5 years ago this month:

• The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct reprimanded a judge for criticizing her campaign opponent under the guise of a fictitious identity in a comment to an on-line newspaper story. Segal, Amended Order (Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct November 30, 2010).

• Based on a stipulation for discipline by consent in which the judge agreed to tender her irrevocable resignation within 5 days, the California Commission on Judicial Performance censured a judge for (1) allowing herself to be videotaped while conducting proceedings in her courtroom to promote herself for a role in a potential television entertainment program and telling an attorney representing the producer that she would set her more interesting cases on the day of the filming; (2) making numerous improper remarks and engaging in improper conduct while court proceedings were being filmed; (3) a pattern of improper conduct, including demeaning and discourteous remarks regarding litigants, court attorneys, and others; (4) making remarks in court disparaging the general clerical staff; and (5) placing a defendant into custody for contempt without affording her due process or complying with the legal requirements for contempt. Inquiry Concerning Salcido (California Commission on Judicial Performance November 10, 2010).

• Based on a complaint by the Judicial Inquiry Board, the Illinois Courts Commission publicly reprimanded a judge for agreeing to conduct a special bond hearing on a Saturday afternoon for the brother of a long-time friend and former client who was well-known in county politics. In re Chmiel, Order (Illinois Courts Commission November 19, 2010).

• The Louisiana Supreme Court ordered a judge to pay $2,400 in civil penalties for failing to timely file his judicial financial disclosure statement for 2008. In re Sanborn, 50 So. 3d 1279 (Louisiana 2010).

• Accepting an agreement for discipline by consent, the South Carolina Supreme Court reprimanded a former magistrate who had pled guilty to state charges of misconduct in office alleging he engaged in ex parte communications with certain defendants; used his judicial position to advance the private interests of a litigant; used a procedure for handling fines and bond services for certain defendants that was not in accordance with the orders of the Chief Justice; and appropriated public funds for his own use and benefit. In the Matter of Love, 702 S.E.2d 115 (South Carolina 2010).