20 years ago this month:

• The California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished a former judge for making himself available to 2 attorneys with whom he had a special friendship and granting their requests in 6 cases to release defendants on their own recognizance, reduce bail, or modify a defendant’s probation.  Inquiry Concerning Cardenas, Decision and Order Imposing Public Admonishment (California Commission on Judicial Performance October 3, 2000).
• Agreeing with the recommendation of the Judiciary Commission, the Louisiana Supreme Court publicly censured a judge for performing accounting services for the parish sheriff’s office, failing to disclose his arrangement with the sheriff’s office, and misleading the Commission about the continuing financial relationship.  In re McInnis, 769 So. 2d 1186 (Louisiana 2000).
• Based on an agreed statement of facts and joint recommendation, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly admonished a judge who, for over 7 years, failed to file his financial disclosure statements with the ethics commission for the unified court systems within the time required by the rules of the chief judge.  In the Matter of Russell, Determination (New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct October 31, 2000).
• The Utah Supreme Court approved the implementation of the Judicial Conduct Commission’s publicly reprimand of a judge for conduct that could reasonably be perceived as an attempt to influence the outcome of a speeding ticket he had received.  In re Bylsma, Order (Utah Supreme Court October 20, 2000).
• Pursuant to a stipulation and agreement, the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly censured a judge for (1) intentionally making false and misleading statements to Commission investigators during an interview; (2) presiding over a traffic infraction hearing involving a person with whom he had an intimate personal relationship and dismissing the citation based on the relationship; (3) presiding over matters involving a party and/or witness with whom he had an intimate personal relationship; and (4) presiding over a matter involving a defendant he had previously represented in a different matter and relying on knowledge gained from that relationship in granting leniency to the defendant.  In re Conroy, Stipulation, agreement and order (Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct October 6, 2000).