1. In re Complaints of Judicial Misconduct, 9 F.3d 1562, 1993 U.S. App. (10th Cir., November 2, 1993 ) 

OVERVIEW:  The Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit improperly dismissed complainant's action under 28 U.S.C.S. § 372(c) against

a district court judge  for lack of standing because a proceeding under § 372(c) was not a judicial proceeding subject to the Article III

requirement of a case or controversy.

[HN7] - A judicial council's proceeding, whether or not it is a judicial proceeding in the strict legal sense, has a judicial character and fits within the definition

 of a "judicial inquiry." A judicial inquiry investigates, declares and enforces liabilities as they stand on present or past facts and under laws supposed already

to exist. While 28 U.S.C.S. § 372(c) proceedings have an adjudicatory aspect, they also have an administrative and managerial character not present in

traditional adjudication by courts. As Rule 1(a) of the Illustrative Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability makes clear, the

purpose of 28 U.S.C.S. § 372(c) is essentially forward-looking and not punitive. The emphasis is on correction of conditions that interfere with the

proper administration of justice in the courts.

2. In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 425 F.3d 1179, 2005 U.S. App.  (9th Cir., September 29, 2005, Filed )  

OVERVIEW:  Where a district judge allegedly acted for inappropriate reasons in placing an attractive female criminal defendant on probation,

under 28 U.S.C.S. § 351 and the judicial misconduct rules, appropriate corrective action was taken because the appellate court dealt with a

 bankruptcy issue and the judge acknowledged the improper conduct.

[HN2] - The overall purpose of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act is not to punish but to protect the judicial system and the public from further

acts by a judicial officer that are detrimental to the fair administration of justice. Rule 1 of the Rules of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit

 Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or Disability. The law's purpose is essentially forward-looking and not punitive. The emphasis is

on correction of conditions that interfere with the proper administration of justice in the courts. Rule 1 of the Rules of the Judicial Council of the

 Ninth Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or Disability.

3. In re Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct & Disability, 2004 U.S. App. Vet. Claims  (U.S. App. Vet. Cl., August 31, 2004, 

OPINION: 

...  of the complaint procedure is to improve the administration of justice in the Court by taking action when judges have engaged in  conduct

 that does not meet the standards expected of federal judicial officers or are physically or mentally unable to perform their duties. The law's

 purpose is essentially forward-looking and not punitive.  [*11]  The emphasis is on correction of conditions that interfere with the proper

administration of justice in the Court. (b) What may be complained about. The  law authorizes complaints about judges who have

 "engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and  ...

4. In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 2009 U.S. App. (3d Cir., June 5, 2009, ) 

OPINION: 

The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act  [*32] defines judicial misconduct as "conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration

of the business of the courts." 28 U.S.C. § 351(a). In 2008, the Judicial Conference of the United States promulgated the Rules for Judicial-Conduct

 and Judicial-Disability Proceedings in order to "guid[e] the various officers and bodies who must exercise responsibility under the Act."

Commentary on Rule 1. Rule 3 further defines judicial  ...

5. In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 366 F.3d 963, 2004 U.S. App. (9th Cir., May 5, 2004, Filed )  

OVERVIEW:  Routine personnel decisions upholding the termination of a provisional employee of the United States Probation Office

did not constitute "judicial conduct" and thus were not subject to scrutiny through federal judicial misconduct procedures.

[HN4] - The phrase, "conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts," 28 U.S.C.S. § 351(a),

 is not a precise term. It includes such things as use of the judge's office to obtain special treatment for friends and relatives, acceptance

 of bribes, improperly engaging in discussions with lawyers or parties to cases in the absence of representatives of opposing parties,

 and other abuses of judicial office. Rule 1(c) of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct

or Disability. Despite the imprecision of the language, however, it is clear that it is intended to deal with misconduct relating to the

judicial office or judicial conduct.

[HN5] - Complaints relating to the conduct of a member of the judiciary which are not connected with the judicial office or which

do not affect the administration of justice are without jurisdiction and therefore outside the scope of the Judicial Councils Reform

 and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, enacting former 28 U.S.C.S. § 372(c) and amended by the Judicial Improvements

Act of 2002, 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 351-364. The phrase, "effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts,"

 was intended to include willful misconduct in office, willful and persistent failure to perform duties of the office, habitual intemperance,

and other conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute. Congress intended that the

 judicial council dismiss any complaint outside the scope of its jurisdiction.