This article examines the arguments in favor of a confidential federal judicial discipline process and concludes that it threatens public trust in the judiciary. A more open process would be more conducive to accountability and would better serve the judiciary's reputation and independence.

Part I briefly describes the decisions of the drafters of the United States Constitution on critical questions related to judicial discipline--questions of judicial independence and public accountability. The historical review informs the contemporary debate concerning the judiciary's preference for confidentiality in disciplining its members.

Part II outlines the administration of the federal courts and the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act (“Act”) of 1980. The Act empowers the federal judiciary to engage in self-discipline.

Part III reviews several provisions of the Act that require confidentiality and the policy reasons traditionally advanced to support the provisions. The reasons are insufficient, especially in light of the experience of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which, until recently, had a more open disciplinary process than that mandated by the Act.

Part IV proposes several amendments to the Act to open the disciplinary process to the public from the moment a complaint is filed. It also proposes that Congress amend the Act to permit the filing of complaints or the continuation of disciplinary proceedings against judges for a reasonable period of time after their resignation or retirement, and to permit amicus curiae participation.

The article concludes by briefly noting that although judges may prefer secrecy over openness and informality over formality on matters of internal discipline, the federal judiciary should nevertheless adopt Oregon's approach to the lawyer disciplinary process. Oregon has opened that process to public review after the filing of a complaint. Oregon's experience suggests by analogy that judicial independence and greater openness and public participation in the disciplinary process of federal judges are complimentary rather than mutually exclusive values. Congress should therefore adopt the amendments proposed in Part IV, thereby increasing judicial openness and accountability to the public.