10 years ago this month:

• The California Commission on Judicial Performance admonished a judge for (1) sarcastic, demeaning, and intimidating statements to litigants in a case and improperly threatening to impose sanctions of $10,000 against one of the litigants and (2) making statements that manifested bias against litigants from a Muslim country. Public Admonishment of Brooks (California Commission on Judicial Performance November 29, 2006).
• The California Commission on Judicial Performance admonished a judge who, while a candidate, violated the state Political Reform Act. In the Matter Concerning Benson, Decision and order (California Commission on Judicial Performance November 15, 2006).
• Considering the presentment of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct based on stipulated, admitted, or uncontested facts, the New Jersey Supreme Court suspended a judge without pay for 30 days for (1) criticizing a jury for a not guilty verdict; (2) entering a jury room without counsel and off-the-record, making inappropriate comments to counsel, and commending the jury on its guilty verdict; (3) criticizing the appellate judges who overturned a verdict based on his jury instructions; and (4) a pattern of misconduct. In the Matter of Mathesius, 910 A.2d 594 (New Jersey 2006).
• The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct removed from office a part-time, non-lawyer judge who had failed to remit funds promptly to the state comptroller and failed to cooperate with the Commission. In the Matter of Lockwood, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct November 7, 2006).
• Accepting an agreement for discipline by consent, the South Carolina Supreme Court reprimanded a former judge who had purchased cocaine on several occasions. In the Matter of White, 637 S.E.2d 563 (South Carolina 2006).
• Accepting an agreement for discipline by consent, the South Carolina Supreme Court suspended a part-time master-in-equity for 1-year without pay for (1) failing to supervise an employee, who embezzled over $600,000 from the court account and (2) charging a fee in cases and expending the funds without statutory authority. In the Matter of Evans, 638 S.E.2d 64 (South Carolina 2006).
• Accepting an agreement for discipline by consent, the South Carolina Supreme Court suspended a magistrate for 1-year without pay for (1) failing as chief magistrate to ensure that procedures for making deposits of funds paid to the court complied with an administrative order issued by the chief justice; (2) failing to review bank statements monthly, as required by the administrative order, allowing a court employee’s embezzlement to go undiscovered; and (3) attempting to influence one or more other magistrates to limit the scope of the questions they would answer during an investigation. In the Matter of Cantrell, 638 S.E.2d 51 (South Carolina 2006).
• Accepting an agreement for discipline by consent, the South Carolina Supreme Court reprimanded a former judge for converting money he received as payment of a fine to his personal use and giving inaccurate information under oath to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. In the Matter of Harvin, 638 S.E.2d 49 (South Carolina 2006).