This is the second of two columns analyzing judicial discipline imposed upon judges who attempt to further private interests by invoking their judicial office. The first column reviewed cases—recent and since its inception—of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct concluding that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the sanctions imposed fell short of removal from office and, therefore, do not effectively support the public perception of the integrity of the judiciary. This column focuses on Court of Appeals’ precedents in this category of judicial discipline and reviews the basis for holding judges accountable for their off-bench actions.
To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.
Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.
ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org