ministers the Code of Judicial Conduct. The attached paper entitled A Review of the Activities of Judicial Conference Committees Concerned with Ethical Standards in the Federal Judicialry, 1969-1976, prepared for the information of all Federal judges and Federal judicial officers, outlines the history and efforts of the Federal judiciary to deal with ethical problems. I commend it to you, Mr. Chairman and members, for study.

For this reason the Judicial Conference of the United States recommends that it be permitted to continue its efforts in this field, that its work be recognized and that the Conference be permitted to pursue a program adapted to the needs of the Judiciary without being bound by requirements imposed by law or regulation which may or may not distinguish the special needs and objectives of the Judicial Branch of Government. As the document outlining the history of the efforts of the Judicial Conference to impose ethical standards indicates, the program is not entirely free of problems. The Judicial Conference of the United States has no authority, other than the weight of moral persuasion, to impose a financial reporting requirement upon judges and judicial officers of the lower Federal courts. Nonetheless, it is a tribute to the Judiciary that except for a very few judges who have sincere reservations regarding the necessity or desirability of the program, all others voluntarily comply with Judicial Conference directives and regulations. As the document indicates, approximately ten judges out of a total of 650 have regularly declined to file these reports. Full-time bankruptcy judges and full-time United States magistrates have fully complied.

The important issue however is that the Judicial Branch is capable of and is effectively administering its own program to insure public confidence in complete fidelity to the highest standards of ethical behavior. The Judiciary's program is tailored to its own special needs. It is essential to our special trust for example that the Judicial Conference of the United States, rather than the General Accounting Office (as provided for in H.R. 3249), receive the reports of the judges, if the Judicial Conference is to continue its present public disclosure policies in the various court centers, and if its three concerned committees are to receive and disseminate information necessary to perform their present functions.

This week the committee responsible for the Judicial Conference program will be considering a proposed amendment to H.R. 3249 which would grant to the Judicial Conference of the United States specific authority to adopt rules and regulations governing financial disclosure by judicial officers and require each judicial officer to comply with any rules that are adopted. There is attached to my prepared statement a draft of this proposal. If the Committee decides to make such a recommendation, it will be presented to the Judicial Conference for its consideration at its forthcoming meeting in September. It is not possible now to say what the Committee will recommend nor what the Conference may approve. Mr. Chairman, I would urge that the Committee give thoughtful considera. tion to the recommendation of the Judicial Conference that judicial officers not be included within the financial disclosure provisions of H.R. 3249 in light of the very successful program mounted six years ago by the judiciary. If. as I suggest, the Judicial Branch has its own reporting program and that program is successful in its operation, we submit that the necessity for assigning the superintendence of that program to the Comptroller General is not apparent. Independence of the courts is a deeply ingrained principle of Government. Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist Paper Number 78, "The complete independence of the courts of justice is particularly essential in a limited Constitution." This notion was more lately incorporated in Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides, "An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensible to justice in our society." The independence of the Judiciary we submit would be fostered by preserving the existing self-regulation system.

If the Committee desires any further information regarding the operation of this system, we shall be pleased to furnish it. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on this proposed legislation.

THE JUDICIARY

Sec. The Judicial Conference of the United States shall prescribe rules and regulations governing the public disclosure of outside income including gifts and bequests by all judges, judicial officers, and such other employees of the Federal judiciary as the Conference may specify. All active judges, judges in senior status who continue to perform substantial judicial service, and all other personnel shall comply with rules and regulations adopted by the Conference.

A) STATE YOUR TOTAL INCOME FOR ALL EXTRA JUDICIAL SERVICES PERFORMED BY YOU INCLUDING LECTURING, TEACHING, WRITING, SERVING AS TRUSTEE, EXECUTOR OR DIRECTOR, AND ALL OTHER SERVICES PERFORMED BY YOU.

B) LIST ALL OTHER FIDUCIARY POSITIONS, SUCH
AS, TRUSTEE OR EXECUTOR. IF YOU IDENTIFY A
FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP IN A FAMILY-RELATED
ESTATE OR TRUST, YOU SHOULD SO IDENTIFY THE
TRUST AND DESCRIBE THE EXACT FAMILY RELA-
TIONSHIP, IF YOU ARE SERVING AS A FIDUCIARY
IN A NON-FAMILY ESTATE YOU SHOULD IDENTIFY
THE ESTATE AS SUCH, IF YOUR JUDICIAL COUNCIL
HAS APPROVED YOUR CONTINUING IN THIS
CAPACITY, THE REPORT SHOULD AFFIRMATIVELY
SO STATE AND THERE SHOULD BE ATTACHED
THERETO AN APPROPRIATE CERTIFICATION FROM
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF YOUR CIRCUIT IN THE
FORM PRESCRIBED IN THE MEMORANDUM WHICH
TRANSMITTED THIS FORM TO YOU. JUDICIAL COUN-
CIL APPROVAL OF SERVICE AS A FIDUCIARY IN A
FAMILY ESTATE (SEE CANON 3C(d)) IS NOT RE.
QUIRED.

