Business Law News: Student Response

I want you to submit at least 2 responses to articles posted by others. Your comments/reflections must relate to class material and your opinion on the posted Business Law News. Do not criticize their choices, but advance the conversation forward by adding your thoughts on similar or different options. Your posts have a long "length requirement". A follow-up reply of just "cool" or "wow", or any version of that isn't enough for credit. They need to be thoughtful & respectful responses. I need to know that you actually read your classmate's analysis and learned something new.

"Student: Lance Bracht

Article: "131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest" By James V. Grimaldi, Coulter Jones and Joe Palazzolo

URL: https://www.wsj.com/articles/131-federal-judges-broke-the-law-by-hearing-cases-where-they-had-a-financial-interest-11632834421?mod=saved_content

Analysis:

"According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) more than 130 judges have violated U.S. law and judicial ethics by failing to recuse themselves from court cases involving companies which they or their family members owned stock. The investigation found the judges failed to disqualify themselves from 685 court cases since 2010. The jurist were appointed by every president from Lyndon B. Johnson to Donald Trump.

About 66 % of federal district judges disclosed their holdings of individual stocks, and out of the 66 % who disclosed their holdings about 20 % heard at least one case involving stocks they or their family members owned. The WSJ alerted the judges of the violations, and only 56 judges directed the clerks to notify the parties in 329 lawsuits that they should have recused themselves. What this means is these court cases most likely will be upended and reassigned to new judges.

What is interesting is that the judges who participated in cases in which they should have recused themselves motioned on contested rulings that came down in favor of their family's interests. Several examples are given of judges who clearly disclosed their interest in the individual stocks, yet for some odd reason failed to recuse themselves.

These recusal violations found by the WSJ breach a bedrock principle of American jurisprudence: NO ONE SHOULD BE A JUDGE of HIS or HER own cause. Congress laid out this principle in 1792 to guarantee litigants an impartial judge and reassure the public that the courts could be trusted.

An example is given of Judge Ramos, who oversaw an Exxon case. He was informed at the outset of the case that he should evaluate possible disqualification or recusal. He did not heed the warning and accepted the arbitration panel's opinion that Exxon should be awarded 25 million, and to make matters worse, the judge added an additional million of interest to the award. Furthermore, he pleaded ignorance in the knowledge of a possible conflict of interest. It was not until the WSJ contacted Judge Ramos, who was named to the court by President Barack Obama, that the court clerk notified the parties of his stock holdings in Exxon. The case was sent to a new judge because of the inevitable appearance of partiality.

It should be noted that nothing bars judges from owning stocks, but federal law since 1974 has prohibited judges from hearing cases that involve a party in which they, their spouses or minor children have a "legal or equitable interest, however small. This law and the Judicial Conference of the U.S. which is the federal courts' policymaking body, require judges to avoid the appearance of conflict. According to the Judicial Conference's Committee on Codes of Conduct, the ethics code for federal judges, requires recusal when a judge has a financial conflict, regardless of the substance of the judge's actual involvement. At this point, the Administrative Office is carefully reviewing the judges' ethical behavior. Chief Justice John Roberts, who heads the federal judiciary, didn't respond to requests for comment.

The nation's roughly 600 full-time federal trial judges, supplemented with 460 semiretired judges, wield enormous power. They hold lifetime appointments and preside over hundreds and thousands of civil and criminal cases each year in 94 court districts. They have control over all elements in the courtrooms from pretrial, trial, and sentencing. The violations to the 1974 federal law almost never become public. Judges' financial disclosures are not online, are hard to request, and sometimes can take years to access. Judges are informed of requests for disclosures, and this acts to disincentivize lawyers who visit their courtroom often. The judges rarely make public the list of companies on whose cases they shouldn't work. When judges disqualify themselves, they typically do not disclose why. In addition, no judge in modern times have been removed from the bench merely for having a financial interest in a plaintiff or defendant. Legal experts have found a pervasive disregard for the judicial conflict of interest laws. According to Charles Geyh, a law professor who specializes in judicial ethics, and accountability the data collected by the WSJ shows a systemic problem of judges chronically neglecting their duty to disqualify themselves.

Chapter one in our textbook discusses the classification of the law. The terms that pertain to the post are public, civil, criminal law, and constitutional law. The cases heard by federal judges are known as common law, which is also known as case law. The interpretations by the judges is considered the law. The judges usually make their decisions or rulings based on precedent court cases. Administrative law is carried out for the judicial system by the Judicial Conference of the U.S. The chief justice of the supreme court is John Roberts is the head of the federal judiciary system. The federal judges are appointed by the president of the U.S., the leader of the executive branch, for lifetime appointments

Chapter two discusses business ethics. Ethics in general is talked about in this chapter. Judges who are the interpreters of the minimal standards of ethics, law, have a higher bar than business entities.

Chapter three is discussed extensively in the post. Special attention needs to be given to the U.S. district courts, U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Federal judges are responsible for all the steps in a civil and criminal lawsuits from complaint to appeal. The highest level of appeal in common law is the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, federal judges retired and active are involved in the process of arbitration.

The article I chose was difficult to understand at first due to the legal terms used. For example, the word recusal which means to disqualify or seek to disqualify (a judge or juror) from participation in the decision in a case, as for personal prejudice against a party or for personal interest in the outcome. However, I persevered and learned about the federal judicial system

My opinion is that if judges expect us to follow the law, then they also need to be exemplars of the law they uphold. Since 1974 federal judges have been prohibited by the law which was signed by former President Gerald Ford after the resignation of Richard Nixon, that created a black and white rule: If judges, their spouses or minor children own "legal or equitable interest, however small, in a plaintiff or a defendant in their court, they must disqualify themselves from the case." The 1974 law on judicial disqualification provides no penalties for judges who violate it, and judges are rarely sanctioned by the federal judiciary watchdogs. The judges themselves have lifetime appointments and can be removed from the bench only through the same impeachment process in the Constitution that applies to presidents.

The WSJ article made me question the judicial system and the ethical behavior of the judges. In my opinion, the federal justice system needs to be monitored carefully to make sure their own self interests do not take precedence over justice being served. Furthermore, I believe the judicial system with its lifetime appointments is an antiquated system and needs to be reformed."

Need Help With My Reply:

Hi Lance Bracht,

-I just finished reading your summary of the article, "131 Federal Judges Broke the Law by Hearing Cases Where They Had a Financial Interest" By James V. Grimaldi, Coulter Jones, and Joe Palazzolo, and I think it was particularly expressive yet to the point.

-A part that stood out to me was when you explained, " "

-I noticed you explained/said/mentioned, " " and I agree with your idea because......

-To add to your work _

-I was unaware that _. I was under the impression that_.

-Besides,

-In other words,

-Anyways, I think you did a great job on this assignment. Have a good day!!

Your Classmate, Sky