//

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Speaking at the American Law Institute’s annual dinner, Chief Justice John Roberts took a moment to indirectly address judicial ethics. With mounting revelations that Clarence Thomas failed to comply with federal public disclosure laws while gobbling up gifts and money from benefactors with business before the Court, the Chief informed the crowd that he’s “committed to making certain that we as a court adhere to the highest standards of conduct.”

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-top-300x250" ); });

Those not born yesterday might harbor some understandable doubts about this “commitment.”

Sponsored The Essential Guide to Slack eDiscovery Someday, you will likely need to extract data from Slack for eDiscovery, compliance, or other purposes. Here's how you can navigate its unique complexities. From Onna and Above The Law  

When the Wall Street Journal discovered that over 150 federal judges violated basic judicial ethical standards and the courts grappled with decades of workplace harassment allegations swept under the rug, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts used his annual report to scold the public for even suggesting anything be done about it.

Meanwhile, at the Supreme Court level — where the justices take the stance that they are not bound by any formal ethical rules — Thomas himself got flagged for these same ethical lapses in 2012 and escaped reprimand. This 2012 incident  exacerbated the present crisis, as the under-the-table financial arrangement Leonard Leo set up with Ginni Thomas seems to be a direct consequence of the 2012 disclosure complaints. While the Chief assures the public of his “commitment” to judicial ethics, the scoreboard reveals that he’s had at least a decade of notice that mounting ethical lapses at the Supreme Court and among the lower courts required his attention.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-middle-300x250" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-storycontent-440x100" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-in-story-youtube-1x1" ); });

He’s consistently responded to ethical challenges with inaction and contempt for his critics.

So now, as he accepted an award from the ALI coinciding with him presiding over the least trusted judiciary in American history, he publicly affirmed his “commitment” to ethics.

Sponsored Sponsored LawVu Enhances Contract & Matter Functionality With AI LawVu, the category-defining legal workspace for in-house legal teams, today announced the addition of several new AI enhancements to their legal workspace. From LawVu   Sponsored Artificial Intelligence Saves Lawyers Time And Money While Improving Accessibility Of Data From Michael Owsley - VIQ Solutions   Sponsored The Non-Event Industry Wrap-Up CRM, Virtual Receptionist, Chat and Text Messaging for Law Firms. News from the world of legal tech, featuring Lawmatics and MyCase. From Above the Law   Sponsored LawVu Enhances Contract & Matter Functionality With AI LawVu, the category-defining legal workspace for in-house legal teams, today announced the addition of several new AI enhancements to their legal workspace. From LawVu  

Though beyond empty platitudes, Roberts offered the audience very little.

We are continuing to look at things we can do to give practical effect to that commitment and I am confident there are ways to do that that are consistent with our status as an independent branch of government under the Constitution’s separation of powers.

As a gaslighting strategy, the “separation of powers” argument is starting to wear a bit thin. When forced to articulate a historical basis for his refusal to submit to legislative oversight, Roberts couldn’t get beyond the first substantive sentence without having to acknowledge multiple exceptions to his stance. Justice Thomas’s best friend-cum-sugar daddy Harlan Crow hired Gibson Dunn to come up with a separation of powers argument and the firm failed spectacularly. Apparently, Roberts believes he can extract a little more life out of it.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-bottom-300x250" ); });

But what might Roberts mean when he informs the audience that there are “things” that he’s “continuing to look at” after years and years of notice? What might a new Roberts ethical code look like?

Well, when he wrote the annual report addressing news that over 100 judges breached their ethical obligations, John Roberts suggested the possibility that the courts might host a webinar to tell judges not to engage in corruption.

Sponsored Sponsored The Essential Guide to Slack eDiscovery Someday, you will likely need to extract data from Slack for eDiscovery, compliance, or other purposes. Here's how you can navigate its unique complexities. From Onna and Above The Law   Sponsored ChatGPT Draws State Lawmakers’ Attention To AI ChatGPT and other AI models have drawn a great deal of public attention since being introduced last year—state lawmakers are taking notice too. From Korey Clark, Editor, State Net Capitol Journal™  

Not sure a webinar is going to cut it this time, John.

Roberts says he’s “committed” to highest standards for Supreme Court [Axios]

Earlier: Chief Justice Wants You To Know He Has The Utmost Contempt For You
Roberts Says Separation Of Powers Means He Can’t Testify, Senate Should Remind Him It Also Means ‘Good Luck, Paying Your Bills, A**hole!’
Clarence Thomas Skated On Ethics Complaints In 2012… Meaning He Definitely Already Knew The Rules
Harlan Crow’s Lawyers Tell Senate They’re Going To Take Their Chances With Contempt

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Topics

Courts, John Roberts, Judicial Ethics, Legal Ethics, Supreme Court