Of late, the media has fixated on judicial ethics–for certain judges, at least. Regrettably, many of these stories fail to put the accusations in context. In some situations, judges took actions that were actually consistent with the rules, or were not-clearly inconsistent with the rules. Still, self-professed experts find fault with unwritten rules. In other cases, judges have made good-faith mistakes based on misreading byzantine codes, and promptly agreed to correct those errors. Some of the allegations border on frivolous, but disfavored judges still get placed under the microscope. Throughout all of this breathless reporting, there has not been a single allegation of an actual conflict of interest between a judge and a party that would result in recusal. To quote Justice Breyer, there has been nothing "underhanded." At most, the claims focus on the nebulous appearance of impropriety standard, which can mean just about anything.
Yet, at present, we may be witnessing serious judicial misconduct that involves an actual conflict of interest. And the Washington Post does not need to fly a swat team of reporters to Amarillo to investigate. I speak, of course, about the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Now, I do not have any dog in this fight. I know little about patent law, other than the fact that the Supreme Court routinely reverses the Federal Circuit. Chief Judge Moore was a professor at George Mason, but I never took any classes with her. And, as best as I can recall, I've never even seen Judge Newman. Indeed, she only popped on my radar when I was calculating which judges were eligible to take senior status. Newman was born in 1927, was appointed to the Federal Circuit in 1984, and became eligible for senior status in 1996. But the almost-96-year-old has never taken senior status–and that decision has created problems for her colleagues.
