019s Database and heeds its warnings. Frankly, LAP should do even more to hold judges accountable for abusing their power and violating public trust.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Merriam matter may be concluded, for now. But we cannot allow the courts and Congress to sit on their hands and just wait for the next Merriam to make news.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The JCDA can and should be amended<\/a>. But the complaint process is also governed by the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings<\/a>, which are amended at bi-annual Judicial Conference meetings. Shockingly little is delineated in writing about judicial discipline: that\u2019s by design. It\u2019s ironic, considering judges are sticklers for rules in their own courtrooms, but to govern their<\/em> conduct, rules do not apply. There should be clearly delineated standards for discipline so the punishment fits the crime, and judges know they\u2019ll be disciplined if they fail to comply.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The judiciary should also temporarily suspend judges, when circumstances warrant it, as with 98-year-old Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman<\/a>, who\u2019s been suspended for two years for refusing to meaningfully participate in a conduct and fitness investigation. When a judge is investigated for mistreating staff, staff should be immediately reassigned. It defies logic to subject vulnerable clerks to continued mistreatment during investigations. And, since judges consume taxpayer dollars while committing misconduct, and the judiciary expends substantial resources investigating them, judges should pay the investigation expenses if they\u2019re found to have committed misconduct.<\/p>\n

These are congressional problems requiring congressional solutions \u2014 legislative, oversight, and appropriations. Congress should finally pass the Judiciary Accountability Act<\/a> (JAA) and extend federal anti-discrimination protections to judicial employees, so judges are no longer immune from suit, and employees can report without fear of retaliation. While congressional Democrats have abdicated their oversight responsibility over the courts, they can<\/em> send oversight letters right now<\/em> but have mostly refused. And the Appropriations Committee should tie the judiciary\u2019s budget to meaningful benchmarks for reform or cut their budget until they improve. Congress should not<\/em> write the courts a blank check to flout congressional authority and shield abusive judges from accountability.\u00a0<\/p>\n

LAP pushes the envelope. We\u2019re the most aggressive organization in an area of the legal industry where most in legal academia<\/a>, private practice, and the public sector sat on their hands and disclaimed responsibility. We\u2019ve also created incredible change in just a few years, not just with our Clerkships Database<\/a>, which has already served over 4,000 students and recent graduates in just two years; legislative and policy advocacy; and thought leadership; but cultural change, too. We\u2019ve created the conditions for more clerks to file complaints<\/a> and forced the judiciary, Congress, and the press to take complaints seriously. In fact, I later learned LAP\u2019s work inspired the first Merriam complainant to file in 2022. I\u2019ll take those wins every day. Whether or not you agree with LAP\u2019s tactics, as long as neither the courts nor Congress will hold judges accountable, LAP will.\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>[email\u00a0protected]<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and follow her on Twitter @AlizaShatzman.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The federal judiciary is perpetrating a fraud upon the public. With four judges in the news just this month for committing misconduct \u2014 Eleanor Ross, Ryan Nelson, Thomas Luddington, and now Sarah Merriam \u2014 we should be honest about systemic flaws in the judicial complaint process that perpetuate misconduct, shield abusive judges from accountability, dissuade […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":155599,"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-155598","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/GettyImages-2224595734-o5PIJe.jpg?fit=723%2C482&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155598","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=155598"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155598\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/155599"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155598"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155598"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155598"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}