Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct

The Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC) was created in 1974 to assist the Supreme Court by investigating allegations of unethical judicial conduct and by referring to the Court those matters that the committee considers to require public disciplinary action. The composition and procedures of the committee are set forth in Rule 2:15.

All records of and investigations conducted by the ACJC's staff are confidential in accordance with Court Rule 2:15-20. Confidentiality ceases only if and when the ACJC decides that there is probable cause for the imposition of public discipline and issues a formal complaint requiring the judge to answer and appear at a public hearing. Proceedings from the formal complaint on are no longer confidential.

The Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, also called the ACJC, has nine members. The committee investigates complaints against judges in municipal court, Superior Court, the Tax Court, and the Supreme Court.

The committee is not a court, and it cannot interfere in a court case. The members do not investigate complaints that a judge’s decision is incorrect. The committee’s decisions have no effect on the outcome of any court case. The committee also cannot have a judge removed from a case.

Public Cases

Portada del español

Comité de Asesoramiento sobre la Conducta Judicial

El Comité de Asesoramiento sobre la Conducta Judicial (ACJC por sus iniciales en inglés) fue creado en 1974 para ayudar al Tribunal Supremo en la investigación de alegaciones de conducta judicial poco ética y referir al tribunal aquellos asuntos que el Comité considere que requieren una acción disciplinaria pública. La composición y procedimientos del Comité se han establecido en la Regla 2:15.

Todas las investigaciones realizadas por el personal de ACJC son confidenciales, así como los registros de las mismas, de acuerdo con la Regla del Tribunal 2:15-20. La confidencialidad cesa solamente si el ACJC decide que hay motivo fundado para la imposición de una disciplina pública y emite una querella formal que requiera que el juez responda y comparezca en una audiencia pública. Los procedimientos a partir de la querella formal ya no son confidenciales.