C) IF YOU LIST ANY POSITION IN AN ORGANIZA.
TION, BUSINESS, TRUST OR FOUNDATION WHOSE
PURPOSE, STRUCTURE, OPERATIONS AND METHOD
OF FINANCING ITS OPERATION HAVE NOT HERETO.
FORE BEEN FURNISHED TO THE REVIEW COM-
MITTEE, SET FORTH THESE DATA IN THIS SECTION,
INCLUDING DETAILS CONCERNING YOUR PARTICI
PATION, IF ANY, IN FUND RAISING ACTIVITIES AND
IN YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS AN ADVISER IN
LEGAL MATTERS,

POSITION

CRGANIZATION OR AFFILIATION

I CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS ACCURATE TRUE AND
COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.

SIGNED

DATE
FOR THE FOLLOWING

NOTE: THIS STATEMENT RELATING TO "PARTICIPATION IS IN TERMS OF "KNOWINGLY PARTICIPATED
REASON, THE CONFERENCE RECOGNIZES THAT BECAUSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF MANY MUTUAL AND DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT
FUNDS, LARGE CONGLOMERATES AND TRUSTS HAVING A WIDE RANGE OF INVESTMENTS AND AFFILIATES, THERE MAY BE CASES
IN WHICH A NAMED PARTY" MAY OWN INTERESTS IN A CORPORATION, BUT WHICH OWNERSHIP IS NOT KNOWN TO THE JUDGE WHO
(OR WHOSE SPOUSE OR FAMILY MEMBER IN HIS HOUSEHOLD) MAY ALSO BE A STOCKHOLDER OF SUCH CORPORATION. THE
CONFERENCE RECOGNIZES THAT WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH STOCK OWNERSHIP BY THE PARTY, THE JUDGE'S ACTION COULD
NOT BE AFFECTED BY THIS FACT, THUS THE REPORT TO BE MADE UNDER THIS REQUIREMENT RELATES ONLY TO THE "KNOWING"
PARTICIPATION BY THE JUDGE. IN THIS SECTION IV THE TERM "PARTY" DOES NOT INCLUDE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

A REVIEW OF THE ACTIVITIES OF JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEES CONCERNED WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS IN THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY, 1969-76

THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR U.S. JUDGES

I. Purpose of this review

While the Judicial Conference of the United States and all of its committees have had occasion during their history to consider and deal with issues of judicial ethics, the past half dozen years have seen the development of procedures within the federal judiciary for the address of various kinds of ethical problems. At present there are three committees whose sole concern is in this area: the Review Committee-reviewing the semi-annual reports of judicial officials; the Advisory Committee on Judicial Activities-responding to requests for advice; and the Joint Committee on the Code of Judicial Conduct-concerned with significant questions relating to the application, modification, or amendment of the American Bar Association Code of Judicial Conduct as it relates under Judicial Conference resolutions to federal judicial personnel.

While judges, magistrates, and bankruptcy judges are generally aware of these committees, it is probably true that many do not have a clear idea of the kind of work each committee does, the way it operates, and the scope of the problems confronted. Indeed, since a substantial percentage of the federal judiciary has come to the bench since 1969, the origins of the felt need for some system within the judiciary for the development and application of ethical standards may not be generally known.

Increased awareness of the efforts of the judiciary in this area has a threefold importance. First, some judges and other judicial officers, not knowing the extent to which advice and guidance already exist, may be spared unnecessary concern and inquiry. Second, judges, who properly cherish their independence, may resent what they deem an unwarranted encroachment on that independence. Thus, it may be useful to present in perspective a description of the history of this internally-operated system; the range of issues which have been faced; the modes in which the committees operate; and the alternatives to this system of standardsetting by the judiciary. Finally, this review should prompt judges to reflect on areas of concern where further improvements may be indicated. In short, to the extent that the cooperation of judicial officers is based on a broad understanding and wholehearted support, this venture in judicial self-governance will succeed in increasing the respect in which the third branch is held, and, accordingly, in strengthening the basis for its continued independence.

