Our legal system requires a fair and independent judiciary. In order to maintain public trust in our system of justice, judges must conduct themselves in an ethical manner. There are codes of conduct, which set standards of behavior for state and federal judges. These standards are aimed at assuring the impartiality of judges and reducing the possibility of conflicts of interest. A judicial conflict of interest refers to a situation when a judge has competing professional and personal or financial interests that could compromise his/her decision making. Whether a judge's personal or financial interests actually influence him/her, there is an appearance of impropriety or improper behavior.

The Ethics in Government Act requires judges to file annual financial disclosure reports that list outside income, gifts, business contracts, debts and stocks. In 1998, the Judicial Conference of the United States, which is the policy-making body for the federal courts, approved reforms aimed at decreasing conflicts of interest. The reforms also improved access to judges' financial disclosure reports, which alert the public to conflicts of interest. The reforms were made in response to media disclosure that federal judges had presided over 300 cases in Kansas City involving companies in which the judges owned stock.

Congress passed legislation allowing federal judges to request removal of certain information from their financial disclosure reports. A judicial committee has removed information that it concluded could endanger a judge or put his/her financial investments in jeopardy. Some believe that there is little or no justification for the wide-scale removal of information.

Watchdog groups have been pushing for an end to junkets for judges. These trips are privately funded judicial seminars that are held at expensive resorts. Some believe that these seminars are attempts to lobby judges under the pretext of education. There is also some evidence that corporations might be giving lavish gifts to judges during such seminars.

Recently, two top Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee called for Congressional hearings on judicial conflicts of interest. They are seeking to close gaps in laws to prevent apparent conflicts of interest. The call for hearings arose after one U.S. Supreme Court Justice accompanied the Vice President on a hunting trip. At the time, the Vice President was a named litigant in a case that was pending before the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice said that each justice has to personally decide what conduct is appropriate.