Commission on Judicial Conduct

Public Decisions

The purpose of the judicial discipline and incapacity system is to protect the public and to maintain high standards for the judiciary and the administration of justice. Any disciplinary remedy or sanction imposed shall be sufficient to restore and maintain the dignity and honor of the position and to protect the public by assuring that the judge will refrain from similar acts of misconduct in the future.

Under rules that became effective January 1, 2006, complaints against judges and the respective decisions will be posted on this website after they have been investigated and resolved by the Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Click on the links below listed by year for the commission's public decisions from 2006 to the present. Please note that dispositions are recorded by case number, not year of disposition. For example, a matter with a case number in 2014 (2014-XXX) will show up in the dispositions for 2014 even if the disposition was finalized in 2015.

Please note that most complaints are dismissed as the facts do not support the allegations or the alleged misconduct does not constitute unethical conduct. For example, many complaints allege the judge was biased in favor of a litigant and prejudiced against the adverse party. The evidence supporting the claims of bias is one or more unfavorable rulings. Unfavorable rulings do not constitute, in and of themselves, evidence of unethical bias or prejudice. A party dissatisfied with a judge's rulings must appeal to bring alleged legal error to the attention of the appropriate appellate court for possible reversal of the adverse rulings. Complaints based on alleged legal errors are routinely dismissed. The commission does not have jurisdiction to review the legal sufficiency of judicial rulings.

Commission staff does not have authority to dismiss complaints against judges. Each and every complaint filed against a judge is reviewed by all eleven members of the commission (except when one or more members recuse themselves). And the commission, not staff, decides what action to take, whether it be to dismiss a complaint (with or without an advisory or warning letter), to issue the judge a public reprimand, or to file formal charges against a judge. Sanctions greater than a public censure are imposed only as decided by the Arizona Supreme Court, not the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct. 

2017 2016 2015 2014
 2009 2008   2007 2006