It is in this spirit and with these objectives that the Judicial Conference, at its September 1975 meeting, authorized this review to be prepared and circulated. II. Origin of the review, advisory, and joint committees

The events which transpired in 1969 following the announced retirement of the Chief Justice of the United States subjected the affairs of the federal judiciary to full public scrutiny. Three presidential nominations to the Supreme Court, one of a sitting justice nominated to be Chief Justice and two of circuit judges nominated to be associate justices, were withdrawn following hearings before a committee of the United States Senate inquiring into their qualifications for office. Matters of concern included the propriety of extrajudicial income and affiliations with or investments in organizations where such organizations or their key personnel were before the courts. Although no suggestion was made that such involvements constituted crimes or perhaps even clear violations of the existing Code of Judicial Ethics, there was wide public criticism of what had been revealed. Underlying this criticism was the implication or at least the unanswered question, as to the pervasiveness of this involvement among the judiciary.

In this troubled atmosphere Chief Justice Earl Warren asked the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration to consider what might be done to offset the growing apprehension about the federal judiciary. A special session of the Judicial Conference was convened in June 1969 at which the Conference, on recommendation of the Committee, adopted four resolutions as follows:

"1. A judge in regular active service shall not accept compensation of any kind, whether in the form of loans, gifts, gratuities, honoraria or otherwise, for services hereafter performed or to be performed by him except that provided by law for the performance of his judicial duties. Provided however, the judicial council of the circuit (or in the case of courts not part of a circuit, the

judges of the court in active service) may upon application of a judge approve the acceptance of compensation for the performance of services other than his judicial duties upon a determination that the services are in the public interest or are justified by exceptional circumstances and that the services will not interfere with his judicial duties. Both the services to be performed and the compensation to be paid shall be made a matter of public record and reported to the Judicial Conference of the United States.

"2. Each judge shall file annually (commencing May 15, 1970 for the preceding calendar year) with the Judicial Conference of the United States, on forms to be approved by the Judicial Conference, a statement of his investments and other assets held by him at any time during the year as well as a statement of income, including gifts and bequests, from any source, identifying the source, and a statement of liabilities. The statements shall be kept on file with the Judicial Conference and available for such use as the Conference and the Judicial Councils of the Circuits may require, as well as for public disclosure as determined by the Judicial Conference to be in the public interest, pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Conference.

"The Committee on Court Administration shall submit to the Judicial Conference of the United States at its September 1969 session a progress report on the preparation of forms and regulations necessary to implement this resolution. "3. The Committee on Court Administration shall submit to the Judicial Conference of the United States at its September 1969 session a progress report on the formulation of standards of judicial conduct for federal judges.

"4. The Committee on Court Administration shall draft proposed legislation to submit to the Judicial Conference at its September session to ensure that the Conference is able to enforce the resolutions set forth above."

The work of the Committee on Court Administration continued through the summer of 1969. In October the newly-appointed Chief Justice, Warren E. Burger, presented to the Judicial Conference a communication he had received from Chief Justice Traynor of California in his capacity as chairman of a special committee of the American Bar Association created in August 1969 to study the entire problem of revising the (ABA) canons of judicial ethics. Chief Justice Traynor expressed the thought that it would be desirable to have one set of ethical standards applicable to the entire American judiciary, both state and federal, and suggested that the Judicial Conference await the product of the endeavors of his committee before taking any final action in creating an ethical code for federal judges. In part, Chief Justice Traynor's letter stated:

"There will be obvious advantages if the rules finally developed for federal judges can take into account the work of our committee. It will be fortunate if both the federal and state judiciaries can eventually abide by the same set of basic canons, and if the federal judiciary can avoid the possible clash of Circuit Councils in interpreting what is considered appropriate non-judicial services. To achieve these ends the members of the committee respectfully suggest that the Conference may wish to consider suspending for as long a period as it deems appropriate any further action on all the resolutions adopted in June. We make this suggestion so that the Conference in whatever action it ultimately takes, may have the benefit of the research and work of this committee."

The Conference agreed with the suggestion of Chief Justice Traynor and directed that for the calendar years 1969 and 1970 resolution No. 1 of June 10, 1969, with respect to receiving and reporting compensation for nonjudicial services by judges be suspended. Instead, the Judicial Conference resolved:

"a. That the Chief Justice be authorized to appoint a receiving officer to receive reports;

"b. That any judge who in any quarterly period receives compensation for nonjudicial services, in a total amount exceeding $100, shall report the same forthwith to the receiving officer, on forms to be furnished, with the details thereof;

"c. That these reports be forwarded by the receiving officer to the members of a panel of three United States judges designated by the Chief Justice, but be at all times kept confidential by them except to the extent that the panel concludes that they should be brought to the attention of the Judicial Conference in executive session for consideration of any aspect as to which the panel feels there may be a question of conflict with standards of judicial conduct, or except to any other extent that the Conference shall order;

"d. Finally, that the Conference cooperate and collaborate with the American Bar Association Committee on the Code of Judicial Conduct and that the Chief